2007-03-08 Final Compilation of Comments On AASHTO Guide Specifications For LRFD Seismic Bridge D

LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
Item Comment Section Article State/ Initial Comment Initial Response (by Lead Person Lead Person's Comments Originator's Follow-Up Comment Lead Person's Follow-Up Response Resolved By Resolved By Parking Lot Major
Number Cycle Name (by Originator) Roy Imbsen) Lead? Team? Issue? Item?
1 1 1 AR It would be good for these guidelines to use ksi (as Tobias / Brandenberger (a) Ok to use ksi and USCU exclusively (see We have been going over your conversions to ksi and MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for CA to Yes Yes No No
opposed to psi) units exclusively, such as the LRFD proposed conversion of affected equations to ksi), believe your conversions are correct. I wanted to clarify administer.
Specification does. Also, it would be good to use U.S. (b) Change units for fc', Pc, Pt, Vc to ksi in Art. 2.1 one item though. The units in brackets are for the input
Customary Units exclusively. (Notations), (c) Delete "MPa" in the definition of variables and not the answer to the
fc' on Page 2-7. equation, correct? The units need to be ksi for f'c, f'ce, and
f'h on p. 2-7.
2 1 1 AR Guidelines are inconsistent throughout using both Tobias / Brandenberger Ok to change all to Article. "Article" ~ 193 OK MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for CA to Yes Yes No No
“Section” and “Article” interchangeably. LRFD Specs use instances, "Section" ~ 60-70 instances Administer. For the AASHTO Code, Chapters are called
“Article” "Sections" and Sub-Sections or Articles are always
"Articles". The font is Times New Roman 10 pt. When to
have titles in bold, caps, in italics, indented, etc. can be
garnered from the style used in the LRFD Code.
3 1 1 TN/ Huff There is no provision for checking the rotation capacity of The plastic rotation capacity is an integral part of the Brandenberger / Tobias Is this the intent? YES MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Dr. Imbsen is correct. Yes Yes No No
plastic hinges in the guidelines. The assumption is made displacement approach. Maximum displacement ductility Should other criteria be used in Added explanation/comments should lead to resolution.
that the only failure criteria for a hinge is strain in the is used to indirectly check for maximum rotation capacity. determining ultimate curvatures, displacements, and Suggest as follows: TN, please see Article 4.11.6
confined core reaching the Mander model limit or rotations Another Analytical Plastic Hinge Length. This Article has language
reinforcing steel reaching it’s strain limit. Is this the intent? criteria is the confinement steel reaching its limiting which describes how rotations are a "step" in the
Should other criteria be used in determining ultimate strain Call and discuss with Tim Huff (TN) calculations for displacements.
curvatures, displacements, and rotations?
4 1 1 TN/ Huff It appears that design for unreduced seismic forces is no Yes. For SDC C and D, capacity protection is required. Brandenberger / Tobias Agree with Roy's response. Check adequacy of MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Dr. Imbsen's Yes Yes No No
longer an option for Seismic Design Categories C and D. The response for SDC C is expected to be in the non-linear response with Tim response is somewhat tricky to understand and may be
Hinging forces must be used even if they are greater than range as implicit drift capacity corresponds to ductility incomplete. Added explanation/comments should help lead
the seismic forces from an elastic analysis. Is this the case? close to 3. See Task 6 Report. to resolution with Tim/TN as follows: In LFD and LRFD
If so, why? force based design, Categories C and D and Zones 3 and 4
are expected to be in the non-linear range also. Ductility is
achieved in a more direct way with displacement based
design than for force based design, however. In force based
design, ductility is achieved or "designed in" through the
use of R-factors which gives a reduced design moment for
columns. If the base shear required to achieve
"overstrength" (approximate pushover) for the columns is
lower than the originally calculated base shear from the
elastic analysis, then this overstrength base shear can be
used for design of the ties, etc. This roundabout approach
is not really necessary in displacement based design,
becasue it is more direct. This can be tricky to see when
comparing the two methods. Hopefully, this addresses at
least an aspect of your concern.
5 1 1 TN/ Huff The LRFD Specification uses ksi units exclusively now. It Brandenberger / Tobias See No. 1 p. 2-7. MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for CA to Yes Yes No No
would be a nice convenience if the Guidelines did too. administer.
Most equations in the Guidelines are based on using psi
units.
6 1 1 1.1 AR Art. 1.1, Background: Task 1 is not mentioned. Task 6, See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger Task 6 comprises Tasks 1-5. Clarify with R. MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: A very short Yes Yes No No
with its five sections, is mentioned first. Then… tasks 2 Imbsen. description of Task 1 should be given for completeness.
thru 5 are discussed. Why not discuss them in order? Suggest adding: "Task 1- The reference material selected
for inclusion was attached as appendices to each of the
remaining tasks."
7 1 1 1.2.2 AR Art. 1.2.2, 3rd paragraph under maps should read: “Alaska See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger OK OK MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Should be OK. Yes Yes No No
was based on USGS data…Hawaii was based on USGS Guidelines modified to indicate which USGS data sets were
data…” used to prepare maps. Please note that the Maps will
probably state "7% in 75 years" not "5% in 50 years" This
response also applies to comment 30.
8 1 1 1.3, Figures 1.3C & BERGER/ Lee The 'B or C' decision point in Fig 1.3C seems to prevent See Modified Guidelines ? / Chris Unanwa No new info from the modified Guidelines. 02-09-07: Have Elmer Marx consider this in his rework of Yes Yes No No
1.3F Marsh SDC C designs from getting to Fig 1.3F, which includes Observation by L. Marsh appears to be correct. the flowcharts.
many capacity protection steps for C. Check with other members/reviewers for
concurrence with Marsh's observation.
10 1 2 2.1 / 2.2 Definitions BERGER/ Lee Add a clear definition of 'local' Defined in Section 4.8 ? / Chris Unanwa "Local" indirectly defined in Art. 4.8. Ask Imbsen 3-1-07: Table for now, consider adding definition in next Yes Yes Yes No
mD Marsh to include a clear definition of "local" in Art. 2.1. revision
11 1 2 2.2 SRSS BERGER/ Lee The second use listed (vector combination) is not See Modified Guidelines ? / Chris Unanwa Modified per comment. However, there is a typo. 02-09-07: Delete entirely. I do not believe that SRSS is Yes Yes No No
Marsh 'statistical'. Document probably meant to use "vector" instead of used in the Guidelines now.
"vertical." Check adequacy of modification with
Marsh.
12 1 2 Pg2-5 MO S = Site coefficient specified in Article 3.5.1 (Article 3.5.1 See Modified Guidelines. Brandenberger / Tobias Modified. Check if OK with MO. MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Should be OK. S (Site Yes Yes No No
does not exist) Coefficient) has been deleted from Notation.
14 1 3 3.1 AR The last paragraph of Art. 3.1 can be misleading. A better See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger Modified. Looks good. OK MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Nearly editorial. Yes Yes No Yes
way to get the message across might be “Detailed seismic Suggest deleting that paragraph in it's entirety. It does not
analysis is not required for a single span bridge or for any add to the discussion and nearly identical language is
bridge in Seismic Design Category A”. provided in Article 4.1 (where it makes more sense). Dan:
Agree. ... JQ 02-22-07: Last paragraph tentatively deleted
per discussion of Item #603. ... JQ 02-27-07: Accepted
#603; paragraph retained with modifications.
15 1 3 Sec. 3.1 Paragraph 4 FHWA/ Derrell Add after "Design Category A." "Specific detailing See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux Same as Comment No. 14 Check buy-off with 02-05-07-Paragraph 4, change last sentence word of "seat" 02-05-07-Paragraph 4, change last sentence word of "seat" Yes 02-15-07 JQ Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
requirements do apply" Derrell. to "support" to be consistant with other comments to "support" to be consistant with other comments; JQ
03-02-07: Modified
16 1 3 Pg 3-2, Pg 1-3 MO Clarify “For sites with lateral flow due to liquefaction, It is not clear what to clarify. Brandenberger / Tobias Propose modification to last paragraph of Art 1.1 to MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/30/07: Proposed solution Yes Yes No Yes
significant inelastic deformation is permitted in the piles.” be consistent with the ref. Statement (Art. 3.2) as not carefully worded enough. Apologize only slightly,
(Pg 1-3 states “Design requirements for lateral flow are follows: "Design requirements for lateral flow are delete verbiage about debatable and refer reader to NCHRP
still debatable and have not reached a stage of completion not completely agreed upon and have not reached a 12-49 Report. For example: "Design requirements and
for inclusion in the guidelines.”) final stage of completion for inclusion in the recommendations for lateral flow have not yet reached a
Guidelines." level of development suitable for inclusion in this
document. However, current information and guidance on
lateral flow is provided in the report for NCHRP 12-49."
Page 1 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
17 1 3 3.2 AR Art. 3.2 mentions a “one level design”, what does this See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger Modified. OK MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Should be OK now. Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
mean? Added explanation/comments should help lead to resolution
with Rick/AR about how it used to be two-level and then
was modified, etc. Response to AR: 'one level design' was
an inadvertant reference to MCEER/ATC 49 document
(based upon NCHRP 12-49 work) and has been deleted
from these guidelines.
18 1 3 Sec. 3.2 Pg 3-1 CA Not clear why “Significant Damage Level” and Not clear why need to exclude these definitions. Chris Unanwa May accept Imbsen's response. However, decision OK 02-26-07: Definitions are in order. “Significant Damage” Yes Yes No No
“Significant Disruption to Service Level” are defined. Per to be reached internally by the CA team. and “Significant Disruption to Service” are used in defining
first paragraph of 3.2, bridges shall be designed for life the life safety performance objective.
safety for the design event.
19 1 3 Pg 3-3 Several figures CA Strongly recommend that Earthquake Resisting Systems See task 6 report for background on the criteria used SDC Chris Unanwa May OK Imbsen's response. However, current JQ 02-26-07: Accept status quo. Yes Yes Yes No
should be designed for plastic hinging of columns, NOT A, B displacement response is relatively small. Note that practice is to use columns instead of pier walls,
for elastic design using the 1000 year design earthquake. column shear is implicitly designed for SDC B. except for serious hydraulic reasons.
The probability of collapse for an event exceeding the
1000 year earthquake is very different for an ERS designed
for ductile columns or elastic response without ductile
detailing.
20 1 3 Pg 3-4 Figure middle CA Plastic hinges may occur in the strong direction of pier Not a likely response. No owner permission required. Chris Unanwa OK JQ 02-26-07: Accept status quo. Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
right pier wall and pg walls. Is owner permission needed for use of all pier
3-5 middle left walls?
21 1 3 Pg 3-4 Figure bottom CA Design of abutment back walls that are to resist dynamic No change recommended. Chris Unanwa OK JQ 02-26-07: Accept status quo. Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
right forces of superstructure elastically without fusing is
unconventional and should require the Owner’s
permission.
22 1 3 Pg 3-5 top right CA No guidance is given on how to calculate the sliding Can be provided by Geotechnical Engineer. Chris Unanwa Response to be checked with Fadel. JQ 02-26-07: Accept current; address this issue during next Yes Yes Yes No
displacement of a spread footing abutment with nonfusing revision.
shear keys.
23 1 3 Pg 3-6 last paragraph CA Systems that do not fall in the listed permitted ERS should See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Modified caption of Fig. 3.3.3 per comment. Last OK JQ 02-22-07: Figure caption modified 12/02/06. Yes 02-15-07 JQ Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
not be “not allowed”, but instead “not recommended”. paragraph of Art. 3.3: … (I.e, those in the not
There may be ERS that are not listed that are appropriate permitted category …), changed "not permitted" to
under certain circumstances with the Owner’s permission "not recommended."
as stated in the next sentence on pg 3-7.
24 1 3 3.2 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee It would seem appropriate for the period of interest to Neet T-3 direction. ? / Chris Unanwa Discuss with M. Keever, L. Marsh. JQ 02-22-07: All references in Section 3 of 5% probability Yes 02-22-07 JQ Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
Marsh match the design life in AASHTO LRFD, 75 years. This of exceedance in 50 years modified to 7% probability of
would result in about a 7% probability of exceedence; exceedance in 75 years.
perhaps this equivalence could be discussed in the
commentary.
25 1 3 3.3 AR In Figures 3.3.1a, 3.3.1b, and 3.3.2 it would be convenient See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger Modified per comment. OK 3-6-07-SB The EREs and ERSs in the figures of Art 3.3. Yes Yes No No
to have these elements numbered so they can be referenced have been numbered for easy reference.
in a design. For example, it could be said “This design
uses Longitudinal Response #1 and Transverse Response
#3, for the ERS” and …….for the ERE.
26 1 3 3.3 Fig. 3.3.2 BERGER/ Lee Use of reduced (70%) strength for abutment passive See Modified Guidelines. ? / Chris Unanwa Modified by deleting "Use 70% of … " from Fig. 02-09-07: OK, LM Yes Yes No No
Marsh should only be for similar case for Fig. 3.3.1b for 3.3.2 - No.1. Check adequacy of response with L.
Permissible ERE. Full abutment resistance should only be Marsh.
permitted with owner's permission. This is related to
control of backfill placement.
27 1 3 Sec. 3.3.1 Pg 3.3.1b FHWA/ Derrell Bottom left figure not legible See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux Modified. Check if OK with Derrell. 02-05-07-OK 02-05-07-OK Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
28 1 3 Pg 3-10 MO Fig. 3.4.1-2 through 14 do not exist but are referenced Brandenberger / Tobias Figures included in updated Guidelines (Dec. 2, MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Maps will be included Yes Yes No No
2006). Recommended figures to be in oversized in final publication. For CA to administer.
paper. Check buy-off with MO.
29 1 3 Pg 3-11 1st paragraph CA Recommend that an adequate geotechnical investigation See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Modification on Art. 3.4.2.1, 2nd paragraph. Check OK Yes Yes No No
should be performed such that the Site Class can always be if OK with Fadel.
determined rather than using Class D as the default.
30 1 3 3.4 AR Art. 3.4.1, Figures 3.4.1-2 thru 3.4.1-14 are not found in See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger Same as Comment No. 28. Check buy-off with AR. OK MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Maps will be included Yes Yes No No
these guidelines. in final publication. For CA to administer.
31 1 3 3.4 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee How will the hazard maps be controlled? Will a specific T-3 Commitment. ? / Chris Unanwa Discuss with M. Keever, L. Marsh. 3-1-07: OK, LM I understand that the maps will be Yes Yes No No
Marsh USGS version be referenced in the Guidelines? Will data specifically controlled by AASHTO, and will only be
from USGS website be permitted to be used? updated by request.
32 1 3 3.4.1 BERGER/ Lee Will the long-period transition and constant-displacement T-3 Commitment. ? / Chris Unanwa Discuss with M. Keever, L. Marsh. 3-2-07: This issue can be evaluated for a future revision of Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh spectral ordinates included in the 2004 USGS maps, the document.
FEMA-450 (NEHRP), 2003 and ASCE 7-05 be used? If
so, why not include them now? Or is this data not available
for the 1000-yr return period?
33 1 3 Sec. 3.4.1 Pg 3.4.1-1 FHWA/ Derrell SDs should be SDS See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux Modified. Check buy-off with Derrell. 02-05-07-OK 02-05-07-OK Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
34 1 3 Sec. 3.4.1 Pg 3.4.1 (a) FHWA/ Derrell Figures 3.4.1-2 through 3.4.1-14 are not provided as See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux Same as Comment No. 28. Check buy-off with 02-05-07-OK 02-05-07-OK Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
indicated Derrell.
35 1 3 Sec. 3.4.1 Page 3-11 FHWA/ Derrell "peak ground acceleration) is not defined. Possibly add See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux Modified. Check buy-off with Derrell. 02-05-07-OK 02-05-07-OK Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
(Item 1) PGA=0.4 SDS
36 1 3 3.4.3 4th Para. BERGER/ Lee Are active fault maps available for the entire country? Specifications are based on Task 6 report. This is an effort ? / Chris Unanwa Check Imbsen's response with L. Marsh. 3-2-07: Active fault maps need to be easily available for the Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh Furthermore, does this section need to be limited to surface to include current state of the practice as confirmed and application of this section. Whether deep areal source (ie
or shallow (definition?) faulting, or does it also cover deep learned from past earthquakes. In summary the issue is still subduction) earthquakes should be evaluated for inclusion
faults, such as those in the Cascadia and New Madrid open and needs further confirmation. into (or excepted from) these requirements.
regions? The requirements for the near-fault effects should
be easy to apply.
37 1 3 Pg 3-14 first paragraph CA What attenuation relationship is to be used? How will T-3 T-3 item for future. Chris Unanwa Discuss with M. Keever. Agree. Attenuation relationships to be included in a future JQ 02-26-07: Parking lot - major effort required on NGA Yes Yes Yes Yes
incorporate the result of the PEER NGA (Next Generation review of the Guidelines.
Attenuation) relationships?
38 1 3 Pg 3-14 last sentence CA “Peer Reviewed” needs to be defined as independent See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Art. 3.4.3 (last sentence of 1st paragraph). Did not OK Modified per comment in C3.4.1 Yes Yes No No
of first paragraph internal or external body. Internal peer reviews are likely see modification. Check with R. Imbsen.
adequate for Caltrans and other DOT’s for typical bridges.
Recommend either allowing internal peer reviews, or
external as determined by the Owner to be necessary.
39 1 3 Sec.3.4.4 Pg 3-15 CA Is a near field adjustment made to the ARS curves? No Chris Unanwa Include statement that no near field adjustments are made to JQ 02-26-07: Modified as proposed. Yes Yes No No
the ARS curves. Such statement can be placed at the end of
the last statement for Art. 3.4.1.
40 1 3 Pg 3-18 CA Response spectra for construction sites that are “close” to See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Can't find where phrase occurred in document. Phrase probably used in an earlier version of the Yes Yes No No
active faults … “Close” needs to be defined. Guidelines; Not used in current Guidelines; Close case
Page 2 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
41 1 3 3-21,3-22.3-23 MO Are there plans to provide guidance with detail for “SDC Commentary Effort.. Brandenberger / Tobias Discuss response with M. Keever, then MO MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Added Yes Yes No No
B, C & D level of detailing other than the information explanation/comments should help lead to resolution with
currently shown in the guidelines? Shirley/MO as follows: There probably won't be much
more guidance provided on this subject. There are many
places in the Guide Specs which have guidance, although
not as specific as it could be, on how to detail bridge
components for the various categories. Note that the
Commentary to Section 8, though, does have some good
detailing guidance. So, the Guide Specs. definitely have
some ideas where it can improve for its first revision.
42 1 3 Sec. 3.5 Pg 1-2 Task 3 CA Performing a displacement ductility capacity check Pushover analysis is recommended for SDC D where Chris Unanwa Check adequacy of response with M. Keever JQ 02-26-07: SDC A, B, C are willing to do limited Yes Yes No No
No. 2 and Pg. 3-16 provides minimal value without performing capacity capacity design is required. analysis.
design to ensure the plastic hinge occurs in the well
detailed region.
43 1 3 Sec. 3.5 Table 3.5.1 FHWA/ Derrell add SD1=FvS1 following the table See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux Modified per comment. Check buy-off with Derrell 02-05-07-OK 02-05-07-OK Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
44 1 3 Sec. 3.6 Pg 2-3 FHWA/ Derrell "those bridges…" should be on previous line. (Word wrap See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux Modified per comment. Check buy-off with Derrell 02-05-07-OK 02-05-07-OK Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
paragraph problem)
46 1 4 Section 4.1.1 Pg 4-1 WA/ Jugesh states that the ratio of effective stiffness, as shown in See Modified Guidelines. Recommendation for SDC D Chyuan-Shen Lee Comment to be looked at more clsely. Check Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article 4.1.1 are recommendations for Yes Yes No No
Kapur Figure 4.1, between any two bents within a frame or only. adequacy of response with J. Kapur SDC D for balanced stiffnesses, not requirements. What is
between any two columns within a bent shall satisfy now Table 4.2.1 are considerations for if a bridge is
Equation 4.1. This equation limits the ratio to 0.5. "regular" and have been in the Code for quite some time.
However, Table 4.2 on page 4-6 allows the maximum Articles 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 are really apples and oranges. So,
stiffness ratio from span to span to vary from 2 to 4 while not optimal as it is presented in the Gude Specs, it
depending on the number of spans. This table contradicts will be left as is. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 See modified guide
section 4.1.1 that limits the value between any two bents to spec.
0.5. Please clarify.
47 1 4 4.1.1 1st Para BERGER/ Lee How are the abutments included in the adjacent bent To be considered for commentary. Tobias / Chris Unanwa Abutments are not collapse-critical elements and 02-09-07: OK, but state that abutments are not included. Dan/IL 2/19/07: Added following sentence to Article, Yes Yes No No
Marsh stiffness and mass considerations? The language is also therefore will not be included with the adjacent "These recommendations exclude the consideration of
non-mandatory; thus should this go into commentary? bents. abutments."
48 1 4 4.1.4 1st Para BERGER/ Lee Why does this section only apply to single-column bents? See Modified Guidelines. Text added, further commentary Tobias / Chris Unanwa Check adequacy of response with L. Marsh. 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done Yes Yes No No
Marsh Is the intent to focus on superstructure torsional rigidity? can be considered.
Which shear demands are referred to here? Some
commentary would be useful, particularly with the
mandatory language of the section.
49 1 4 4.2 Table 4.2 BERGER/ Lee The limits in this table are somewhat more liberal than See Modified Guidelines. Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 Tobias / Chris Unanwa Same as comment No. 46. Check adequacy of 02-09-07: OK if item no 46 is answered. Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article 4.1.1 are recommendations for Yes Yes No No
Marsh those in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. This seems to be applicable on for SDC D. response with L. Marsh SDC D for balanced stiffnesses, not requirements. What is
inconsistent. now Table 4.2.1 are considerations for if a bridge is
"regular" and have been in the Code for quite some time.
Articles 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 are really apples and oranges. So,
while not optimal as it is presented in the Gude Specs, it
will be left as is.
50 1 4 Sec. 4.2 Table 41 FHWA/ Derrell Table does not require time history analysis, but through See Modified Guidelines. Derrell Manceaux Statement added at end of Art. 4.2: "Procedure 3 is 02-05-07-OK 02-05-07-OK……Dan/IL 2/19/07 Say Done Yes Yes No No
the entire document time history is required a multiple generally not repaired required unless requested by
number of times. This requirement should be captured the owner under Section 4.2.2." Check adequacy of
response with Derrell
51 1 4 Sec. 4.2.2 Entire FHWA/ Derrell AASHTO indicated that one category of bridges is desired No change recommended. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Discuss with T3 Panel to get opinions on 02-12-07-Still unresolved Dan/IL 2/19/07: It is OK to just "touch on" this subject at Yes No No No
section in the specification. This section references Critical, this topic times in the Guide Specs. Will make sure referenced
Essential in addition to Normal bridges sections and verbiage consistent by 3/9/07.
52 1 4 Sec. 4.2.2 4th FHWA/ Derrell Clarify "Safety Evaluation Design Earthquake" has not See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-OK 02-05-07-OK…….Dan/IL 2/19/07 the words "saftey Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
paragraph been defined evaluation" deleted from this article…..
53 1 4 Chap 4 General BERGER/ Lee There is nothing in Chapter 4 about the abutments and No change recommended. Tobias 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done Yes Yes No No
Marsh whether to include them in the ERS. It seems that the
material in Section 5.2.1 that relates to design choices (as
opposed to modeling) should go into Chapter 4.
54 1 4 AR There is an inconsistency in terms between Art. 4.2 and See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Should be OK Dan/IL 2/19/07: Done Yes Yes No No
Art. 5.4.3. Procedure No. 2 is named “Multimodal now. Procedure 2 renamed Elastic Dynamic
Spectral” in Art. 4.2 and “Elastic Dynamic Analysis” in Analysis (EDA) consistent with article 5.4.3 and
Art. 5.4.3. others.
55 1 4 4.2.2 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Active faults are referred to again, see comment for See Modified Guidelines Tobias 3-2-07: Active fault maps need to be easily available for the Dan/IL 2/19/07: Some ambiguity is OK here. 3-6-07 SB Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh Section 3.4.3. application of this section. Article 4.7.2 edited to clarify when effects of vertical
ground motion considered. This article referenced from
C4.2.2.
56 1 4 4.2.2 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Antecedent of 'these' in 3rd sentence is ambiguous, leading No, unless required by owner. Tobias 02-09-07: Replace word "these" with "critical and Dan/IL 2/19/07: "these" replaced with "critical and Yes Yes No No
Marsh to the implication that bridges closer than 6 miles to an essential". essential"….Say Done.
active fault must be analyzed with time history techniques.
Is this the intent?
57 1 4 4.2.2 4th & 5th Para. BERGER/ Lee SEE is not defined. Change to design seismic event? See Modified Guidelines Tobias 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07 the words "saftey evaluation" deleted from Yes Yes No No
Marsh this article…..
58 1 4 4th Para. BERGER/ Lee Should add a caution that the modified response spectra Tobias 02-09-07: This question applies to section 4.3.3 4th para. Dan/IL 2/19/07: Commentary language deleted beginning Yes Yes No No
Marsh should still transition to the original PGA. Additionally, Check with RAI with "Equivalent viscouse damping may be considered…"
30% damping seems quite high. and ending with "…is the damping ratio, capped at 30%."
59 1 4 4.3.3 AR Art. 4.3.3: The “force reduction factor (R) is obtained by Values of 2 and 3 for SDC B and C are conservative. More Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Response for AR: Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No Yes
dividing the elastic spectral force by the plastic yield detailed analysis as shown in your example can be used. Notes/thoughts: This is a tricky Article to apply and "Design example was for a very short 3-span bridge.
capacity”. The plastic yield capacity is of the “bridge understand. The provisons seem very "abstract". Behavior of structure under seismic load appears to be
component where plastic hinging is expected”. Hinging The concepts in this section are important and need much like that of a single span bridge. The equation is
typically occurs in columns or beams due to high moment. to remain in the Guide Specs., but they need some intended for more flexible structures. Example calcs may
Thus the “spectral force” is actually a moment. During a improvement. It may be prudent to use Dr. Buckle's be outside the typical range of applicability for a multi-span
trial design using this method, an R value was found to be suggested method in the LRFD code since it is bridge in a SDC D. This Article has also undergone
0.9, much lower than the value of 3 required for SDC C. much more straightforward and easier to revision such that it is more straightforward in
Should not the R value be greater in SDC D than in SDC understand. If this is not accpetable, some application.".......MT/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude
C? More information on calculating R in SDC D would be thoughtful rewrites/revisions/clairifications to this Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
appreciated. Article should be proposed. Stephanie's comment: If substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
Mw maps are not included in the guidelines, suggest Ballot.
using Buckle's proposed method thus maintaining
some consistency between the two proposed
documents, and placing Imbsen's method and issue
of Mw determination in the parking lot.
Page 3 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
60 1 4 AR For Table 4.3, please include a USGS moment magnitude T-3 Commitment. Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: .......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No Yes
map in the guidelines. Also, see comment in Appendix D. Notes/Thoughts: It is our understanding this is not a Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
T-3 commitment. If this Article essentially stays as substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
formulated, the designer will have to refer to the Ballot.
USGS web site. The address may be provided in
the Commentary.
61 1 4 4.3.3 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee Is the maximum R selected bent-by-bent, bottom to top, A maximum R is recommended. A varying R may be too Tobias 02-09-07: Add "from any element" after "R" ......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No Yes
Marsh and from each direction? cumbersome for practical purpose. Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
Ballot.
62 1 4 4.3.3 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee Define 'spectral force'. Note that only displacement is See Modified Guidelines Tobias 02-09-07: OK, but still not clear; for a displacement-based .......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No Yes
Marsh determined in Section 4.4, not forces as this section approach finding the 'spectral force' seems like a lot of Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
implies. work. substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
Ballot.
63 1 4 4.3.3 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee Should the passage read that R 'may be taken' equal to 2 See Modified Guidelines Tobias 02-09-07: OK, LM .......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No Yes
Marsh and 3 for SDC B and C, rather than 'is'? Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
Ballot.
64 1 4 4.3.3 Table 4.3 BERGER/ Lee This table is OK for CA, but is this data available for the No change recommended. Tobias 02-09-07: Related comment to consideration of Ian .......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No Yes
Marsh rest of the US? Is it readily available for the 1000-yr Buckle's (12-49) method. I still suggest changing the Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
hazard? Is interpolation required? This seems complicated, provision to simplify it. LM substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
particularly for an empirical approximation such as Rd. Ballot.
Why not use the corner of the response spectrum where the
transition from constant acceleration to constant velocity
occurs? Both ATC 32 and ATC 49 permitted that,
although ATC 49 added a small margin.
65 1 4 Sec. 4.3.3 Entire FHWA/ Derrell "R" is defined as an elastic force reduction factor, but it is R is elastic force over capacity (i.e. R>1), the magnification Derrell Manceaux .......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No Yes
section also being used in an unknown means in the formulas. is for short period structure and implies an emphasis on Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
What is "R"? It is defined as 2 or 3 for SDC B,C, but a displacement ductility requirement. substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
calculated value is required for SDC D. Since elastic Ballot.
moments are typically larger than plastic values, this will
make R <1. The spec is not clear which forces should be
used to calculate the "R" value for SDC D. If this "R" is a
true ductility factor, then a note should be added require
seismic detailing. How do these ductility factors tie into
the true ductility factors in the remaining part of the
document? Is the primary period for each direction used or
one primary period used for calculating both Rd? AT what
location is the deflection taken? Several different locations
are required through specification.
66 1 4 Sec. 4.3.3 Last FHWA/ Derrell Word wrap problem for "…in Article 4.4.." See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07- OK 02-05-07- OK 02-05-07- OK….........Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No Yes
paragraph Magnitude Consideration Deleted from Guide
Specs.........T*=1.25Ts substituted....is consistent with
proposed LRFD Code Ballot.
67 1 4 Sec. 4.3.3 table 4.3 FHWA/ Derrell Clarify:” Commentary should be provided indicating that No change recommended. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-See Attached sheet 02-12-07-Roy and panel accepted 02-12-07-OK…........Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No Yes
Mean Magnitude can be obtained from the USGS website Magnitude Consideration Deleted from Guide
68 1 4 Sec. 4.3.3 table 4.3 FHWA/ Derrell The values for 6.75-7.0 and 7.5-7.75 are not included in See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Resolved if item #67 is accepted 02-12-07-Panel accepted #67 02-12-07-OK…........Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No Yes
the table Magnitude Consideration Deleted from Guide
69 1 4 Sec. 4.4 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Add a statement that Displacement Magnification should It is in the second paragraph. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-OK 02-05-07-OK 02-05-07-OK…..........Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Yes Yes No Yes
be performed prior to combination of displacements Magnitude Consideration Deleted from Guide
70 1 4 Sec. 4.5 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Dead load reaction should read "contributory mass". Not intended as such. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-"deadload reaction force" should read Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
"tributary permanent load" be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
71 1 4 Sec. 4.5 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell The value 0.2 conflicts with 0.25 in section 4.13.2 See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Ian Buckle uses 0.25 which differs from Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
0.2 shown be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
72 1 4 4.5 AR Article 4.5 incorrectly references 4.13.2 or at least its See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Is improved. Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to Yes Yes No Yes
unclear how 0.2 DL relates to the statements made in Art. Reference to art 4.13.2 deleted. This should resolve be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
4.13.2. the issue for AR.
73 1 4 AR For Equation 4.15, Should N be >=12 like SDC B, C, or See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes No Yes
D? Notes/Thoughts: Belive it is mostly "fixed". Since consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
resutls are unconservative, however, it may be 2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
prudent to propose Dr. Buckle's method in LRFD consistent with LRFD Code Ballot .....3-6-07 SB Seat width
code ballot or use "whichever is greater" instead of calculation for SDC D using rigorous analysis is
> or = to 12 " from the two methods. Steph's maintained.
comment: Many on T-3 committee felt comfortable
with more conservative LRFD seat width calcs.
Again for consistancy, may want to continue with
those methods and place Imbsen's in the
commentary or in the parking lot.
74 1 4 4.5 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Reference to Section 4.13.2 mis-states what that article See Modified Guidelines Tobias 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to Yes Yes No Yes
Marsh says, which is 0.25 g. be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
75 1 4 Sec. 4.6 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell "dead load" should read "contributory mass" Not intended as such. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-"deadload reaction force" should read Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
"tributary permanent load" be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
76 1 4 Sec. 4.6 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Add "The minimum support length shall be as specified in See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
4.12" to the last sentence. Also add "the force shall be 02-05-07-Proposed entire paragraph be changed as be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
carried through substructure" shown in attachment with commentary
Page 4 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
77 1 4 4.7.1b Pg 4-11 CA Typically there would be limited value in restricting the No change is recommended. Due to the limited hazard Chris Unanwa Check with CA Team 02-26-07: Accept status quo Dan/IL 2/19/07: Phrase "designed for life saftey criteria" Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No No
ductility demands as required for Limited Ductility associated with SDC B and C, ductility demands are deleted. I mostly agree with Roy on this one. It makes a
Response for SDC B or C. This will result in stronger typically moderate, (i.e., limited); thus, a limited response is lot of sense to Illinois, our seismicity and design philsophy.
columns that will require stronger foundations according to anticipated as mentioned.
Capacity Design principles, increasing the foundation cost.
Typically Limited Ductility Response requirements are
used to provide enhanced performance, despite the
increased costs, to provide increased post-earthquake
serviceability for an important bridge. Recommend
deleting the last sentence of the last paragraph stating
Limited Ductility Response is typical for SDC B or C.
78 1 4 4.7.1 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee The ductility demand, md, is key to the whole process, but See Modified Guidelines Tobias 3-2-07 See comments for Item No 82. Dan/IL 2/19/07: Added "as defined by Eq. 4.9-1." Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No No
Marsh the definition is ambiguous. Is md the worst 'local'
demand?
79 1 4 4.7.1(b) BERGER/ Lee Are limited-ductility structures related to ERE where As stated the response of SDC B and C bridges is expected Tobias 3-2-07:It is generally felt that SDC B and C will produce Dan/IL 2/19/07: Phrase "designed for life saftey criteria" Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No No
Marsh owner's approval is required? Or are limited-ductility to be of limited ductility demand. designs that only require limited ductility capacity to resist deleted. I mostly agree with Roy on this one. It makes a
structures SDC B&C bridges by definition? the design earthquake. No explicit recognition of this needs lot of sense to Illinois, our seismicity and design philsophy.
to be taken in the designation of EREs.
80 1 4 4.7.2 AR In Art. 4.7.2, there is a new requirement that at least 25% See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: The article states: 3-6-07 SB The article has been revised significantly by Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No No
of the longitudinal top and bottom rebar shall be Notes/Thoughts: Article now reads 15%. The "reinforced prestressed and precast prestresed girders shall deleting the prescriptive requirements and adding the
continuous for SDC D bridges, and spliced with couplers. language of this section should be clarified. We have a minimum of 15% of the total equivalent mild and statement: "The effects of vertical ground motions for
Is this a requirement for concrete beams or for the slab? think it means the slabs for concrete girder and steel prestressing steel in the form of continuous mild bridges in Seismic Design Category D located within six
Prestressed girders are included in this. It seems that RC girder bridges and concrete girders, but not steel reinforcement." I interpret that to mean the girder itself. (6) miles of an active fault as described in Article C3.4,
Slab, RCDG, and Precast Units would have to meet this girders. The Article also only applies to bridges Agree that it might be primarily a CA issue. Suggest use shall be considered."
requirement. Is this the intent? near a fault (6 miles). So this is not that many current CA provisions for this section......Dan/IL 2/18/07:
bridges outside of CA, for example. Critical bridge Suggested editing/modification from WA used to revise this
verbiage may need to be deleted. Article
81 1 4 Sec.4.7.2 Pg 4-11 CA This provision does not ensure a minimum level of A similar prescriptive approach is considered. Chris Unanwa Prescribed approach to be discussed further by the ......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Suggested editing/modification from Yes Yes JQ 02/28/07 No No
continuous mild reinforcement for cast-in-place Team. WA used to revise this Article … JQ 02/27/07: Retained
prestressed concrete bridges for vertical acceleration. first sentence and moved remainder of paragraph to
There may be only a nominal amount of mild commentary.
reinforcement provided in a CIP P/s bridge. Caltrans SDC
requires that additional mild reinforcement capable of
resisting +0.25g be provided continuous over the length of
the superstructure. This ensures a consistent level of mild
reinforcement regardless of the amount or type of
reinforcement used for service loads. I would recommend
a similar minimum amount of continuous mild
reinforcement be required.
82 1 4 4.8 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Need a clear definition of the displacement demand. Is this See Modified Guidelines Tobias 3-2-07: The definition and use of 'local' ductility capacities Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh a local demand? What constitutes 'local'? It seems logical is roughly consistent with the Caltrans Seismic Design proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
that both principal axes should be checked, but this is not Criteria (SDC). Thus, the SDC can be used as a reference anticipated for resolution. 3-6-07 SB Revised language in
stated directly. It should be. Also it would be logical to source for engineers in applying these provisions. Future article 4.8 should clarify.
check the principal local axes of a bent or pier and not the revisions should evaluate the success of lack thereof of the
principal axes of the bridge as a whole. For many bridges, use of the local definitions. If engineers are having
this will require transformation of displacement data, since problems, then tightening of the requirements to be more
most programs only report global displacements. Should specific may be warranted at a future date.
any account of additional uncertainty of displacements be
accounted for due to the transformation?
83 1 4 Sec. 4.8 all FHWA/ Derrell At what location on the column are deflections being Relative displacement is considered. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Lee Marsh suggested figures be added Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
compared? from SDC to clarify proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
anticipated for resolution. DM 02-20-07- Need to see
proposed sketches
84 1 4 Sec. 4.8 all FHWA/ Derrell Clarify if the displacement demand is modified with See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07 Last paragraph, correct spelling for "are1" Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
displacement magnification to "are". proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
anticipated for resolution.
85 1 4 Sec.4.8.1 Pg 4-12 CA Is a reference available for equations 4-7a and 4-7b? I had Provide examples or specific case. Many have used the Chris Unanwa Equations need correction. Mark Mahan to present OK as amended Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
problems when performing a quick calculation, getting a equation appropriately and correctly. ammendments. proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
negative value for the displacement capacity. Is it possible anticipated for resolution.
there are missing or incorrectly placed parentheses? More
information is needed to apply this to the many different
applications that may occur in SDC B and C. Provide
definitions, limitations and assumptions for the use of
these equations.
86 1 4 Sec. 4.8.1 definitions FHWA/ Derrell Is Bo taken as core or gross diameter? See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07 OK 02-12-07-Need to see figures that were proposed … JQ 03- Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
08-07: Figures to be included in future revision. proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
87 1 4 Sec. 4.8.1 Last FHWA/ Derrell If H is taken as distance from max moment to contra See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Lee Marsh suggested figures be added 02-12-07-Need to see figures that were proposed … JQ 03- Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
paragraph flexure, then if the corresponding deflection is used, then from SDC to clarify 08-07: Figures to be included in future revision. proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
only 1/2 the true deflection is taken into account anticipated for resolution.
88 1 4 4.8.1 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Provide a reference for the empirical capacity equations. See Modified Guidelines Tobias 3-2-07: Descriptions of the limits of the development of Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
Marsh Also it might be useful to clarify that 'Ln' is the natural these equations have been added to the commentary. proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
logarithm. Perhaps use lowercase for the log function, anticipated for resolution. 3-6-07 SB Revised language in
because that is the most common way it is written. article 4.8 should clarify.
89 1 4 4.8.1 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Have these expressions been calibrated against actual See Modified Guidelines Tobias 3-2-07: The range of use and predictions from these Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
Marsh bridge designs? Are there any limits to their applicability, equations are apparenlty consistent with the Caltrans' proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
and if so, do those limits play into the procedure selection experience. anticipated for resolution. 3-6-07 SB Revised language in
(i.e. send you to SDC D). For instance, I presume article 4.8 should clarify.
configurations such as bents with struts at mid-height
should not be assessed directly with these equations?
90 1 4 4.8.1 3rd Para. BERGER/ Lee I don't see where the second bullet option is addressed See Modified Guidelines Tobias 3-2-07: The only place this shows up directly is for a design Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
Marsh anywhere in the Guidelines (e.g. where the displacement executed using SDC D. Consequently, the second bullet proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
capacity is a function of either longitudinal or transverse was removed from the list. anticipated for resolution. 3-6-07 SB Revised language in
reinforcement for a concrete section.). See also comments article 4.8 should clarify.
for Section 4.9.
Page 5 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
91 1 4 Sec. 4.8.1 CA Equations 4.7a and 4.7b do not show how detailing for Code performance requirements are included in task 6 Chris Unanwa Discuss with CA Team. 02-26-07: Accept status quo Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
SDC “B” and “C” will produce the desired ductility report proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
values. anticipated for resolution.
92 1 4 4.8.2 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Why develop a new terminology, IQPA? Why not use Agree the text has been changed to Nonlinear Static Tobias 3-2-07: This change was not incorporated. That is Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh Nonlinear Static Procedure, NSP, as other seismic specs Procedure, NSP, which is more consistant with other acceptable. The nomenclature could be revisited for future proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
are using? specifications.. revisions. anticipated for resolution.
93 1 3 Figure 3.3.1a CA Permissible Earthquake Resisting Systems (ERS) allows For SBC B, shear capacity protection is still required even Chris Unanwa Discuss with CA Team. JQ 02-26-07: Accept status quo. Yes Yes No No
elastic design of columns as an alternative to plastic hinges though displacement demand is relatively small.
in inspectable locations. Regardless of the analysis
method, bridges may form plastic hinges, which should be
properly located and inspectable.
94 1 3 Figure 3.3.2 CA ERS requiring owner’s approval: Ductile diaphragms in See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Modification deleted: "Yielding restricted to OK JQ 02-26-07: Modifed by R. Imbsen. Yes Yes No No
superstructure, yet yielding restricted to substructure! substructure."
Why is the need for ductile diaphragms?
95 1 3 Figure 3.3.2 CA ERS requiring owner’s approval: In-ground hinges in Acceptable if properly designed. Chris Unanwa Discuss with CA Team. JQ 02-26-07: Accept status quo. Yes Yes No No
battered piles are not a good combination. The plastic
hinge will most likely be not successful under the very
large axial load of a battered pile while the vertical piles
have very little participation!
96 1 4 Sec. 4.8.2 CA “Local Displacement Capacity” is a different concept than Local displacement ductility can be measured from Chris Unanwa Discuss with CA Team. 02-26-07: Accept status quo Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
the push over analysis of a sub-system. The two cannot be pushover analysis. proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
mixed. The push over analysis is generally done on the anticipated for resolution.
most global level possible, say a bridge frame in the
longitudinal direction. Local ductility requirement is
appropriate for a single column of that frame.
97 1 4 Sec. 4.9 CA The local displacement ductility demand (allowance) of 6 Caltrans definition of target ductility is different. Chris Unanwa Need to change ductility limits to Target values (per Recommend changing proposed ductility limits to 5, 6, 5 Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
for single column bents and 8 for multi-column bents is caltrans SDC) proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
approximately 50% higher than Caltrans practice in certain anticipated for resolution. Chris U/CA: Amended by Team
cases. as proposed.
98 1 4 4.9 Overall BERGER/ Lee This section needs to be tightened with respect to the See section 4.8 for displacement check. Tobias 3-1-07: OK LM Such a check is only required for SDC D. Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
Marsh checks that are required. Literally as I read it, only the proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
ductility demand needs to be checked and shown to be less anticipated for resolution.
than the listed values. A moment-curvature analysis is
required to calculate the yield and plastic displacement
capacity, but the latter is never used. Thus, I don't see why
it is calculated. A literal reading seems to obviate the need
to perform the pushover analysis at all, since the yield
displacement could be approximated using EIeff.
99 1 4 4.9 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee The dispensation of the foundation and superstructure Superstructure and substructure flexibilities are accounted Tobias 3-1-07: The clarity of how designers are handling Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh flexibilities in the calculation of the yield and total for in the analytical model used to obtain the displacement foundation flexibility should be reviewed for future proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
displacements must be clear. If such flexibility is included demand. Local member ductility is calculated based on revisions. If necessary, tighter language for the anticipated for resolution.
in the yield displacement, the resulting ductility demand column yield. specification would be added at that time.
will be unconservative relative to the limits prescribed.
100 1 4 4.9 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee As stated elsewhere, the definition of 'local' must be Yes. Tobias 3-2-07: See comment for Item No. 82. Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh clarified. It appears that equivalent cantilever local proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
elements are to be derived. If this is so, clarifying figures, anticipated for resolution.
such as those included in Caltrans' SDC would be most
helpful. These could perhaps be included in the
commentary.
101 1 4 4.9 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee What limits are intended to be used to calculate the plastic The displacement capacity calculated based on strain Tobias / Chris Unanwa Ductility limits proposed in Art. 4.9 were modified 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No No
Marsh displacement capacity? Are the strain limits, for example limits. Maximum ductibility demands are capped for to the values used by Caltrans. These are considered proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
those given in Chapter 8, intended to be used here? Are different members. maximum values and depending on the demand vs anticipated for resolution.
they meant to define an 'either/or' limit with respect to the capacity checks a lower effective value may limit
ductility limits prescribed in Section 4.9. the design. This is handled purely in the demand vs
capacity check.
102 1 4 4.9 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Is any conservatism built into the limits provided in Design earthquake is 5% in 50 years. Numerical methods Tobias / Chris Unanwa The target ductility values per Caltrans SDC are Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No No
Marsh Section 4.9, including strain limits if they are also to be used for pushover analysis are conservative when compared now used; thus there is conservatism ( a factor of proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
used? (Caltrans' SDC provides 'reduced' strains that are to laboratory results. safety of about 2, as proven by experimental results. anticipated for resolution.
less than the ultimates for each material.) Can a bridge as
designed by these Guidelines be expected to endure larger
seismic displacements, i.e. those caused by ground
motions that are in the 5% exceedence category (in 50
yrs)?
103 1 4 4.9 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Should multi-column bents have a higher permissible Reserve capacity of multi-column bent is higher than single Tobias / Chris Unanwa Response is reasonable. Check buy-off with L. 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No No
Marsh ductility demand than single-column bents? I thought column bent for new modern structure. Marsh proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
current thinking was 'no'? anticipated for resolution.
104 1 4 Sec. 4.9 Pg 4-14 CA Equation 4.8: Is Dy the first rebar yield or the idealized See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Modified per comment. OK Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
yield. This can be significantly different, especially for proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
circular rebar configurations commonly used in columns. anticipated for resolution.
105 1 4 Sec. 4.9 Pg 4-14 CA The ductility demands specified are much higher than the Note true, see outcome of CT example. Chris Unanwa See also comments 101 & 102. Need to change Recommend changing proposed ductility limits to 5, 6, 5 Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
target values used by Caltrans. ductility limits to Target values (per caltrans SDC) proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
anticipated for resolution. Chris U./CA: Amended as
proposed, at Sacramento Team Meeting 02/27-28/07
106 1 4 Sec. 4.10 Last FHWA/ Derrell Last sentence is incomplete See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux Statement deleted. Check buy-off with Derrell 02-05-07- OK 02-05-07- OK Yes Yes No No
paragraph
107 1 4 4.11 TN/ Huff The paragraph directly under Section 4.11 on page 4-15 is Brandenberger / Tobias Same comment as Nos. 108 & 109. Incomplete MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Partial sentence Yes Yes No No
incomplete. sentence deleted. Check buy-off with Huff (TN) deleted from modified guidelines. Should be okay now.
108 1 4 4.11 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Sentence is not complete. See Modified Guidelines Tobias / Chris Unanwa As in # 107. Check buy-off with L. Marsh 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done Yes Yes No No
Marsh
109 1 4 Sec. 4.11 page 4-15 WA/ Jugesh The paragraph is incomplete See Modified Guidelines Chyuan-Shen Lee As in # 107 & 108. Check buy-off with Kapur Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done Yes Yes No No
Kapur (WA)
110 1 4 Pg 4-6 CA Are the terms “important”, “critical”, and “normal” See Modified Guidelines. Chris Unanwa Terms defined. Check again with M. Mahan OK Dan/IL 2/19/07: It is OK to just "touch on" this subject at Yes Yes No No
defined? times in the Guide Specs. Will make sure referenced
sections and verbiage consistent by 3/9/07.
111 1 4 Pg 4-6 CA The maximum bent/pier stiffness ratio in Table 4.2 appears See Modified Guidelines. Chris Unanwa Same comment as Nos. 46 & 49. "Table 4.2.1-1" OK Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article 4.1.1 are recommendations for Yes Yes No No
to be inconsistent with the requirements in 4.1.1 should read "Table 4.2-3" and repositioned SDC D for balanced stiffnesses, not requirements. What is
accordingly now Table 4.2.1 are considerations for if a bridge is
"regular" and have been in the Code for quite some time.
Articles 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 are really apples and oranges. So,
while not optimal as it is presented in the Gude Specs, it
will be left as is.
Page 6 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
112 1 4 Page 4-9 WA/ Jugesh Table 4.3. The range for the Moment Magnitude is not See Modified Guidelines. Chyuan-Shen Lee See modification in footnote below Table 4.3. 02-12-07-OK…........Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Yes Yes No No
Kapur continuous. For example, there are no values for Mw Check adequacy of response with Kapur Magnitude Consideration Deleted from Guide
between 6.75 and 7.0, and between 7.5 and 7.75. Specs.........T*=1.25Ts substituted....is consistent with
proposed LRFD Code Ballot. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 See
modified guide spec.
113 1 4 4.11 AR The sentence in Art. 4.11 is incomplete Which sentence? Tobias / Brandenberger Same as comment Nos. 107, 108, 109. Deleted in OK Dan/IL 2/19/07: Done Yes Yes No No
mod. Guidelines. Check adequacy of response with
AR
114 1 4 Sec. 4.11 all FHWA/ Derrell Last sentence is incomplete See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux May be same as 107, 108, 109. Already taken care 02-05-07- OK 02-05-07- OK…..Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done Yes Yes No No
of. Discuss with Derrell
115 1 4 4.11.1 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Superstructures should be added to the list of elements that See Modified Guidelines Tobias / Chris Unanwa Modified per comment. Check buy-off with Marsh 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Superstructure Added, Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh are to be capacity protected.
116 1 4 4.11.1 Item c. BERGER/ Lee I believe the intent is that deep foundations that may No consensus yet on the subject. Guidelines include Tobias 02-09-07: OK, but clarify that this permits in-ground Dan/IL 2/19/07: Modified to read "c. A foundation situated Yes Yes No No
Marsh experience lateral forces from collateral hazards may be necessary provisions to satisfy the "No Collapse" criteria. hinging. in soft or potentially liquefiable soils where plastic hinging
permitted to be ductile or limited-ductility elements. is permitted below ground."
Because lateral spreading forces due to liquefaction may
likely occur after the peak vibration-induced displacements
are developed, it seems that such deep foundations should
be capacity protected for vibration-based loading and only
permitted to yield for lateral spread displacements, and
these would be considered as a separate load case.
117 1 4 Sec. 4.11.1 CA Not all foundation elements are capacity protected. Shafts See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Modified per comment OK Dan/IL 2/19/07: Modified to read "(typically flexural Yes Yes No No
are allowed to “plastic hinge” under certain conditions. hinging in columns above ground; or in some cases,
flexural hinging of drilled shafts, solid wall encased pile
bents, etc. below ground)…..Note that this concept is quite
important for IL design as well.
118 1 4 Sec.4.11.1 5 all FHWA/ Derrell ∆D is not defined see section 2. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07 OK Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
119 1 4 Sec. 4.11.2 all FHWA/ Derrell Over strength factors are used to account for material Expected values are used. In comparison to NCHRT 12- Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07 OK, but need to confirm with CA Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
uncertainties. However, the spec requires actual material 49, the guidelines are not over conservative and line up
properties when calculating Moment curvature. To do both with Caltrans practice.
appears to be over conservative.
120 1 4 4.11.2 AK Art. 4.11.2 mentions Table 3.3.2, where is this table See Modified Guidelines. Elmer Marx MOST OF THE COMMENTS PRESENTED IN 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
located? THIS SPREADSHEET WERE MADE ON AN
EARLIER GENERATION OF THE GUIDE
SPECIFICATIONS. TWO ITERATIONS HAVE
OCCURRED SINCE THESE COMMENTS WERE
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED. CONSEQUENTLY,
SOME OF THIS ISSUES HAVE ALREADY
BEEN ADDRESSED. THIS COMMENT
(ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED FROM AR NOT
AK) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED
IN THE NEWEST VERSION OF THE GUIDE
SPECIFICATIONS. (date 2-1-7)
121 1 4 Sec. 4.11.3M Pg 4-18 CA Recommendations needed for the calculation of shear To be included in commentary. Chris Unanwa Dan/IL 2/19/07: Believe this is OK….Say Done Yes Yes No No
below ground in pile shafts.
122 1 4 4.11.5 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee I don't understand how a modal analysis will show out-of- Examining predominant mode shapes reveals the presence Tobias 02-09-07: LM to review Task 6, but so far I have not found Dan/IL 2/19/07: UCB study not all that relevant here. Yes Yes No No
Marsh phase motions between the top and bottom of a column, of out of phase response. See Task 6 report for UCB a specific UCB method. Some ambiguity in these provisions is OK…Say Done.
because the signs are stripped when the modes are Methodology on out-of phase modal response
combined. Perhaps the comparison should be based on the
response of a single mode where the signs are preserved.
123 1 4 4.11.5 Eqn 4.11 BERGER/ Lee The use of '' for a subscript that is not associated with See Modified Guidelines Tobias 02-09-07: OK, LM Use of subscript was revised. Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done Yes Yes No No
Marsh ductility is confusing.
124 1 4 Sec. 4.11.5 all FHWA/ Derrell Non linear is required, but table 4.1 has no provisions for No change recommended. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07 Get opinion of the Panel Dan/IL 2/19/07: This is OK….Say Done Yes Yes No No
non linear analysis
125 1 4 Sec 4.11.6 Eq 4.12 FHWA/ Derrell "L" is not defined see section 2. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07 OK 02-05-07 OK 02-05-07 OK……Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed..Say Done Yes Yes No No
126 1 4 Sec. 4.11.7 2cd FHWA/ Derrell Clarify if core or gross cross section is used. "…where the See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07 OK 02-05-07 OK 02-05-07 OK……Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
paragraph & second to moment exceeds…" Which moment is referenced? Plastic,
last paragraph elastic, over strength?
127 1 4 4.12 all FHWA/ Derrell Seat width requirements should not include the gap No change recommended. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07 Proposed change is attached, similar to 02-12-07-Still unresolved Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
opening. If a gap larger than required is provided, then the #487 Code Ballot provisions.
minimum seat length is unconservative
128 1 4 4.12 Figure 4.3 FHWA/ Derrell N should be dimensioned to not include the gap. Upper No change recommended. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07 Proposed change is attached. Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
right figure (pier) only provides 1/2 seat length the way it Code Ballot provisions.
is dimensioned. N1 and N2 are not defined on this same
figure. IF gap provided is large, then minimum seat length
is not conservative
129 1 4 Sec. 4.12.1 CA The background info on equation 4.15 is limited. Why do See Modified Guidelines. See Task 6 report; extensive Chris Unanwa Discuss with the CA Team Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD Yes Yes No Yes
they use 0.2 factor for H. Also equation 4.15 needs coverage. Code Ballot provisions.
correction with the term (1+Sk^2)/4000 should be
(1+Sk^2/4000)!!
130 1 4 Sec. 4.12.2 CA Correction in equation 4.16 similar to 4.15. See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Discuss with the CA Team Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD Yes Yes No Yes
Code Ballot provisions.
131 1 4 4.12.2 definitions FHWA/ Derrell Are displacement multipliers required for ∆eq? Yes, see Task 6 Report and see mofified guidelines. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07 OK 02-05-07 OK 02-05-07 OK…...Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
consistent with LRFD Code Ballot provisions.
132 1 4 4.12.2 all FHWA/ Derrell Define how to measure "N" with respect to skew To be included in commentary. Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Parking Lot?? Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
Code Ballot provisions.
133 1 4 4.12.2 Eqn 4.16 BERGER/ Lee The use of three significant figures (1.65) seems rather See Task 6 report. Extensive coverage. Tobias 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD Yes Yes No Yes
Marsh precise for this empirical expression. Why not use 2? Code Ballot provisions. 3-6-07 SB For SDC D rigorous
analysis method maintained.
Page 7 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
134 1 4 4.12.2 Eqn 4.16 BERGER/ Lee Have the expressions for seat width been calibrated against See Task 6 report. Tobias 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD Yes Yes No No
Marsh those used in the current provisions? Are Eqns 4.15 and Code Ballot provisions.
4.16 more or less conservative? It should also be made
clear that Deq must include the effects of foundation
flexibility; otherwise this approach is unconservative. The
Div I-A and ATC 49 approaches used approximate
methods that allowed for some foundation rigid body
movements and asynchronous ground and frame
movements. The expressions given in Eqns 4.15 and 4.16
appear to rely on accurate predictions of the structure
movements.
135 1 4 4.13 Pg 4-13 MO 4-13 Give guidance for “Where foundation and See Modified Guidelines. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This could be MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Response to MO: In Yes Yes No No
superstructure flexibility can be ignored, the two OK now. first revision, this may be clarified further. The
dimensional plane frame “pushover” analysis of a bent or a simplification suggested in the Guide Specs is at the
frame can be simplified to a column model (fixed-fixed or discretion and judgement of the engineer. It can be difficult
fixed-pinned) if it does not cause a significant loss in to impossible to be exacting in all provisions in an
accuracy in estimating the displacement capacities” earthquake spec.
136 1 4 4.13.1 all FHWA/ Derrell Commentary is required to explain how the cable Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07- Replace all of 4.13.1 with the text on 02-12-07 Still unresolved Dan/IL 2/19/07: Buckle's provisions adapted to this Article. Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
restrainers are determined in the event a case occurs where attached file
5 restrainers are not appropriate. Specifications for the
materials and details required are also needed. Define how
restrainers are placed with respect to skew and
substructure stiffness
137 1 4 4.13.2 all FHWA/ Derrell .25g is unconservative if a structure is in high seismic. Refer to section 4.13 ahead of 4.13.1 for requirements. Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Still unresolved Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article modified to use design forces from Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
Need to add comment that the larger of elastic analysis Need to clarify the unconservative aspect of design modified Article 4.5.
or .25 g is required. Also, add .25g times contributory mentioned in reference to 0.25g.
mass.-This section conflicts with4.13.1 which specifies
how many restrainers are required and 4.13.2 now requires
the design of them. Conflict should be resolved.
138 1 4 4.14 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee Are there any limits on the steel type used in shear keys No, A706 can be recommended but not yet covered in any Tobias 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done Yes Yes No No
Marsh covered by this section? Should A706 specifications.
recommended/required?
139 1 4 4.14 all FHWA/ Derrell Non linear is required, but table 4.1 has no provisions for No change recommended. Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07-Panel needs to make descision on time Dan/IL 2/19/07: This is OK….Say Done Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
non linear analysis history
140 1 4 4.15 MO See Article 7.4.9” Article 7.4.9 does not exist. Numerous See Modified Guidelines. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done Yes Yes No No
references to Article X.X CA to administer.
141 1 4 Pg 4-21 MO 4-21 What is the background for the development of Equations are based on state of the practice and culled Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Dr. Imbsen's Dan/IL 2/19/07: Section has been improved with Yes Yes No No
the Plastic Hinge Length? It appears the diameter of the background references of Task 6 Report. response is just "OK". No further input suggested. reformatting effort.
column would influence this length and should be included Considered resolved.
in the calculation. Is the accuracy of the equation justified
or could 31 or 36 inches or column diameter be assumed
for design?
142 1 4 Pg 4-23 MO Seat or support width: If one is doing a pushover analysis, See Modified Guidelines. Commentary out of scope at this Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Skew factor MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes No Yes
what method is suggested to obtain the delta eq value? point. error was corrected. Results using this Article are consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
Could additional commentary be added for this unconservative, though. May propose using Dr. 2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
requirement? It appears that we are getting erroneous Buckle's formulation as suggested elsewhere. consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
results using the equation and the “skew factor” for long
spans comparing skewed bridges and bridges without
skews.
144 1 5 5.2.1 3rd & 4th Para. BERGER/ Lee Consider moving these paragraphs to Chapter 4. See the No change recommended. Tobias 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say OK…..Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh 'general' comment regarding Chapter 4, above.
145 1 5 5.2.3.2 Figure 5.2 BERGER/ Lee In the text that references Figure 5.2, state that an approach See Modified Guidelines. Tobias 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh slab in not required.
146 1 5 5.2.3 TN/ Huff Section 5.2.3.3 regarding abutment stiffness calculation is See Modified Guidelines. Need to modify the calculations Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: This requires Dan/IL 2/21/07: IL's geotechnical engineer helped me take Yes Yes No Yes
difficult to interpret and apply. There may be a unit shown in the "Comment" column. further investigation. We do not really understand a look at this Article. These computed stiffnesses were
problem or a typographical error. For example, consider an Dr. Imbsen's respons. TN indicated this was a judged "reasonable". However, the 0.04 factor in the
abutment wall 10 feet high and 60 feet long. Applying the matter of importance over telephone. denominator was removed and 0.02 was replaced with the
equations as stated gives a stiffness of : variable Fw. Commentary was added which reads:
"Guidance on the value of Fw to use for a particular bridge
may be found in Table C3.11.1-1 of the AASHTO LRFD
Keff1=Pp/0.02Hw=2/3HwL/0.02HwL=100L/3=100x60/3=2,00 Bridge Design Specifications. The table presents values of
0k/ft=167k/in which is Fw for dense sand, medium dense sand, loose sand,
a very low number. Perhaps the intent is for the capital compacted silt, compacted lean clay, and compacted fat
“Pp” to be a lowercase “pp” so that the equation becomes: clay. If the influence of passive pressure extends beyond
Keff1=pp/0.02Hw=2/3H2wL/0.02HwL=100HwL/3=100x10x60 one particular soil type at an abutment, averaged or
/3=20,000k/ft=1667k/in weighted average values for Fw may be used at the
This still seems a bit low engineer’s discretion." 3-6-07 SB See Revised Article,
compare to previous values which would be on the order Equations and commentary to address this issue.
of 40 kips/inch/ft x 60 feet x 10/8 = 3,000 kips/inch.
147 1 5 5.2.3.1 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Paragraph should be as commentary since it gives no Consider for commentary. Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-Make 1st paragraph into commentary Dan/IL 2/20/07: Moved to commentary. Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
requirements C5.2.3.1
148 1 5 5.2.3.1 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell The word active should be "passive" pressure See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK…..Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
149 1 5 5.2.3.3 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Delete the word 'pressure' in the first sentence, and in the See Modified Guidelines Tobias 02-09-07: OK, but change new units of "ksi" to "ksf" Dan/IL 2/20/07: Believe OK now….Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh sentence that begins with 'Thus'. In the definition of
lowercase pp, delete 'per lineal foot of wall unit length
along the wall'.
150 1 5 5.2.3.3 a Heading & BERGER/ Lee Delete the word 'pressure' in the heading. Change the See Modified Guidelines Tobias 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/20/07: Believe OK now….Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Bullets Marsh uppercase Pp to lowercase pp. In the second bullet, delete
the words 'per foot of wall length'. (Throughout this
section uppercase denotes the total passive force on the
wall and lowercase denotes the passive pressure, assumed
to be uniformly distributed. The definitions in Section 2.1
are correct.)
Page 8 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
151 1 5 5.2.4 AR Art. 5.2.4 mentions “Fusing”. More information on this See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Guideline MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Response to AR: Yes Yes No No
concept would be beneficial. modifiied, but still seems unclear. Editorial Fusing and shear keys, etc. are mentioned several times in
suggestion forthcoming. the Guide Spec. Much more elaboration is probably not
that practical for the first publication of the Guide Specs.
These concepts will also become more familiar through
time. They are also much more heavily emphasized in the
the T-2 LRFD Code Ballot for 2007.....Dan/IL 2/20/07:
Provisions for shear keys and fusing have also been
clarified and improved.
152 1 5 5.2.4.1 1st & 2cd FHWA/ Derrell Replace "dead load reaction" with contributory mass No change recommended; simple application is proposed in Derrell Manceaux 02/02/07 - "deadload reaction force" should read Dan/IL 2/20/07: First paragraph of Article now reads: Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
paragraph the guidelines. "tributary permanent load" "Shear keys shall be designed to resist a horizontal seismic
force not less than the product of the effective peak ground
spectral acceleration coefficient, 0.4SDS, as specified in
Article 3.4, times the tributary permanent load.".....and
Commentary now reads: "For bridges in these categories,
elastic resistance may be achievable."
153 1 5 5.2.4.1 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Minimum lateral force = 0.2DL, but section 4.13.2 See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07"deadload reaction force" should read Dan/IL 2/20/07: First paragraph of Article now reads: Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
requires 0.25g "tributary permanent load" in 2 separate locations "Shear keys shall be designed to resist a horizontal seismic
force not less than the product of the effective peak ground
spectral acceleration coefficient, 0.4SDS, as specified in
Article 3.4, times the tributary permanent load.".....and
Commentary now reads: "For bridges in these categories,
154 1 5 5.2.4.2 all FHWA/ Derrell need commentary Consider for commentary. Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-Parking Lot Yes Yes Yes No
155 1 5 5.2.4.1 AR Art. 5.2.4.1 states the design force for Shear Keys: “Shear See Modified Guidelines. Tobias / Brandenberger 02-06-07-Parking Lot Dan/IL 2/20/07: First paragraph of Article now reads: Yes Yes No No
keys shall be designed for, a lateral force, equal to the "Shear keys shall be designed to resist a horizontal seismic
difference between the lateral force demand and 0.4DL”. force not less than the product of the effective peak ground
Does this mean that as the earthquake force becomes spectral acceleration coefficient, 0.4SDS, as specified in
larger, the shear key design force decreases? Needs Article 3.4, times the tributary permanent load.".....and
clarification. Commentary now reads: "For bridges in these categories,
156 1 5 Table5.1 AR Table 5.1: The estimated depth to fixity is a possible These graphs/equations are available and can be included in Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Some info MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest Parking Yes Yes Yes No
foundation modeling method and can be determined with the commentary or separate appendix. provided in the appendix. This might be a good Lot…..Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.
simple equations. Should these equations be included in parking lot issue.
the guidelines?
157 1 5 5.3.1 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell For spread footings, the mass should be EXCLUDED See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK……Dan/IL 2/20/07: "may" edited to Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
since it is extremely stiff and obtaining 90% participation "should" and ", which may be important in achieving a total
will require numerous modes contributory mass of 90%" deleted.
158 1 5 5.3.1 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee If a foundation is modeled as rigid, including the mass of See Modified Guidelines Tobias 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/20/07: "may" edited to "should" and ", which may Yes Yes No No
Marsh the foundation seems unnecessary, because the be important in achieving a total contributory mass of 90%"
displacement degrees of freedom for the foundation would deleted.
be eliminated from the stiffness matrix. If foundation
flexibility is included, the foundation mass may cause
problems getting to 90% mass participation. Suggest
deleting the 3rd sentence of the paragraph.
159 1 5 Sec. 5.3.1 Pg. 5-10 CA Foundation Modeling Method I should be the minimum Yes, it is as such. Chris Unanwa Check with Team Dan/IL 2/20/07: Looks OK…Say Done. Yes Yes No No
required for SDC B&C. The designer should always have
the latitude to more accurately model the foundations using
FMM II.
160 1 5 Sec. 5.3.1 M Pg. 5-10 CA Recommend using FMM II for soft soils in SDC B and C. Yes, it is as such. Chris Unanwa Check with Team Dan/IL 2/20/07: Looks OK…Say Done. Yes Yes No No
161 1 5 Sec. 5.3.2 Pg. 5-11 CA Caltrans does not allow rocking of new bridges pending It is by owner's approval. Based on the proposed procedure, Chris Unanwa For Team discussion Dan/IL 2/20/07: Rocking moved to commentary and Yes Yes No Yes
results of ongoing research. Reasons include: Rocking shear and hinging requirements need to be satisfied. (See referred to in Appendix A. Commentary Reads: "Uplift or
response is less predictable than other traditional types of last paragraph of section 6.3.4) rocking analysis for spread footings may be considered
response, effects of soil “rounding” under the footing - with the owner’s approval. See Appendix A."
changing the rocking response under multiple cycles is not
well understood, effects of paving, sidewalks and other
surface features are not well understood, distribution of
nonlinear response between column and foundation
rocking can be difficult to determine due to sensitivity to
variables with dispersed values that are difficult to
precisely predict. If nothing else, Owner’s Permission
should be required.
162 1 5 Sec. 5.3.4M Pg. 5-12 CA The use of Group Reduction Factors for a single row of No change is recommended at this time, an update may be Chris Unanwa For Team discussion Dan/IL 2/20/07: GRF moved to commentary to read as Yes Yes No No
pile shafts or pile extensions is the subject of ongoing warranted In the future. follows: "A group reduction factor established in the
debate in the bridge engineering community. The GRF geotechnical report should be considered in the analysis.
can have a significant effect on the flexibility and thus the Analyzing the structure with and without consideration of a
overall response of the structure. While practices vary, group reduction factor should also be considered since the
many engineers are now analyzing the structure with and overall response of the structure for these two cases may
without the GRF’s, similar to what is done for liquefaction. vary significantly."
163 1 5 5.4.1 second FHWA/ Derrell critical and essential bridges is not defined-Table 4.1 does See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK…..Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
paragraph not require non linear time history
164 1 5 5.4.2 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee The Single-Mode Spectral Method is no longer defined. If No change recommended. Tobias 02-09-07: Suggest deleting the last sentence of 2nd para of Dan/IL 2/20/07: Section was poorly written. ULM and Yes Yes No No
Marsh it is permitted, then it should be defined. It is not clear section 5.4.2. Then at the end of the 1st para of C5.4.2 add: SMS written in as options with cleaned up language in
from the paragraph whether the ESA is an alternate to the "Alternate permissible methods to that described in 5.4.2 Code and Commentary.
ULM and SMSM or envelopes the two. are the Uniform Load Method (C5.4.2) or the Single Mode
Spectral Method as outlined in Divisions 1A, Section 4.4 of
the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th
Edition."
165 1 5 5.4.2 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee The 3rd sentence states that the load is applied in Commentary is incomplete. Tobias 02-09-07: See comment above for item no 164. Dan/IL 2/20/07: Section was poorly written. ULM and Yes Yes No No
Marsh proportion to the mass distribution. That is not consistent SMS written in as options with cleaned up language in
with the steps outlined for the uniform load method in Code and Commentary.
C5.4.2.
166 1 5 5.4.3 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee The mandatory language requiring specific numbers of See Modified Guidelines Tobias 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh elements in the last sentence conflicts with the non-
mandatory language to the same effect in Section 5.5.3.
167 1 5 5.4.3 2cd paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Delete the words "on the other hand" See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK….Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
168 1 5 5.4.4 all FHWA/ Derrell Time History analysis is not required in table 4.1 See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK…..Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Page 9 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
169 1 5 Pg 5-6 MO Clarify “In this case a check of the abutment displacement See Modified Guidelines Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: The context Dan/IL 2/20/07: Code edited to read: "In this case, an Yes Yes No Yes
demand and overturning should be made.” surrounding this text seems non-sensical. Further evaluation of the abutment which considers the implications
investigation required. of significant displacements from seismic accelerations
should be conducted. As appropriate, this evaluation
should include overturning for abutments on spread
footings or other structural configurations where
overturning may be a concern."
170 1 5 5.6.1 Heading BERGER/ Lee Suggest adding the words 'reinforced concrete' between See Modified Guidelines ? 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh effective and section.
171 1 5 5.6.1 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Delete the words 'in reality'. See Modified Guidelines ? 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh
172 1 5 5.6.2 Heading BERGER/ Lee Add either 'R.C.' or reinforced concrete before 'ductile'. See Modified Guidelines ? 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh
173 1 5 5.6.2 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Delete the word 'initial'. See Modified Guidelines ? 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh
174 1 5 5.6.2 BERGER/ Lee Consider adding a note permitting/suggesting that the See Modified Guidelines ? 02-09-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh unfactored axial gravity load be used when determining
the effective properties.
175 1 5 Pg 5-9 MO 5-9 What are sacrificial concrete shear keys used to See Modified Guidelines Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggested Dan/IL 2/20/07: Provisions for shear keys and fusing have Yes Yes No No
protect the piles? Response to MO: Fusing and shear keys, etc. are also been clarified and improved...Say Done.
mentioned several times in the Guide Spec. Much
more elaboration is probably not that practical for
the first publication of the Guide Specs. These
concepts will also become more familiar through
time. They are also much more heavily emphasized
in the the T-2 LRFD Code Ballot for 2007.
176 1 5 Pg 5-14 MO We are interpreting the recommendation of the 100 year The guidelines are tailored for a structure designed for Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: We think that Dan/IL 2/20/07: Old verbiage edited out…..Say Done. Yes Yes No No
event to be the seismic loading for the elastic design. LRFD loads other than seismic. Dr. Imbsen's response does not make sense in the
Although a separate issue from these proposed Guideline, context of the question. The commenter may be
it does not appear that the 100 year event acceleration data confused about some verbiage from an old version
is available. Using the 100 year for elastic design and of the Guide Specs which had two design level
reviewing displacement capacity for the 1000 year event language. This should be explained/clarified for the
seems very logical approach. commenter.
178 1 6 6.3.3 & 4 Overall BERGER/ Lee The mandatory requirement to base spread footing design 1) Stability is not an issue as P-Delta is checked. ? 02-09-07: Discuss with RAI. I still think this one should 3-1-07: LM Item moved to an appendix and various Yes Yes No No
Marsh on the rocking analysis, outlined in 6.3.4, seems to 2) Maximum drift is comparable with ductility based tabled for now and a more conventional method for cautions given to the designer regarding use of this on a
introduce a performance objective that is somewhat design as shown in flow chart Fig 6.2 (maximum ductility establishing the footing size used. I don't like the bridge system
inconsistent with what has been required by the Guidelines of 8) 3)The mandatory language of spread footing is introduction of revised dynamics in the footing section. We
in earlier chapters. This rocking approach also is less removed. See modified guidelines. are basically recalculating overall response using the
conservative than the approach that has traditionally been capacity-spectrum method via the iterative steps in the spec,
used, 'half uplift' under the plastic forces. The rocking which implies different behavior from that of the demand
analysis represents a fundamentally different behavior than analysis. This is not consistent and confusing and perhaps
that otherwise included in the analysis of the bridge. misleading for the designer. Additionally, the approach as
Basically, the system is being reanalyzed bent-by-bent. To written could lead to problems if the seismic mass is not
exploit such behavior should be a choice the designer correctly assigned to the bent in question. Furthermore, the
makes intentionally. Additionally, the apparent allowance geotech should be aware of the likely high bearing
of behavior right at the edge of stability seems pressures and would need to evaluate incremental
unconservative, and would potentially place some settlement and potential local failures, both of which could
structures at the threshold of toppling, because stability is alter the prescribed resistance formula. The structural engr
likely not solely a function of the elastic response spectra. would need to capacity protect the footing to accomodate
This approach could be included, but it should be done so rocking onto its leading edge and thus suppress internal
as an option, not as a mandatory feature of spread footing shear, flexural and anchorage failures.
design in SDC C or D. Consider retaining half uplift for
the basic approach.
179 1 6 6.3.3 3rd Bullet BERGER/ Lee For calculation of the inertial forces, the superstructure No change recommended ? 02-09-07: Note that the article should be 6.3.4, not 6.3.3. 3-1-07: LM See response to Item 178 Yes Yes No No
Marsh weight should be the effective seismic weight, which See comment above for item no 178.
depending on articulation of the bridge may include more
than the gravity weight tributary to the bent.
180 1 6 6.3.3 5th Para BERGER/ Lee The calculation of ductility in this section is effectively 6.3.3 does not have a 5th paragraph?? ? 02-09-07: Note that the article should be 6.3.4, not 6.3.3. 3-1-07: LM See response to Item 178 Yes Yes No No
Marsh based on a Rd of 1.0. Is this the intent?
181 1 6 6.3.3 Overall BERGER/ Lee The definition of D in the equations appears to require a 'T' See Modified Guidelines ? 02-09-07: Note that the article should be 6.3.4, not 6.3.3. 3-1-07: LM See response to Item 178 Yes Yes No No
Marsh subscript to be consistent with Figure 6.1.
182 1 6 6.3.3 5th Para BERGER/ Lee It is not clear what the ductility calculation is for. Is the Yes. ? 02-09-07: Note that the article should be 6.3.4, not 6.3.3. 3-1-07: LM See response to Item 178 Yes Yes No No
Marsh intent of this requirement to calculate the ductility demand
assuming no rocking?
183 1 6 6.3.3 Figure 6.1 BERGER/ Lee The weights provided must also consider potential No change is recommended. It is not clear what is ? 02-09-07: Note that the article should be 6.3.4, not 6.3.3. I 3-1-07: LM Say OK because its in an appendix with Yes Yes No No
Marsh buoyancy effects. Omission of these would be unconservative for the end-design. still think that buoyancy must be included, because it general cautions on use.
unconservative, because the weights at the base help resist reduces the available overturning resistance, and to neglect
overturning. it is clearly unconservative.
184 1 6 MO Does “mu” or “ductility parameter of a rocking Yes. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Recommend 3-6-07 SB Rocking Analysis has been moved to Appendix. Yes Yes Yes Yes
column/footing system” intended to be the same for all Rocking Analysis be put in Parking Lot.
three pages.
185 1 6 6.3.2 FHWA/ Derrell add Forces corresponding to over strength moment" Not required. Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-Add "Forces based on column plastic JQ 03-08-07: See modified Article 6.3 Spread Footings Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
hinging as specified in Article 8.5"
186 1 6 6.3.3 FHWA/ Derrell add Forces corresponding to over strength moment" Not required. Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-Add "Forces based on column plastic JQ 03-08-07: See modified Article 6.3 Spread Footings Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
hinging as specified in Article 8.5"
187 1 6 6.3.4 FHWA/ Derrell Figure 6.1 has ∆T but the formulas have ∆ See Modified Guidelines. Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK 02-06-07-OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
188 1 6 6.3.4 FHWA/ Derrell "Recalculate ∆ considering 10% damping…" Commentary Incomplete Commentary Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-Parkinglot Yes Yes Yes Yes
should provide method of changing the response spectrum
189 1 6 6.3.4 Below equation FHWA/ Derrell "…soil passive resistance.." should be "…soil weight No change is recommended. Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this 02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No Yes
6.5 (mass).." comment is not pertinant requiring Owner approval
190 1 6 6.3.4 Last paragraph FHWA/ Derrell P-Delta analysis is required, but this conflicts with P-Delta Not clear about the question. Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this 02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No Yes
requirements in 4.11.5 comment is not pertinant requiring Owner approval
191 1 6 6.3.4 Last paragraph FHWA/ Derrell column plastic hinging is now required as a design force, Elaborate what the issue is. Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this 02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No Yes
last sentence but section 6.3.2 & 6.3.3 only require rocking analysis comment is not pertinant requiring Owner approval
forces
192 1 6 6.3.4 Figure 6.1 FHWA/ Derrell Figure 6.1 has ∆T but the formulas have ∆ See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this 02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No Yes
comment is not pertinant requiring Owner approval
Page 10 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
193 1 6 6.3.4 Figure 6.1 FHWA/ Derrell Locate "F" arrow at the CG of the structure See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this 02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No Yes
comment is not pertinant requiring Owner approval
194 1 6 6.3.4 Figure 6.2 FHWA/ Derrell Clarify ∆T or ∆. Ductility factor of 8 has no consideration See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this 02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No Yes
for structure types. Ductility factor, beta factor and comment is not pertinant requiring Owner approval
minimum footing size are specified in the figure, but not
placed in the actual specification
195 1 6 Sec. 6.3.4 Pg 6-4 Eqn. CA Should specify that m should be determined based on local See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Discuss with the CA Team. See Comment #161. Maintain status quo wrt ductility Yes Yes No No
6.5M ductility, not global, due to the significant effect rocking definition.
will have on the curvature demands on the column. In
addition D should be defined as Df and the yield
displacement defined locally.
196 1 6 Sec. 6.3.4 M Pg. 6-3 CA The same as Sec. 5.3.2, Pg. 5-11 It is by owner's approval. Based on the proposed procedure, Chris Unanwa As in Comments 161 and 195 As in Comment #161 Yes Yes No No
shear and hinging requirements need to be satisfied. (See
last paragraph of section 6.3.4)
197 1 6 6.4.4 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee In the last sentence, insert 'geotechnical' between ultimate See Modified Guidelines ? 02-09-07: OK, LM 2-15-07 SB Edited Yes Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
Marsh and capacity.
198 1 6 6.4.4 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee The first sentence seems to be the only place that potential Further discussion is commentary material. ? 3-2-07: Some additional language should be considered for Yes Yes Yes No
Marsh tension in piles is discussed. It would seem appropriate to the specification in a future revision.
have an entry in the concrete section alerting the designer
to consider appropriate anchorage of the piles into the cap
and to consider these effects on shear in the cap.
199 1 6 Pg. 6-6, Fig. 6.2 CA Unclear how widening the footing will reduced the m The objective of the criteria is not to allow rocking to result Chris Unanwa As in Comment # 161 With rocking moved to Appendix, accept status quo. As in Comment #161 Yes Yes No No
Logic box µ ≤8 demand. As the footing size increases, rocking is reduced, in a drift that is larger than drift generated by a hinging
M footing stiffness increases, and the local ductility demand mechanism.
on the column will increase.
200 1 6 Pg. 6-7 Third para. CA Where is “the simplified foundation model” defined? The simplified model is defined in the 4th paragraph of Chris Unanwa Simplified foundation model defined as cited in Erroneous use of Mp instead of Mpo carried over from Sacramento Team meeting of 02/28/07 to decide on this. Yes Yes Yes No
from the bottom M Unclear why that affects the use of Mp or Mpo to design section 6.4.2. The use of Mp Vs Mpo is consistent with response. Caltrans SDC. Allow use of Mp for the simplified
the foundation. Seems as though Mpo should be used to Caltrans practice and is a reasonable way to take extra foundation model for now, pending a future revision of the
be consistent with the rest of the specifications for capacity conservatism out of the foundation design. Guidelines.
protected members.
201 1 6 Pg 6-8 MO Standard size piles are considered to have a nominal Need to include in commentary Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggested SB 02-15-07 Suggest compromise: 18" pipe piles. Yes Yes No No
dimension less than or equal to 16 inches.” Could you response to MO: Will have to leave Article as is for
provide commentary for the use of larger piles (20 and 24” now. Larger pile sizes can be expanded upon for
diameter concrete filled steel shell piles)? the first revision (2nd Edition).
202 1 6 Pg 6-9 MO 6-9 “For conforming to capacity design principles, See Modified Guidelines. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Modified 3-6-07-SB Language revised in Art. 6.4.2 to clarify intent. Yes Yes No No
the distribution of forces on these piles shall be examined Guide Specs do not seem to address the question. Directional effects on capacity protection design should be
about the X and Y axis in addition to the diagonal direction Greater clarity of language should be proposed. considered when column axis and pile footing axis are not
of the foundation cap. (Should the loading be 100% & coincident. When elastic forces control, the provisions of
30% or 100% and 100% OR 70% in both directions and Art. 4.4 are sufficient.
what loading is associated with the “diagonal direction”?)
203 1 6 Pg. 6-10 2nd para. CA Why use 50% of the ultimate capacity of the pile which is See Modified Guidelines. Chris Unanwa Comment not addressed by modification. Sacramento Team meeting of 02/28/07 to decide on this. Yes Yes No No
comprised of both skin friction and end bearing? Why not Team decided to use "50 % of ultimate axial capacity" and
just use the skin friction? "the skin friction" as alternatives for preliminary estimate of
pile tension resistance.
204 1 6 Pg 6-10 MO 6-10 Clarify “In no case shall the uplift exceed the Geotechnical consideration as specified in NCHRP12-49, Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Will consult 3-6-07-SB Information moved to C6.4.4 and reworded to Yes Yes No No
weight of material surrounding the embedded portion of see commentary of NCHRP12-49. with IL Geotechnical Engineer for an opinion. say "uplift capacity need not be taken less than the weight
the pile? of the pile (buoyancy considered)".
205 1 6 Page 6-14 FHWA/ Derrell Page 6-14 either mis-numbered or is missing See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07- OK 02-08-07- OK 2-15-07 SB Edited Yes Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
206 1 6 Sec. 6.5 Pg. 6-12 Last CA Using the 1.5 multiplier to determine the tip elevation of See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Modified. Check adequacy with the CA Team. Unresolved. To be decided at Sacto Team meeting of Sacto Team meeting of 02-28-07 modification: "A stable Yes Yes No Yes
para. M the drilled shaft is adequate for homogenous soil 02/28/07. length shall be ensured for a single column/shaft. The stable
conditions, but can be extremely conservative and costly if length shall be determined in accordance with Article
the tip elevation was controlled by a rock layer at the 10.7.3.12 of the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
bottom of the pile. Recommend using the elevation that except that a load factor of 1.0 should be applied to the
has a depth that is the lesser of 1.5 the stable length for calculated lateral loads for the foundation." ...Also portions
Vo, or the stable length for 2.0Vo. of the code moved to commentary.
207 1 6 Sec. 6.7.1 M Pg. 6-13 CA Use of the Monobe-Okabe method is much too A reduction is permitted for flexible components. See last Chris Unanwa Discuss with the CA Team. Keep status quo. OK as is. Yes Yes No No
conservative for areas of high seismicity. Caltrans does sentence of section 6.7.1.
not design for seismic earth pressures pending the results
of the ongoing NCHRP project on this subject.
208 1 6 6.7.1 2cd paragraph FHWA/ Derrell "0.4 times dead load reaction" should read 0.4 times No change is recommended. Derrell Manceaux 02/02/07 - "deadload reaction force" should read Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
contributory mass times g or force from analysis" "tributary permanent load"
209 1 6 6.8 Item b. BERGER/ Lee Is the mean magnitude information (i.e. deaggregation No. ? 3-2-07:The dependence on mean magnitude for the Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh data) available for the entire U.S. for the 1000-yr event? liquefaction assessment cut-off has been removed from the
document. Future consideration of where (what accel or
magnitude cut-off) and how liquefaction assessment is
required should be undertaken by a group of geotechnical
engineers.
210 1 6 6.8 3rd paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Define California DMG. This should also be provided in See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07-DMG has been defined, but still need to 02-12-07-Appendix D has been removed by panel-Need to 2-15-07 SB All appendices deleted per committee decision. Yes Yes No Yes
the Appendix attach appendix D delete the words "given in Appendix D and"
211 1 6 6.8 Item 2 FHWA/ Derrell Do not mention proprietary software "DESRA" This will be removed. Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07-Delete the propriatary software name Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
"DESRA"
212 1 6 Page 6-17 CA a) Second paragraph item1 should read passive pressure See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Modified as proposed OK 2-15-07 SB This change was made by author. Yes Yes No No
instead of “active pressure” b) Second paragraph item
2 should read active pressure instead of “passive pressure”
213 1 6 Page 6-19 CA Detailing of Splicing for liquefaction should cover the case See section 8.8.3 Chris Unanwa Art. 8.8.3 addresses comment OK OK by Sac Team meeting 02/28/07 Yes Yes No No
where mechanical or lap splicing can not be avoided due to
the extent of zone comprising the location of hinging in the
liquefied and non-liquefied cases
214 1 6 MO Page 6-14 is missing See Modified Guidelines Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for 2-15-07 SB Edited Yes Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
CA to administer.
216 1 7 Section 7 CA Design provisions for shear connectors between the end Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: ADDED SECTION Yes Yes No Yes
diaphragms and concrete deck shall be provided to ensure LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
the critical load path during seismic events. REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
217 1 7 7.1 Figure 7.1 BERGER/ Lee The figure seems to imply that inelastic action in both the Lian Duan / Elmer Marx 3-1-07: OK, LM. New language clarifies 02-09-07: Revise figure when these are moved to Section 3. 2-28-7: tried to clarify that not all inelastic mechanisms Yes Yes No No
Marsh superstructure and substructure is acceptable. Section 7.2 application. form at one time. Perhaps improved figures can be added in
states otherwise. Add a clarifying note the drawing. future update.
Page 11 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
218 1 7 7.2.2 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee This is one of the few places where R factors are used. Lian Duan / Elmer Marx 3-1-07: OK, LM Added language to calc elastic REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE SOMEWHAT BUT Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh However, there is no guidance regarding how to use them. forces. Future revision issue, otherwise. LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE NOT FORCE-BASED PROCEDURES NOT
Designers understand R factors today, but without the REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX EXPLICTLEY ADDRESS - ELMER
knowledge from using Div I-A, mention of a R factor
alone is not clear.
219 1 7 Pg 7-3 7th Para. CA “LRFD Design Specification for Single Angle Members” Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
is superseded by ANSI/AISC 360-05, Specification for LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
Structural Steel Buildings, March 9, 2005, American REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
220 1 7 Pg. 7-5 3rd & 4th CA AWS/AASHTO D1.5-96 Structural Bridge Welding Code Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
Para. is superseded by AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:2002 LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
Bridge Welding Code REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
221 1 7 Pg. 7-5 5th Para. CA Statement “An effective length factor K of 0.85 shall be Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
used unless a lower value can be justified by an LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
appropriate analysis” is incorrect. It is only valid for REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
compression members in braced frames. It shall be revised
to read as ““An effective length factor of compression
members in braded frames, K of 0.85 shall be used unless
a lower value can be justified by an appropriate analysis”
222 1 7 Pg 7-7 CA Table 7.1. Column 1- Row 2 “Ductility” shall read as Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
“Ductile” Row 3 - “Mn” shall read as “Mns” LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
223 1 7 Pg. 7-7 Pg. 7-12 CA Both Table 7.2 and 7.3 have same title “Limiting Width- Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
to-Thickness Ratios”. For ductile components, there are LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
two different requirements. Which one shall be followed? REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
224 1 7 Pg 7-8 CA AISC-LRFD (1993) and AISC-Seismic Provisions (1997) Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
are superseded by ANSI/AISC 360-05, Specification for LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
Structural Steel Buildings, March 9, 2005, and REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
ANSI/AISC 341, “Seismic Provision for Structural Steel
Buildings” March 9, 2005, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL., respectively. Table 6.2 shall
be updated.
225 1 7 Pg 7-10 Line 19 CA There is no publication titled as “LRFD AISC Seismic Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
Provisions for Structural Buildings 1997”. The correct LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
title shall be “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
Buildings”.
227 1 8 8.1 3rd Para. BERGER/ Lee If different permissible ductilities are retained for single No change is recommended. Permissible ductility is ? 3-1-07: OK for now. LM 02-09-07: Add a statement that a multi-column bent in its Yes Yes No No
Marsh and multi-column bents, add clarifying language regarding increased for redundancy in the bent. weak direction may still be evaluated using the multi-
the treatment of multi-column bents in their strong and column limits.
weak directions.
228 1 8 8.2 AR Es in Figure 8.2 reads 28,5000 ksi instead of 28,500 ksi. See Modified Guidelines Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: corrected. 3-6-07-SB Edited Yes Yes No No
There is an extra zero.
229 1 8 8.2 1st Para. FHWA/ Derrell Add"….and the connection force shall be carried through No change is recommended for the sake of simplifying Derrell Manceaux Delete entire paragraph and add the attached Yes No No Yes
the substructure.." design for SDC A. wording with commentary. The attached reads like
Ian Buckle's specs for SDC A.
230 1 8 Sec. 8.3.1M Pg. 8-1 CA Recommend that Dcol < Dsuperstructure Recommended addition to commentary. Chris Unanwa Addition included as commentary C8.3.1 by Sac Team MeetiYes Yes No No
231 1 8 Sec. 8.3.2 CA Design of columns for unreduced elastic forces is very No change is recommended. Chris Unanwa Discuss with Team Accept status quo Yes Yes No No
risky, particularly in shear.
232 1 8 Pg 8-3 MO Should the size of the transverse hoops and ties shall be See Modified Guidelines Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Believe the 3-6-07 SB Article 8.4.1on reinforcing steel and 8.4.2 for Yes Yes No No
equivalent to or greater than #4 rather than #3 as shown? part about tie bar size is OK now. The statement for reinforcing steel modeling edited to provide further
Clarify “Ties shall be used to provide lateral restraint to which clarification is required seems fairly clear. guidance and clarification.
intermediate longitudinal bars within the reinforced Considered resolved.
concrete cross section.” 8-2
233 1 8 8.4 Heading & 1st BERGER/ Lee The full development of displacement capacity, as referred Need clarification for the statement in the comments. Elmer Marx It appears as though this issue has been addressedin 3-1-07: OK, LM Yes Yes No No
Para. Marsh to in this section, is only used in SDC B & C as an option. the last sentence of the paragraph. 02-19-07
This should be clarified.
234 1 8 8.4.2 Overall BERGER/ Lee Consider building in some conservatism to the permissible Please refer to Task 6 Report. The criteria is based on Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Need to amplify the requirement that the 2-28-7: SEE UPDATED TABLE OF STRESS-STRAIN Yes Yes No No
Marsh ultimate strain limits. It seems that the expected ultimate specific hazard for a "No Collapse" performance. maximum permissible longitudinal reinforcement strain in VAUES.
strain is permitted to be used. Both Caltrans and the CA Conservatism for longitudinal bar strain is warranted. For ductile members is 0.06, or whatever is finally decided.
Marine Oil Terminal (MOTEMS) criteria use reduced anti-buckling low cycle fatigue conservatism for transverse Currently, this limit is easy to miss in the spec.
allowable strains. steel is not warranted unless not covered by standard
specifications of the DOT.
235 1 8 8.4.2 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell The sentence requiring A706 steel should be located in See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07-OK 02-08-07-OK 02-08-07-OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
8.4.1 since 8.4.2 is how to model steel.
236 1 8 8.4.2 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell is A706 steel required in the entire structure or only in the See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07-OK 02-08-07-OK 02-08-07-OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
hinging locations?
237 1 8 8.4.4 equation 8.7 FHWA/ Derrell The strength of 5000 psi is based on an assumed initial What is recommended?? No change is considered so far. Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07-Since many States use different concrete 02-19-07 (Elmer) - The expected concrete strength is based JQ 03-08-07: Team addressed this issue during the Sacto Yes Yes No No
concrete strength. This needs to be spelled out since all strengths, change the 5000 psi to read "or actual upon several issues. The most important are mix design meeting. Paragraph is modified as "The expected concrete
States do not use the same initial strength concrete for strength" requirements and age. Regarding mix design, in order to compressive strength, f'ce, shall be taken as the most
substructures satisfy ACI mix design requiremetns, the target concrete probable long-term concrete strength based upon regional
strengh to insure a minimum f'c is either ~2.33*standard experience and shall be taken as: f'ce > 1.3f'c"
deviation less than design "mean" or the design f'c plus
some adjustment that is usually about 1200 psi. -- this is
approximately 1.3f'c for most concretes used in CIP work.
238 1 8 8.4.4 4th Para. BERGER/ Lee Include a reference citation for Mander's model. Yes. Elmer Marx 02-09-07: I don't see this citation yet. For convenience, 02-19-07 -- added by Elmer as part of reformatting. Yes Yes No No
Marsh "Mander, J.B., M.J.N. Priestley, and R. Park, "Theoretical
Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete", Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 8, August 1988.
239 1 8 8.4.4 last paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Manders model needs to be referenced or commentary See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07-Parkinglot this issue 02-19-07: see response to item 238 and proposed language Yes Yes 03-01-07 Yes No
provided in commentary
240 1 8 8.5 last paragraph FHWA/ Derrell The over strength factor of 1.2 is to account for material No, this is the state of practice. Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07-Verify with the panel 02-19-07: seesm okay to me - need to discuss with team/ Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
uncertainties. Since the actual material properties are
required in calculating capacities, isn’t applying the over
strength factor in addition to actual properties too
conservative?
Page 12 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
241 1 8 8.5 Overall BERGER/ Lee Add a requirement that appropriate (e.g. dead/permanent) See Modified Guidelines ? 02-09-07: OK, LM Yes Yes No No
Marsh unfactored axial forces must be included in the M-f
analysis to obtain the correct capacities, and no resistance
factors should be included with this.
242 1 8 Sec. 8.6. TN/ Huff The units seem to be off in Equation 8.13 of Section 8.6. P See Modified Guidelines Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Equation does MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under Yes Yes No No
is stated to be in kips, but I believe it should either be in not look fixed to us. There are other comments review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
pounds or the factor of 2000 in the denominator should be associated with problems with the shear strength 07 SB Equation modified.
changed to 2: nc = Article as well. Will take further investigation(s).
a'(1+P/2000Ag)sqrt(f'ce)
243 1 8 Sec. 8.6 Page 8-8 Alaska/ Elmer In all locations where the concrete member capacity is No change is recommende. The notion of using expected Elmer Marx Disagree with initial response. All equations for 02-19-07: replaced f'ce with f'c which is consistant with 02-28-7: RESOLVED TO USE f'c BUT COMMENTARY Yes Yes No Yes
calculated the expected concrete strength, f'ce, is specified. property is to be associated with possible values rather than member capacity/resistance should be based upon Caltrans SDC and Priestley's text. TO ALLOW USE OF f'ce BASED ON REGIONAL
It would seem appropriate to use f'c when calculating a minimum values. the design f'c and not f'ce. Note that the expected PRACTICE AND DATA.
member capacity and f'ce when calculating a member concrete strength (f'ce) is partly due to strength gain
demand. This comment is applicable to most of Section 8 with age but is also related to concrete mix design
and parts of Section 6 requirements. That is, the average concrete strength
is required to be about 2.3 standard deviations or
1200 psi greater than the specificed design f'c. (date
2-1-7)
244 1 8 8.6.1 & 8.6.2 & 8.6.3 FHWA/ Derrell fonts not uniform See Modified Guidelines Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07-Fonts not uniform 02-12-07-Elmer fixed the equations 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No No
most equations
245 1 8 Sec. 8.6.1 CA The shear demand for column Vd SHOULD NOT be the No change is recommended. Chris Unanwa Maintain status quo 02-19-07: tend to agree, see also comments by Derrell. Yes Yes No No
force obtained from elastic analysis. It should always be DOES SDC B NEED THE SAME CONSIDERATION AS
the force corresponding to plastic hinging. SDC C AND D?
246 1 8 8.6.3 Eqn 8.25 BERGER/ Lee Suggest using an alternate term to A v for spiral sections to See Modified Guidelines ? 02-09-07: OK, LM Yes Yes No No
Marsh avoid confusion with the shear area for rectangular
sections. Perhaps Ansp since this applies to both spirals and
interlocking spirals?
247 1 8 8.6.8 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Are there any minimum overlap requirements for the Non seismic LRFD specifications are satisfactory. ? 3-1-07: Suggest adding the 0.75D max. The main LRFD Yes Yes Yes No
Marsh interlocking spirals? (e.g. max center-to-center of spirals of Consider for commentary to cover further detailing issues. does not seem to cover this condition. In the future,
0.75 dia of spiral) consider the provisions that WSDOT uses, which are based
on tests they had done in the early 1990s.
248 1 8 8.7.2 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Is the maximum axial load permitted with or without See above comment and response. ? 02-09-07: OK, LM Yes Yes No No
Marsh seismic overturning effects? Suggest without just for
simplicity.
249 1 8 8.8.3 AR In Article 8.8.3, does Sentence 2 mean that Lap Splices Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Imbsen's MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest use current 3-6-07-SB Revised language for this article and Yes Yes No No
and welded splices in rebar in SDC D are forbidden for modification does not clarify the issue. Would like CA provisions for this subject. commentary should clarify acceptable location and
use? to know the state of the practice from CA. configuration of splices.
250 1 8 8.8.4 AR Article 8.8.4 does not mention the 1.25 factor that Section 8.8.4 represents the seismic state of the practice. Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Imbsen 02-19-07: (by ELMER) The transverse joint reinforcing Yes Yes No No
increases the development length of the column Section 8.8.4 mentions that the anchorage length shall not suggests that a minimum embedment length of 24db requirements may be intended to confine and therby reduce
reinforcing into the footing or cap. This factor has been in be reduced by means of adding hooks or devices, it does is required, cannot use hooks or mechanical devices the developmet length of the longitudinal column bars in
the LRFD and LFD Specifications for a long time. Do we not say not to use them. to reduce that length. LRFD development lengths the footings and cap beams. VERIFY WITH ROY
want to be less conservative in this area? Also, why is it will in many cases be larger than this value - may IMBSEN 3-6-07-SB Agree, this
not desirable to have hooks in SDC D? need to suggest some language to clarify intent. requirement should be considered along with joint shear
ADDED COMMENTS 02-19-07: with the joint requirements of Art 8.13.
shear transverse reinforcement requirements of
Article 8.13, the reduced development length may
be appropriate
251 1 8 8.8.7 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee Does the second paragraph mean that if the ductility Yes. ? 02-09-07: OK, LM Yes Yes No No
Marsh demand is less than 4, then no special requirements are
necessary?
252 1 8 8.8.7 3rd Para. BERGER/ Lee Does the wording of this paragraph also permit the use of Yes. For ductility less than 4. Check with R.A.I ? 3-1-07: LM Agree with RAI and MM. MM to add language Yes Yes No No
Marsh spirals welded back onto themselves (with fillet welds) to permitting use of detail if proven by testing. 02-09-07: LM
facilitate the placement of steel at joints? to discuss with RAI and MM
253 1 8 8.8.8 AR Article 8.8.8 mentions ending a spiral with 1 turn as The change is in the extra tail. Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: It appears that MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest language 3-6-07-SB Revised language for this article and Yes Yes No No
opposed to the historical 1 ½ turns. Is there evidence that standard practice of 1 1/2 turns can be substituted which allows either 1 1/2 turns or method presented in commentary should clarify acceptable hoop/spiral
indicates 1 ½ turns was too conservative? with 1 turn and an embedded tail. Maybe there is Guide Spec. at the designer's discretion. termination design procedure.
evidence to support that this method is more
effective. Advice from CA?
254 1 8 8.8.8 last paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Two paragraphs in this section require different amounts Reinforcement type is the same. Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07-OK 02-08-07-OK 02-08-07-OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
of steel outside the plastic hinge. The first says50% and the
second states "same amount". This is conflicting
255 1 8 8.8.9 all FHWA/ Derrell Since plastic hinging can also occur with SDC B, No change is recommended. Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07, Add "SDC B" to the requirements 02-19-07: Derrerll brings up this issue several times. No No Yes Yes
maximum spacing requirements should also apply Essnetially, because SDC B is designed to form a hings, it
would seem reasonable to provide ductile details in SDC B
as well as those specified in SDC C and D. DR. IMNSEM
AND THE TEAM WILL NEED TO DISCUSS THIS AT
THE NEXT TELECONFERENCE.
256 1 8 8.8.10 all FHWA/ Derrell Add to last sentence "…for SDC C & D, respectively" No change is recommended. Derrell Manceaux 02-08-07Add to last sentence "…for SDC C & D, 02-19-07: (from Elmer) the intent is that half of the column Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
respectively" bars be extended 2DC into the shaft and the other half
continue down to 3DC into shaft. This prevents all of the
longitudinal steel from being terminated at one location
resulting in a abrupt stiffness/strength change.
257 1 8 Sec. 8.9 Page 8-17 Alaska/ Elmer For members that are designed to remain essentially No change is recommended. Average strain of 0.005 is Elmer Marx Subsequent changes and clarification have been 02-28-07: Mne LIMITED TO CONCRETE STRAIN OF Yes Yes No No
elastic, it does not appear to be appropriate to design for a recommended for seismic application, .003 is valid for non- made since the original response to this comment. 0.003
concrete strain of 0.005 (spalling strain limit) and esu seismic service load design application. See also response to comment number 442. (date 2-
(ultimate tensile steel strain limit) as defined in Article 8.4 1-7)
-- as both of these limits are beyond an elastic limit.
Perhaps a concrete strain of 0.002 and a steel strain less
than the tensile yield strain would be more appropriate.
258 1 8 8.10 AR Article 8.10 says “The column over strength moment.... See Modified Guidelines Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Modification 02-19-07: (by ELMER) suggest replacing "left and righjt" Yes Yes No No
shall be distributed to the left and right spans of the still unclear. Editorial suggestion forthcoming. with "spans framing into the joint"
superstructure”. Are these left and right spans the spans to
the left and right of the bent that is transferring seismic
load or the end spans? Please explain further
Page 13 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
259 1 8 8.12 ? Section 8.12. The second sentence states “The minimum See Modified Guidelines ? 02-19-07: see revised article Yes Yes No No
lateral transfer mechanism at the
superstructure/substructure interface shall be established
using an acceleration of 0.4g in addition to the over
strength capacity of shear keys or the elastic seismic force
whichever is smaller.” What is the intent here?
(i) 0.4 times the
reaction plus the minimum of (a) the key capacity and (b)
the elastic force or
(ii) the minimum of (a) 0.4 times the reaction plus the key
capacity and (b) the elastic force.
260 1 8 8.13 Figure 8.7 & 8.8 FHWA/ Derrell Clarity of text is not sufficient, larger fonts needed on Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 I updated the figures and have them on the 02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.13 … Placing Yes No No No
& 8.9, 8.11 some text attached file a REDUCED figure in commentary made Fonts far too
small-03-01-07
261 1 8 Sec. 8.13.4.2 CA The joint shear reinforcement may be provided in the form See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa 02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.13 … JQ 03- Yes Yes No No
of column transverse steel or exterior transverse 02-07: See revised Article 8.13.3
reinforcement. Need to add “exterior transverse
reinforcement.
262 1 8 Sec. 8.13.4.2 CA Need to make reference to the additional reinforcement not See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Modified 02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.13 Yes Yes No No
required for SDC C
263 1 8 Sec. 8.13.4.2 Page 8- Alaska/ Elmer Recent publications [Sri Sritharan, J. Struct. Engrg., No change is recommended. Elmer Marx Disagree with initial response. Change the "3.5" in 02-28-7: LEAVE AS 3.5 BUT USE f'c INSTEAD OF f'ce. Yes Yes No No
24 Volume 131, Issue 9, pp. 1334-1344 (September 2005)] Article 8.13.4.2 to "3.0." Add the following the
indicate that the principal tension stress, pt, should be limit commentary: "Research performed by Sri et. al.
to 3.0*sqrt(f'c) as opposed to the 3.5*sqrt(f'ce) provided in (2005) indicates that the principal tension limit
the proposed specifications. should be revised to 3.0*SQRT(f'c). Also note that
units for f'c should be in KSI so that the "3.0"
should actually be "0.1" in the referenced equation.
(date 2-1-7)
264 1 8 8.16.1 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee It is not clear what 'not designed as capacity protected See Modified Guidelines as shown between parenthesis. ? 02-09-07: OK, LM Yes Yes No No
Marsh members' means. I think this means if plastic hinging is
expected. Perhaps reword this as such. I presume that this
section also covers pile bents (i.e. pile extensions) where
plastic hinging would be expected at the top of the pile and
potentially in-ground.
265 1 8 Figure 8.9 CA There in no mention in the text where the extra 12” width See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa 02-19-07: (by ELMER) appears as though this issue has Yes Yes No No
is required. been addressed in Article 8.13.4.2. Chris U./CA:
Addressed in Art. 8.13.4.1.
266 1 8 Page 8-26 CA Paragraph D: J dowels are only required for integral caps. See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa JQ 03-02-07: Article now located under "Integral Bent Cap Yes Yes No No
Joint Shear Design"; sentence modified to "For integral
caps of bents…."
267 1 General General CA There is no a list of “References” See Modified Guidelines Chris Unanwa Modified Guidelines contain a list of References OK OK Yes Yes No Yes
268 1 General Appendix C AR Appendix C is called "Guidelines for Modeling of See Modified Guidelines Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: The suggested MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Appendices Removed Yes Yes Yes Yes
Footings". A more appropriate name might be “Guidelines change has been made. What is our role in from Guide Spec. Guide Specs reference other documents
for Modeling of Footings and Piles". reviewing the appendices? as required.
269 1 General Appendix C AR Appendix C has the same spring constant graphs for Include in Commentary. Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Parking lot MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Appendices Removed Yes Yes Yes Yes
translation of piles in the longitudinal and transverse issue? from Guide Spec. Guide Specs reference other documents
directions that have been previously used. A discussion on as required.
their use and/or an example would be beneficial.
270 1 General Appendix D AR Appendix Art. D.2.3: The USGS web address for finding Tobias / Brandenberger MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Similar to AR MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Appendices Removed Yes Yes Yes Yes
earthquake magnitude is outdated. It is not obvious what comment above. See what happens with Mw from Guide Spec. Guide Specs reference other documents
distribution is being discussed, or what map to use for discussion. Could go into the parking lot. as required.
earthquake magnitude.
301 2 1 1.2.1 Page 1-4 WA Revise fifth bullet "Jerry Weigel" to "Jugesh Kapur" Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Revise. Jerry is retired. 3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec. Yes Yes No No
302 2 1 1.2.2 Page 1-6 WA First bullet under Ground Motion Tool seems incomplete. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Delete the incomplete sentence." The peak 3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec. Yes Yes No No
ground acceleration, PGA,"
303 2 1 Fig. 1.3A Page 1-8 WA Article for Determine Seat Width should be 4.12 (Two Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Roy and Elmer will revise Flow Charts. 3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec. Yes Yes No No
places)
304 2 1 Fig. 1.3A to 1.3G AK The flow charts were very helpful up to the point where Elmer Marx AGREE. AM WORKING ON REVISED FLOW 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
displacement demand and capacity are compared. After CHART THAT BETTER AGREES WITH THE
that, they lose focus and are not very helpful at all. For GENERAL SDC FLOW CHART OF FIGURE
example, no flow chart reference is given for capacity 3.5.1. WILL PROVIDE TO TEAM ASPA
design or detailing in SDC C. PERHAPS BEFORE 2-8-7 MEETING (date 2-1-7)
305 2 1 Fig. 1.3A to 1.3G AK Please provide more descriptive flow chart titles. Elmer Marx SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS - 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
306 2 1 Fig. 1.3B AK In the flow chart cells for “Demand Analysis” and Elmer Marx SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS - 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
“Implicit Capacity”, please provide reference to the TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
relevant flow chart showing those processes.
307 2 1 Fig. 1.3B Page 1-9 & WA These flowcharts do not provide the path to determine the Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Roy and Elmer will revise Flow Charts. 3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec. Yes Yes No No
Figure 1.3C Page 1-10 Displacement Capacity using Pushover Capacity Analysis
as described in Article 4.8.1 2nd bullet, page 4-13. and
Figure 1.3D.
308 2 1 Fig. 1.3C AK The bottom three flow chart cells in this figure don’t fit Elmer Marx SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS - 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
with the subject matter of the rest of the flow chart. It TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
looks like it would fit better in Figure 1.3F or G.
309 2 1 Fig. 1.3D AK Shouldn’t “Foundation Investigation” come earlier in the Elmer Marx SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS - 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
process? TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
310 2 1 Fig. 1.3D AK Recommend directing SDC C designs to proceed to Elmer Marx SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS - 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
Figures 1.3F and 1.3G for capacity design and detailing TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
from this flow chart.
311 2 1 Fig. 1.3F AK No reference is made in this flow chart to the Column Elmer Marx SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS - 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
Shear Requirements of Article 8.6. TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
312 2 1 Fig. 1.3F and 1.3G AK The difference between structure Types 1 - 3 is only Elmer Marx SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS - 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
described in Section 7. Please provide a description of the TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
structure types in the general requirements.
313 2 2 General WA Include Article numbers that symbols and definitions cited. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Will include article numbers after all 3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec. Yes Yes No No
revision completed.
Page 14 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
314 2 2 2.1 all AK In the LRFD format, relevant notation is given at the Elmer Marx Agreed. Suggest that each Section be order in JQ 02-22-07: Per Dan's discussion with M&M, for this Yes Yes No No
beginning of each section. manner similar to the AASHTO LRFD. For revision, OK to leave in current format. May be addressed
example: 8.1 Scope, 8.2 Definitions, 8.2 Notations, in future revision.
8.3 Material Properties, 8.4 Seismic Design
Catagories, etc. PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF WORK
WILL BE ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date 2-1-7)
315 2 2 2.1 all AK Reference is usually given to where notation appears in the Elmer Marx Agreed. Indicate the applicable articles at the end of 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
section. each notation in the same manner as the AASHTO
LRFD specifications. PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF
WORK WILL BE ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date
2-1-7)
316 2 2 2.1 AK There is no definition for the term fyt used in Section 8.6.2, Elmer Marx Agreed. Based upon Article 8.6.3, fyt should be 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
or it has possibly been incorrectly labeled as fyh. changed to fyh. (date 2-1-7)
317 2 2 Page 2-3 WA Fa : Revise Table "3.3.3A" to "3.4.2.3-1". Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. 3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec. Yes Yes No No
318 2 2 Page 2-3 WA Fv : Revise Table "3.3.3B" to "3.4.2.3-2". Add "parameter Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree 3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec. Yes Yes No No
S1" at end of sentence.
319 2 2 Page 2-3 WA Ip.g. : Revise "Equation 6-8" to "Equation 6-8" Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Revise "Equation 6-3" to "Equation 6-8" 3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec. Yes Yes No No
320 2 2 Page 2-5 WA S1: Revise "Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3" to "Articles 3.4.1 Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Also change "Sections" to 3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec. Yes Yes No No
and 3.4.2" "Articles"
321 2 2 Page 2-5 WA Ss: Revise "Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3" to "Articles 3.4.1 Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Also change "Sections" to 3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec. Yes Yes No No
and 3.4.2" "Articles"
322 2 3 C.3.2 Page 3-1 WA 3rd paragraph. "Table C3.2-1" is not exist. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Include Table C3.2-1 (ATC 49). See JQ 02-22-07: Include attached figure or delete paragraph Yes Yes No No
attached File: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc Table C3.2.1 compleletly as suggested in Item #605? … JQ 02-27-07:
Delete reference to this table.
323 2 3 3.3 AK The use of passive abutment resistance as a resisting Elmer Marx Agreed. Add the 100% passive abutment soil JQ 02-26-07: Modified as proposed. Yes Yes No No
element appears to be reversed between Figures 3.3.1b and resistance to "Owner's Approval" and the 70%
3.3.2. The Owner’s permission should be required to use resistance to "Permissible." (date 2-1-7)
100% of the passive strength as indicated in Figure 3.3.1b,
not 70% as indicated in Figure 3.3.2.
324 2 3 3.3, 5.2.3.1 and AK Except deep in the commentary for section C3.3, nowhere Elmer Marx On page 3-10 of the commentary to Article 3.3, JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
5.2.3.2 is it explicitly stated that counting on passive abutment change the sentence that reads "In the second
resistance is only allowable in bridges designed to SDC D. alternative the abutments are an important part of
The text of the specifications appear to infer that this is the ERS and, in this case, a higher level of analysis
case, but the designer is left to guess the intent. is required (SDC)." to "In the second alternative the
abutments are an important part of the ERS and, in
this case, a higher level of analysis is required ."
The proposed change appears to support the text of
Articles 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2. THIS CHANGE
SHOULD BE VERIFIED WITH ROY IMBSEN
AND PERHAPS CALTRANS. BASED UPON
THE COMMENTARY, IF THE ABUTMENT
SOIL RESISTANCE IS USED IN THE ANALSYS
325 2 3 Figure 3.3, Page 3.3.3 WA Delete extra horizontal lines. Chyuan-Shen Lee THE SYSTEM
02/06/07 IS TO BE TREATED AS SDC D.
Modified. Yes Yes No No
326 2 3 Figure C3.3-2 Page 3- WA Figure 3, Revise "Section 7.9.6" to "Article 7.4.6" Chyuan-Shen Lee (date 2-1-7)
02/06/07 Revise Figure No. 3 as follow: "Ductile JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
7 End-diaphragms in superstructure (Article 7.4.6)
327 2 3 Figure C3.3-2, Page 3- WA Delete extra verticle and horizontal lines. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Modified. Yes Yes No No
4
328 2 3 C.3.3 Page 3-8 WA Commentary 2nd paragraph "Part 1 Specifications"? Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Revise the 2nd paragraph as "The other JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Chyuan-Shen Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
Revise "Article 4.7" to "Article 4.3.3" key premise of the Part I Specifications provisions 3/1/07: This article has been revised.
is that ... " Near end of 2nd, revise "Article 4.7" to
"Article 4.3.3"
329 2 3 3.4.1 Page 3-11 WA End of Number 1. Add" 0.4SDS is Peak Ground Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 No. PGA Maps are inculded (Figure Yes Yes No No
Acceleration (PGA) at the ground surface for the site." 3.4.1-2a & Figure 3.4.1-2b).
330 2 3 3.4.2 WA/ Tony Notes below Table 3.4.2-1, definition of NCH – “Average Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I recommend that the word "and" in this definition be JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
Allen standard and penetration resistance” does not make sense. deleted.
Do you mean “average standard penetration resistance”?
331 2 3 3.4.2 all AK Please provide direction in this Article on making a Site Elmer Marx At this time I would recommend to remove the last JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
Class determination when site conditions vary greatly paragraph of C3.4.2 on page 3-16 and add the
between substructure units. For example, our trial design following text to Article 3.4.2. "If geological
bridge is founded on steeply sloping bedrock, resulting on conditions at the abutments and intermediate piers
one pier being on bedrock and the next pier on a dense soil result in different soil classification, then the design
layer ~20 feet thick over the bedrock. We assumed that response spectra may be determined based upon the
the most severe Site Class would control, but would prefer site-specific procedures outlined in Article 3.4.3. In
explicit direction. Lieu of the site-specific procedures and under
guidance from the geotechnical engineer, the design
response spectra may be determined as the envelope
of the individual response spectra at each support."
THIS CHANGE SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY
332 2 3 C.3.4.2.2 Page 3-21 WA 2nd paragraph, Need "Appendix" ? Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07
ROY IMBSEN.Adopt Appendix C in ATC 49 “Guidelines
(date 2-2-7) JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
for Conduction of Site-Specific Geotechnical
Investigations and Dynamic Site Response
Analyses”
333 2 3 3.4.2.3 Page 3-18 WA Delete ":" at Table 3.4.2.3-1 and 3.4.2.3-1 Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
334 2 3 3.4.3 WA/ Tony Section 3.4.3, 3rd paragraph – This paragraph requires a Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this Yes Yes Yes Yes
Allen site specific nonlinear analysis if the bridge is located issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input
within 6 miles of an active fault. First, what is defined as and supporting evidence can be obtained.
active? Second, what if the active fault is not very big? Is
there some minimum fault size required for this issue to
really be a concern? The problem is the word “shall” here.
335 2 3 C.3.4.3 Page 3-21 WA 2nd paragraph, Need "Appendix" ? Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Include ATC 49 Appendix C "Guidelines JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
for conduction site-specific geotechnical
investigtions and dynamic site response analyis".
336 2 3 C.3.4.5 Page 3-26 WA Need to fill Tables X.X and X.X. Chyuan-Shen Lee JQ 02-22-07: Article C3.4.5 deleted. Yes 02-22-07 JQ Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
337 2 3 C.3.5 Page 3-26 WA 2nd paragraph, Delete "are" Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - The Seismic Design Category reflects the JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
variation in seismic risk across the country and are
is used to permit different requirements for methods
of analysis, minimum support lengths, column
design details, and foundation and abutment design
procedures.
Page 15 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
338 2 3 3.5 WA/ Jugesh Seismic Design Category is based on the seismic hazard Chyuan-Shen Lee Site Coefficients are determined from the ground JQ 02-27-07: Washington exception Yes Yes No Yes
Kapur level and is determined by the 1.0 second period spectral motion records and adopted from NEHRP projects.
response acceleration (Fig. 3.4.1-3) and Site Coefficient Guide specifications are minimum requirements.
Table 3.4.2.3.2 (page 3-18). It appears that the Site Class Owner can adopt higher analysis method and
carries too much weight for determining SDC. A bridge detailing class.
situated in a low acceleration area with soft soil will be
analyzed and detailed more stringently than a bridge with
high acceleration and good soil. A bridge that was in
seismic design category D in Washington per Division 1A
of the Std. AASHTO specs is now resulting in category B
with lower detailing requirements. This is change that we
question.
339 2 3 3.5 Page 3-21 WA Delete ":" at Table 3.5.1 Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
340 2 3 3.7 AK The first sentence of this Article appears to be incomplete. Elmer Marx Delete the text of this article and its commentary in JQ 02-22-07: Modified document per suggested solution. Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
Is it supposed to read “Use the Extreme Event…” or their entirety and replace it with the following: "Use
something similar? the load factors associated with the Extreme Event I
load combination specified in the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. When calculating
earthquake induced demands use unfactored dead
loads. " And add the following commentary: "The
load factors for dead load may be considered as an
approximate means of addressing possible vertical
ground acceleration as well as uncertainty in the
dead load predictions (Priestly et. al. 1996).
Historically the load factor for live load has been
taken as zero for the earthquake load combination
except where heavy truck traffic, high ADT or long
341 2 3 3.7 AK The second and third sentences of this Article are a bit Elmer Marx See response
structure to comment
length number 340.
are anticipated." (date (date
2-1-7)2-1-7) JQ 02-22-07: Modified document per suggested solution. Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
confusing. Could the first three sentences of this Article
be condensed into one, e.g.: “Calculate loads and
displacement using the Extreme Event I load case of the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications, with gp = 1”?
342 2 3 3.7 AK The wording of the last sentence on page 3-24, beginning Elmer Marx See response to comment number 340. (date 2-1-7) JQ 02-22-07: Modified document per suggested solution. Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
“Only the gravity effects of live load…” is a bit odd and
confusing.
343 2 3 3.7 AK The solitary sentence on the specifications side of page 3- Elmer Marx See response to comment number 340. (date 2-1-7) JQ 02-22-07: Modified document per suggested solution. Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
25, beginning “The gp for the dead load…” contradicts the
rest of the section (use gp = 1).
344 2 4 4.1.1 Eqns. 4.1b and AK It is unusual to specify a minimum and then recommend a Elmer Marx No change required. The intent of the specification EM 02-19-07: okay ... Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article 4.1.1 are Yes Yes No No
4.2 b higher minimum. Perhaps Equation 2 belongs in the is that the maximum variation between "any two" recommendations for SDC D for balanced stiffnesses, not
commentary. elements satisfy equations 4.1a and 4.1b and that requirements. What is now Table 4.2.1 are considerations
the maximum variation between "two adjacent" for if a bridge is "regular" and have been in the Code for
elemets satisfy equations 4.2a and 4.2b. (date 2-1-7) quite some time. Articles 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 are really apples
and oranges. So, while not optimal as it is presented in the
Gude Specs, it will be left as is.
345 2 4 C4.1.2 AK This commentary does not relate to the section. Elmer Marx There appear to be two C4.1.2 articles. The first Dan/IL 2/19/07: Second commentary deleted. Yes Yes No No
appears to compliment Article 4.1.2 as intended but
the other is entitled "Minimum Seat Width."
Rename the "Minimum Seat Width" commentary to
"C4.12 Minimum Seat Length" and move to page 4-
22. (date 2-1-7)
346 2 4 4.2 Page 4-5 WA Revise "The changes in these parameters should …" to Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - Add "for SDC D " in Article 4.2 as Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed…..very good catch….. Yes Yes No No
"The changes in these parameters for SDC D should ….." shown. The changes in these parameters for SDC D
should be within the tolerances given by Equations
4.1 and 4.2 from span-to-span or from support-to-
support (abutments excluded).
347 2 4 4.2 Page 4-5 WA "repaired" at the last sentence should be "required". Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - revise as shown. Procedure 3 is Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed Yes Yes No No
generally not repaired required unless requested by
the Owner under Section 4.2.2.
348 2 4 C4.2 Page 4.5 WA 3rd paragraph "Article 6.3" should be "Article 4.6" Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - In areas of low seismicity, only Dan/IL 2/19/07: Comment now outdated. Yes Yes No No
minimum seat widths (Article 6.3 4.6),
349 2 4 C4.2 Page 4.6 WA Article X.X Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Article 4.7.2. Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed Yes Yes No No
350 2 4 Figure 4.2 AK There is no mention of the longitudinal response of non- Elmer Marx Agree. Remove the "2" and replace it with "L" to Dan/IL 2/19/07: Don't disagree with the "fix" except that it Yes Yes No No
integral bridges. Perhaps Figure (a) could be generalized the Vpo equations shown in Figures 4.2a and 4.2b is inconsistent with the drawing BC's. Better to be
by changing the equation for Vpo to (L*Mpo)/Lc. to be consistant with other parts of the guide consistent with drawing in this case, so caption was
specifications such as equation 4.7. (date 2-1-7) qualified with "non-integral abutments".
351 2 4 Figure 4.2 AK The figure titles should be generalized as the responses Elmer Marx Agreed. Suggest that the word "bridge" be changed Dan/IL 2/19/07: Concrete verbaige deleted, pier added. Yes Yes No No
shown apply to steel bridges as well as concrete bridges. to "pier." Also suggest that the dimension Lc be These figures could be better. Will examine again 3/2/07 to
changed to dimension the distance between the 3/9/07….May have to live with them.
center of the plastic hinge zones rather than the
exterme dimension of the column. (date 2-1-7)
352 2 4 Table 4.1 AK When is Procedure 3 used? It doesn’t appear in the table. Elmer Marx Although this issue appears to have been addressed Dan/IL 2/19/07: Yes, required is fixed…..Other than that, Yes Yes No No
in the most recent version of the guide Say Done….
specifications, the word "repaired" should probably
be replaced with the word "required" in the last
sentence of Article 4.2. (date 2-1-7)
353 2 4 4.3.3 Page 4-9 WA The paragraph below Table 4.3. Revise "designer's" to Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - The soil site class should be determined Dan/IL 2/19/07: Searched for verbiage…not found…I think Yes Yes No No
"design" by the final designer’s design geotechnical engineer this is in Section 3 and should be fixed there. Chyuan-Shen
3/1/07: Article 4.3.3 has been revised.
354 2 4 C 4.3 Page 4-7 WA 2nd paragraph, Articles X.X and X.X. Chyuan-Shen Lee fixed. Yes Yes No No
355 2 4 C 4.3 Page 4-8 WA The last two paragraphs seems for other articles. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Articles 8.5 and 8.6. Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
356 2 4 C.4.4 Page 4-9 WA 1st paragraph indicates there are "three" aspects. However, Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Move these two paragraphs to the Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
only two are mentioned. beginning of C4.2.
Page 16 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
357 2 4 C.4.4 Page 4-9 WA The last sentence seems contradict the spec. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 This commentary is adopted from ATC 49 Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
C3.6. Since guide spec. use 100%-30% combination
rule for the displacement demand. The second and
third aspects in ATC 49 C3.6 are mute.
Recommend change "three aspects" to "two
aspects" and delete the sentences after "The SRSS
rule ....." entirely.
358 2 4 4.6 FHWA/ Derrell What is the basis for .2DL? Existing LRFD derives this Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07- No resolution for this item DM 02-20-07: Need commentary to explain basis of .2 Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to Yes No Yes No
term by using the platueof the spectrum times max ground be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
acc for Zone 1 If the pier is the only restraint in long
direction, this equation gives force=600 k. However, since
pier is carrying much more mass, the true force is 914k
(with .2). If the structure is very stiff, this force could be
1416k if the period is at the plateau of the response
spectrum. THe design force must then be carried by the
substructure since the connection can transfer this force.
359 2 4 4.6 FHWA/ Derrell If the connections can carry the design forces, plastic Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-Resolved if the 2 level SDC A comments Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to Yes Yes No No
hinging can occur in a SDC A structure. No details are are accepted be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
provided for this non linear behavior
360 2 4 4.6 & 8.7.1 FHWA/ Derrell Lateral design forces for SDC B is 0.1DL but it is 0.2DL Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-Need to discuss this with panel Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to Yes Yes No No
for SDC A. I am not clear if this is an error orhow to be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
explain this discrepancy
361 2 4 4.7.2 WA/ Jugesh Article 4.7.2 (page 4-11) states that bridges in Seismic Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 -Agree. There is no room in the bottom Jugesh Kapur concurred. 2/7/07. ......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Suggested editing/modification from Yes Yes No Yes
Kapur Design Category D located within 6 miles of a fault shall flange of prestressed girder for additional mild WA used to revise this Article. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 Team
have at least 25% of the longitudinal top and bottom mild reinforcement. WSDOT Wide Flange Girders allow discussed in Sacramento. See modified guide spec.
reinforcement continuous over the length of the bridge a total of 70 0.6" diameter prestress strands. 15% of
superstructure to account for the effects of vertical ground equivalent mild reinforcement will require #6 @ 5".
motions. For precast prestressed girders, a min. of 25% of Recommend use CALTRANS SDC 7.2.2, designs
the total equivalent mild and prestressing steel shall be in for 25% dead applied uniformly applied upward and
the form of continuous mild reinforcement. Does this downward. See File: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc
include harped strands? For large girders that often have Article 4.7.2
more than 50, 0.6” dia. strands, this would be a hard
requirement to satisfy as there is no room in the flange for
additional mild reinforcement.
362 2 4 4.8 Page 4-12 WA Last paragraph of this Article. Revise "are1" to "are". Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - The formulas presented below are1 are Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed. Yes Yes No No
used to obtain for SDC B and C. These formulas
are not intended for use with configuration of bents
with struts at mid-height.
363 2 4 4.8.1 AK The layout of the text describing variable Λ is disjointed Elmer Marx Agree. Remove the "a." that procedes the definition Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No Yes
and confusing. of "L = 2 for fixed top and bottom." (date 2-1-7) proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
364 2 4 C4.8 CA There are two commentary sections labeled as C4.8. Chris Unanwa Cleaned up. OK Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No No
Typos in the 3rd paragraph "SDCAP", and "SPC". Delta proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
symbol in 1st paragraph of second section is not visible. anticipated for resolution.
365 2 4 C4.8 Page 4-12 WA Revise "SDCAP B" to "SDC B" Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - Full capacity protection of the Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No No
geotechnical features of the foundation in SDCAP B proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
is not required. anticipated for resolution. Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Article
modified.
366 2 4 4.8.2 Page 4-14 WA Top of page "for SDC C one span ", why one span? Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Delete "one span". Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No No
proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
anticipated for resolution.Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Fixed.
367 2 4 4.8 CA Typo in 5th paragraph - "1" after "are" Chris Unanwa Cleaned up. OK Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No No
proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
368 2 4 4.8 WA/ Jugesh Article 4.8 (page 4-12): The end fixed conditions for Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07. Use the shortest distance between Yes Yes No No
Kapur implicit capacity equations only considered two cases the point of maximum moment and point of contra-flexure
(fixed-free and fixed-fixed) and mentioned that for a as clear height of column and 1.0 for end restraint factor.
partially fixed connection on one end, interpolation
between 1 and 2 is permitted. Some guidance needs to be
given for other conditions especially for those users
utilizing soil springs in seismic models
369 2 4 Pgs 4-13 to 4-17 CA Code column and commentary column appears to be Chris Unanwa Cleaned up. OK Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed. Yes Yes No No
switched. Need to check the pages before and after this
section for continuity and readablility.
370 2 4 4.9 WA/ Jugesh Article 4.9: (page 4-12). Our office uses soil springs to Chyuan-Shen Lee Will discuss with other states. JQ 03-07-07: WA will provide more guidance to designers Yes Yes No No
Kapur take into account the effect of soil-structure interaction. regarding this issue in their BDM.
Computer programs such as GTSTRUDL and SAP2000
are used to perform multi-mode spectral analysis.
Guidance is needed to obtain the elastic displacement since
the model node point may not coincidence with the point
of contra flexure.
371 2 4 4.11.1 Page 4-15 WA Bullet b. Revise "Article 7.4.9 " to "Article 7.4.6 " Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed. Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Article Yes Yes No No
modified.
372 2 4 C4.11 Page 4-16 WA Article X.Xs Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Recommend Add "FOR SDC C AND D" Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
to the title. Delete the paragraphs between C4.11
and C4.11.1. These paragraphs are included in
C4.11.1. Delete “Actions” in C4.11.1 Title. Fill the
X.X as follows: “Article 3.3; Article 7.8; Article
7.4.6”.
Page 17 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
373 2 4 4.11.2 AK Refer to the relevant sections of Sections 7 and 8 for the Elmer Marx Agree. Remove the bulleted items. Replace the last Dan/IL 2/19/07: Did not delete formulae and bullets. Added Yes Yes No No
definitions of Mpo instead of redefining them here. sentence of the second paragraph with "Except for "or by using the applicable provisions of Sections 7 and 8."
the geotechnical aspects for the design of For Section 7, the provisions look very involved. This
foundations, the overstrength plastic moment article provides a simple option for steel to the designer, so
capacity (Mpo) of the column, pier, or pile members it was left in.
shall be taken as that specified in Section 7 for steel
elements and of Section 8 for reinforced concrete
elements." (date 2-1-7)
374 2 4 4.11.2 Page 4-16 WA at top of page. Should "the moment overstrength capacity Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Revise as follows: "Except for the Dan/IL 2/19/07: This is splitting hairs. Chyuan-Shen: Yes Yes No No
(Mpo)" read as "the overstrength plastic moment capacity geotechnical aspects for design of foundations, the 3/1/07 OK.
(Mpo)"? moment overstrength plastic moment capacity
(Mpo) of column/pier/pile members that form part
of the primary mechanism resisting seismic loads
shall be assessed as follows:"
375 2 4 C4.11.2 Page 4-17 WA Is this commentary contrdict with Article 8.5? Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 No. This is an alternate method to obtain Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
the overstrength plastic moment capacity.
However, ATC-32 uses 1.7 fc' for concrete and 1.25
fy for steel. Recommend adopting ATC-32, 1996.
376 2 4 4.11.5 AK Define Mp, Mn and DD used in Equations 4.9 through 4.11. Elmer Marx Agree. Although the notation is provided in Section Dan/IL 2/19/07: I believe the reformatting addressed these Yes Yes No No
2, they should be listed under the "where" in the concerns. It was pretty "messy" before.
same manner as the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications. PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF
WORK WILL BE ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date
2-1-7)
377 2 4 4.11.5 AK As has been done for the values of Dr for single pile caps Elmer Marx Dan/IL 2/19/07: I believe the reformatting addressed these Yes Yes No No
and pile caps in Site Class E, describe the use of the first concerns. It was pretty "messy" before.
value of Dr after Equation 4.9, e.g.: “For the transverse
response of multi-column bents:”
378 2 4 4.11.5 Page 4-20 WA Equation 4-11, Recommend using lowercase "f" instead of Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Dan/IL 2/19/07: I believe the reformatting addressed these Yes Yes No No
uppercase"F" as defined in Section 2. concerns. It was pretty "messy" before.
379 2 4 4.12.1 WA/ Jugesh Error in Eqs. 4.15 a 4.16 (page 4-22 & 23). (1+SK2 Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - Ok. Modified. MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes No Yes
4.12.2 Kapur )/4000 should be 1+ (SK 2/4000)? consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
consistent with LRFD Code Ballot. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07
Team discussed in Sacramento. See modified guide spec.
380 2 4 Figure 1.3.A FHWA/ Derrell Reference for seat width for SDC A should be 4.12.1, not Derrell Manceaux 02-06-07-Reference for seat width for SDC A MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
4.8.1 should be 4.12.1, not 4.8.1 consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
381 2 5 5.1.2 3rd and 4th AK These paragraphs sound more like commentary than Elmer Marx Agree. Suggest moving the third and fourth Dan/IL 2/20/07: Whole section sort of reads like a Yes Yes No No
Para. specifications. paragraphs to the commentary. (date 2-1-7) commentary. A lot of "mays"….At this point, just let it
go……Also, two "shalls" changed to "shoulds" in
commentary……..
382 2 5 5.2.2 last sentence AK This sentence sounds more like commentary than Elmer Marx Agree. Suggest moving the tlast sentence of the last Dan/IL 2/20/07: Sentence moved to commentary. Yes Yes No No
specification. paragraph to the commentary. (date 2-1-7)
383 2 5 5.2.3 1st Para. AK The text of this section sounds more like commentary than Elmer Marx Agree. Suggest moving the first paragraph to the Dan/IL 2/20/07: Yes it reads like commentary, but moving Yes Yes No No
specifications commentary. (date 2-1-7) it would be awkward and clunky…..May go back a revisit
given time.
384 2 5 5.2.3.1 AK Please explicitly state whether or not the use of passive Elmer Marx THIS COMMENT AND COMMENT NUMBER Dan/IL 2/20/07: Commentary added which reads: "The Yes Yes No No
abutment stiffness is allowed in SDC B and C, as this 324 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY ROY provisions of Article 5.2.3.2 may be used for the design of
section seems only to infer that it is not. IMBSEN. In lieu of formal response, suggest that abutments for bridges in SDC B or C."…..there is no
passive soil resistance not be utilized when using logical reason a designer should not be allowed to do this.
the implicit displacement capacity equations 4.7a
and 4.7b. (date 2-1-7)
385 2 5 5.2.4.1 3rd Para. AK The commas in the first sentence of the paragraph are Elmer Marx Agree. Remove all commas from the text in this Dan/IL 2/20/07: This sentence moved to commentary and Yes Yes No No
unnecessary. article. (date 2-1-7) now reads: "For bridges in these categories, elastic
resistance may be achievable."
386 2 5 Table 5.1 Page 5-1 WA Please clarify Modeling Method II "50% of SDC B Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Recommend revise as 12-49 Table 5.3.4- Dan/IL 2/20/07: Replaced for spread footing and footings Yes Yes No No
allowable drift". Determined by equation. 4.7a, Article 1: "For other soil types, foundation springs required with piles as per suggestion. Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: fixed.
4.8.1 or others? if footing flexibility contributes more than 20% to
pier displacement."
387 2 5 5.4.2 Page 5-14 WA 2nd paragraph. "The horizontal force …..in proportion to Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - The horizontal force shall be applied at Dan/IL 2/20/07: This was completely revised because the Yes Yes No No
the mass distributed." Should force distributed in the vertical center of mass of the superstructure and writing was poor.
proportion to the stiffness? distributed horizontally in proportion to the mass
stiffness distribution.
388 2 5 5.6.2 last Para AK “Pier wall” in the first sentence of this paragraph should be Elmer Marx Agree. Repalce "pier wall" with "pier walls." (date Dan/IL 2/20/07: Fixed. Yes Yes No No
pluralized. 2-1-7)
389 2 5 Figure 5.5 Page 5-21 WA Add [x] reference number Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 See item number 542. Dan/IL 2/20/07: [x] deleted. Will add reference if time Yes Yes No No
permits.
390 2 6 6.2 WA/ Tony Section 6.2 – This section should refer to Articles 10.4.2 Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See Comment Insert #3 (see WORD Document: Chyuan- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment. See Yes Yes No Yes
Allen and 10.4.3 for the general considerations needed for 02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #3). revised guide spec.
subsurface investigation and laboratory testing to avoid
potential conflicts with this section and Section 10. The
geotechnical investigation requirements in Article 10.4 are
sufficient for the seismic investigation, other than the
specific requirements identified in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5
of the subject report.
391 2 6 6.3.3 Page 6-3 WA Revise "as specified b " to "as specified by " Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - The minimum design requirements of 2-15-07 SB Edited Yes Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
spread footings for SDC C or D shall be based on
forces corresponding to rocking analysis, provided
footing is in Site Class A, B, C or D and as
specified by the Earthquake Resisting System
(ERS) requirements of SDC C and D.
392 2 6 6.3.4 WA/ Tony Section 6.3.4, Rocking Analysis – How does the stiffness Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: This comment addressed by Team in Yes Yes No No
Allen of the bearing soil or rock come into play here? The rigid, issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input Sacramento.The original rocking analysis has been moved
perfectly plastic assumption may work for rock, provided and supporting evidence can be obtained. to Appendix A. The articles for spread footing were
that it is not adversely jointed, but I am not sure how well completely revised. See modified guide spec.
this will work for soil.
393 2 6 6.3.4 Page 6-3 WA The symbol for the displacement or drift is inconsistent Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Editorial. Yes Yes No No
with Figure 6.1.
Page 18 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
394 2 6 Commentary, Page 6-4 WA Top of page. Table C3.2-1 is not exist. C7.4.2.1 seems Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - See item 322. C7.4.2.1 is copied from Fixed. Yes Yes No No
incorrect. 12-49 Article 7.4.2.1. Should we replaced the
Article 6.3.4 Rocking Analysis by 12-49 Article
7.4.2.1?
395 2 6 Figure 6.1, Page 6-6 WA The symbol for the total weight is inconsistent. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Editorial. Yes Yes No No
396 2 6 C6.4.1, Page 6-8 WA Delete "or during ship impact". Fill Article X.X Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - To meet uplift loading requirements 2-15-07 SB Edited. Note all appendices deleted per Yes Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
during a seismic event or during ship impact, the committee decision.
depth of penetration may have to be greater than
minimum requirements for compressive loading to
mobilize sufficient uplift resistance. Revise "Article
X.X " to "Appendix C"
397 2 6 6.4.2 WA/ Tony Section 6.4.2, first paragraph – a pile diameter of 16 inches Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. In the 1st paragraph of Article 6.4.2, suggest changing "16 SB 02-15-07 Suggest compromise: 18" pipe piles. Yes Yes No No
Allen or less is pretty small for WSDOT. Our typical pile size is inches" to "18 inches".
18 to 24 inches. Why is the 16 inch diameter assumption
necessary? How does the use of larger piles affect the
design?
398 2 6 6.4.4 WA/ Tony Section 6.4.4, second paragraph – In this paragraph, it Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See Comment Insert #5 (see WORD Document : Chyuan- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in Yes Yes No No
Allen states “for seismic loads, the tension resistance may be 02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #5 ). Sacramento. See modified guide spec.
equivalent to 50 percent of the ultimate compressive axial
load capacity.” I see no reason not to calculate the uplift
resistance directly. The design tools and parameters will
always be available to calculate the skin friction. This
crude approximation may work for sites with a marginal
bearing layer, but could be very unconservative for piles
driven through soft soils to a very dense bearing layer such
as glacial till or rock. Furthermore, this paragraph states
that friction piles may be considered to resist an
intermittent but not sustained uplift force. What does this
mean? Wouldn’t the uplift caused by seismic loading
always be intermittent? In Article 10.7, we have no such
prohibition regarding uplift, nor do we see the need for
one.
399 2 6 C6.4.4, Page 6-10 WA Revise "C6.4.4" to "C6.5" Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - C6.4.4 C6.5 Drilled Shafts. Also Fixed. Yes Yes No No
combine with C.6.5 Drilled Shafts on Page 6-14.
See item 405.
400 2 6 C 7.4.3.3, Page 6-8 & WA It seems these do not belong this Article. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Commentary C 6.4, C6.4.1, C6.4.2, and Fixed. Yes Yes No No
C7.4.3.4, Page 6-9 C7.4.3.4 are adopted from ATC 49 Commentary
C7.4.3. Since ATC 49 specifications were not used
in the Guide Spec. recommend move these
commentaries to parking lot.
401 2 6 6.4.5, Page 6-12 WA Should we use fc' instead of fce' in equations (6.10) and Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - See item number 243. Fixed. Yes Yes No No
(6.11)?
402 2 6 6.5 WA/ Tony Section 6.5 Drilled Shafts, 3rd paragraph – The effects of Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. Move the following sentence from the 3rd paragraph in Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 Sentence Added per comment. See Yes Yes No No
Allen liquefaction on lateral soil strength must be taken into Article 6.6 to the end of Article 6.4.4: "The effects of modified guide spec.
account for shafts, but no mention of this is made for pile liquefaction on loss of P−y strength shall be considered in
foundations. This should also be stated for pile SDC D."
foundations.
403 2 6 6.5 WA/ Tony Section 6.5 Drilled Shafts, 4th paragraph – The second Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See Comment Insert #6 (see WORD Document: Chyuan- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment. See Yes Yes No Yes
Allen sentence states “the stable length can be determined by 02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #6). revised guide spec.
applying a 1.5 multiplier factor on the lateral forces
considered in determining the tip of the shaft required for
lateral stability.” First, this is in effect a load factor that
probably belongs in Section 3 of the LRFD Specifications
rather than being buried here. Secondly, is this multiplier
only to be applied to the seismic forces or all forces
contributing to lateral load for the extreme event limit
state? Thirdly, most states would apply the unfactored
seismic forces, at least I believe that is the case, and tip the
shaft somewhere between the first and second inflection
points. If a multiplier is applied to the lateral forces, to
what inflection point should the shaft be taken?
404 2 6 6.5, Page 6-14 WA 3rd paragraph, use lower case "p" for p-y strength. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Editorial Yes Yes No No
405 2 6 6.5, Page 6-14 WA 4th paragraph, Need additional criteria to define "stable Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Add two paragraphs to C6.5. (File See Revised guide spec. Yes Yes No No
length". attached: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc C6-5)
406 2 6 6.6, Page 6-15 WA 3rd paragraph, use lower case "p" for p-y strength. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Editorial Yes Yes No No
407 2 6 6.7.1 WA/ Tony Section 6.7.1 – The recommended design acceleration may Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I recommend that the contents of Article 6.7.1 be deleted Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Will keep Article and Revise when Yes Yes No No
Allen change as a result of the current NCHRP project on and that this article should simply refer to Section 11 of the the results of NCHRP 12-70 are available.
seismic design of walls. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Much of this section
is likely to change once the results of NCHRP 12-70 are
available.
408 2 6 6.8 WA/ Tony Section 6.8, 2nd paragraph – Not designing for Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See Comment Insert #7 (see WORD Document: Chyuan- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment. See Yes Yes No Yes
Allen liquefaction if the magnitude is less than 6.5 or 6.7 is a 02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #7). revised guide spec.
little too unconservative. A shallow crustal earthquake of
this magnitude can cause widespread damage and can
therefore be unsafe. An earthquake less than magnitude
6.0 would be a more reasonable criterion. The
recommended minimum magnitude required to cause
liquefaction also conflicts with Appendix D of this report,
which appears to indicate a magnitude 6.0 earthquake is a
more appropriate cut off. What is the justification of this
criterion? I understand that this criterion may have come
from a report by Steve Dickenson of OSU performed for
ODOT, and that his recommendation does not have
national applicability, but is specific to the seismic
conditions in Oregon. Appendix D provides criteria for
when liquefaction need not be considered. Why not use
those criteria?
Page 19 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
409 2 7 General WA Needs to update articles refer to AASHTO LRFD Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
Provisions. They have been revised and moved. LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
410 2 7 7.2, Page 7-2 & 7-3 WA delete underline for "Type 1, 2 and 3" Lian Duan / Elmer Marx 02/06/07 Agree. REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
411 2 7 C7.3, Page 7-4 WA Article X.X. Lian Duan / Elmer Marx 02/06/07 As a result, only Grade 50 steels are REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
allowed within the scope of Article X.X 7.3, with a LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
Ry of 1.1. REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
412 2 7 C7.3, Page 7-5 WA Last paragraph, Revise "Article 4.8" to "Article 4.11" Lian Duan / Elmer Marx 02/06/07 Agree REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
413 2 7 7, Pages 7-15 through AK Many of the commentary articles on these pages are Lian Duan / Elmer Marx Agree. Correct misnumbered and misnamed REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
7-17 misnumbered. In fact, most of these commentary articles commentary articles in Section 7 from about page 7- LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
don’t have matching specification articles. 13 to the end of the section. (date 2-1-7) REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
414 2 8 8.1 Page 8-1 WA 1st paragraph, Add a "," after "superstructure" Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Design and construction of concrete Fixed. Yes Yes No No
components that include superstructures, columns,
piers, footings and their connections shall conform
to the requirements of this section.
415 2 8 8.1 Page 8-1 WA 4th paragraph, Delete "either". Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Delete "either" and add a"," after Fixed. Yes Yes No No
"not used". as follows: "If architectural flares or
other treatments are provided to columns adjacent to
potential plastic hinge zones, they shall be either
“structurally isolated” in such a way that they do not
add to the flexural strength capacity of the columns.
If “structural isolation” is not used, the column and
adjacent structural elements shall be designed to
resist the forces generated by increased flexural
strength capacity according to Article 8.14."
416 2 8 C8.1, Page 8-2 WA 2nd paragraph, Revise "Article X.X " to "Article 8.14.2". Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 As a result, only Grade 50 steels are Modified. Yes Yes No No
allowed within the scope of Article X.X 7.3, with a
Ry of 1.1.
417 2 8 8.4.1 8th Para. AK In the second bullet point, beginning “No longitudinal bar Elmer Marx Agree. Delete the second bulleted item and replace 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
shall be farther than 6 inches…”, the last part of this it with the following: "The spacing of hoops and
sentence makes no sense. ties shall not exceed six inches as measured along
any individual longitudinal bar." (date 2-1-7)
418 2 8 8.4.2 WA/ Jugesh Article 8.4.2: (page 8-4). The reinforcing steel model is Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07. Table added to include the Yes Yes No No
Kapur good for A706 reinforcing steel only. Not all states use properties for A 615.
A706. Please provide guidance for other reinforcing steel
such as ASTM A615.
419 2 8 8.4.2, Page 8-4 WA last sentence. Should we use different reduced ultimate Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Recommend modified as "A reduced Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07. See Revised Spec. Yes Yes No No
tensile strain for "#10 bars or smaller" and "#11 bars and ultimate tensile strain equal to 2/3 of ultimate tensile
larger" since the ultimate tensile strains are different? strain shall be used for column longitudinal
reinforcement."
420 2 8 8.4.3, Page 8.5 WA Both the ultimate prestress steel strain and reduced Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Recommend change 0.04 to 0.03 Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07. See Revised Spec. Yes Yes No No
ultimate prestress steel strain are 0.04. Is this correct? (CALTRANS SDC 3.2.4)
421 2 8 Fig. 8.2 AK Remove the reference to MPa in the title for the vertical Elmer Marx Agree. Remove the figure's vertical axis label and 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
axis. replace it with "Stress fps (KSI)." (date 2-1-7)
422 2 8 8.4.4, Page 8-7 WA 2nd paragraph. Do we need additional criteria to define the Chyuan-Shen Lee 02-19-07: (by ELMER) as recommended by team, Yes Yes No No
the confined compressive strain and the ultimate references to Mander's model have been inserted into the
compressive strain in addition to the Mander's model? commentary.
423 2 8 Eqn. 8.7 AK For LRFD consistency, write equation in terms of ksi Elmer Marx Agree. Replace "5000 (psi)" with "5 KSI." (date 2- 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
units. 1-7)
424 2 8 8.6, Page 8-9 WA Should we use fc' instead of fce' in equations (8.13), Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/02/07 - See item number 243. Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: See Revised Spec. Yes Yes No No
(8.20), (8.28), (8.30a), (8.30b), (8.38), (8.39) and Article
8.13.4.2?
425 2 8 8.6.1 1st Para AK In the last sentence, beginning “The shear demand for a Elmer Marx Agree. Replace "Vd" with "Vult" throughout the 02-19-07: ok Yes Yes No No
column…” reference should also be made to Article 4.11 article. Add the following to the end of the last
for the calculation of shear demand. sentence of the second paragraph: "and as outlined
in Article 4.11." (date 2-1-7)
426 2 8 8.6.2 AK Why not reference Article 5.8 of the LRFD for shear Elmer Marx No rchange recommended at this time. Since the 02-19-07: Cleaned up equations. Yes Yes No No
capacity? Why should shear capacity be calculated AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
differently for seismic loading than for gravity loading? shear provisions are not intrended to address plastic
hinge regions, they may not be appropriate without
modification. Future consideration of the UCSD
shear design method may be more compatable with
the AASHTO LRFD specifications. . (date 2-1-7)
427 2 8 8.6.2, Page 8.6.2 WA Should we useD' instead of D in equations (8.23), (8.25), Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Concrete cover spalled at very low 02-19-07: (by ELMER) agreed - fix made Yes Yes No No
and (8.27)? strain.
428 2 8 Eqns. 8.13 and 8.20 AK For LRFD consistency, write equation in terms of kips and Elmer Marx Agree. In all equations containing the square root of 02-19-07: done Yes Yes No No
ksi units. f'c, divide the mulitplier by 31.6. For example, 3.5 *
(f'c)^0.5 would become 0.11 * (f'c) ^ 0.5. (date 2-1-
7)
429 2 8 Eqns. 8.25 and 8.27 AK There is no definition of the term “D” in Section 2. The Elmer Marx Agree. All equations should be presented in the 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes No No
shear depth in these equations should be that described in same format as the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Article 5.8.2.9 and Equation C5.8.2.9-2 of the LRFD. Specifications including numbering, font, and
variable definitions. The definition of "D" does not
appear to be the same "D" as that in the AASHTO
speciications. The "D" in the seismic guide
specifications appears to be the confined core
diameter taken at the centerline of the hoop or
spiral. (date 2-1-7)
Page 20 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
430 2 8 8.6.5 AK The upper limit on Vs should stated in Equations 8.25 and Elmer Marx No change recommended at this time. Although the 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes No No
8.27, e.g. “Vs = … ≤ 8√(f’ce)*Ac” proposed change would streamline the equations
and metter mimic the AASHTO LRFD
specifications, the current consequence would
require a renumbering of all subsequent sections
(date 2-1-7)
431 2 8 C8.6.3 Page 8-11 WA 2nd paragraph. Revise "Equations 8.6.3-1 and 8.6.3-2" to Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes No No
"Equations 8.25 and 8.26"
432 2 8 C8.6.3 Page 8-11 WA 3nd paragraph. Revise "Figure C8.8.2.4-3" to "Figure Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. 02-19-07: figures have been renumbered. Have not Yes Yes No No
C8.6.3.3" and "200 mm" to"8 inches" removed metric units but probably ok as-is.
433 2 8 8.6.7 & 8.6.8. Page 8- WA Recommed to switch these two Article numbers since Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Also revise "Table of contents". Fixed. Yes Yes No No
12 Articles 8.6.9 and 8.6.10 are spec. for Pier Wall.
434 2 8 8.7 AK The wording of the title of this section is odd. Suggest Elmer Marx no change needed OK 02-19-07: okay as-is Yes Yes No No
“Requirements for the Design of Ductile Members”
435 2 8 8.7.1 1st Para. AK Please define what minimum flexural capacity is to be Elmer Marx Agree. Replace the first paragraph with the 02-19-07: see revised language Yes Yes No No
compared to the load (Mn, Mcr, My…). following: "The minimum lateral flexural capacity
of each column shall be such that: Mne > 0.1 * Pdl
* (Hh+ 0.5 * Ds) / L where: Mne = the nominal
moment capacity of the column based upon
expected material properties Pdl = the unfactored
axial dead load demand acting at the base of the
column Hh = the height from the top of the footing
to the top of the column or the equivalent column
height for a pile extension column Ds =
superstructure depth L = fixity factor for the
column." THE REVISED LANGUAGE SHOULD
BE VERIFIED BY ROY IMBSEN AND/OR
CALTRANS. (dated 2-1-7)
436 2 8 8.7.1 1st Para. AK What LRFD load case should be used to calculate Pdl? Elmer Marx See reponse to comment number 435. (date 2-1-7) 02-19-07: have team review revised Article 8.7.1 Yes Yes No Yes
Where is the lateral load to be applied?
437 2 8 8.7.1 1st Para. AK What is the purpose of specifying a minimum lateral load Elmer Marx No action required at this time. Perhaps in the future OK 02-19-07: see revised Article 8.7.1 Yes Yes No No
capacity? Shouldn’t the Strength, or other Extreme, load additional commentary can be added. (date 2-1-7)
cases be sufficient? In which SDC’s does this provision
apply?
438 2 8 Commentary, Page 8- WA 1st paragraph, "Equation 7.8.2.5-1 or 8.8.2.5-1". This Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Revise the paragraph as follows: " 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes No No
13 commentary is copied from NCHRP 12-49 commentary Condition (a) is prevented by using the maximum
C8.8.2.5 needs to revised. vertical spacing of transverse reinforcement given
by Article 8.8.9.”
439 2 8 8.8.4 AK The term 24dbl doesn’t need to be units-specific. Elmer Marx Agree. Remove the reference to the units. (date 2-1- suggest adding equation rather than text 02-19-07: See proposed equation form rather than text Yes Yes No No
7)
440 2 8 C8.6.7, Page 8-14 WA Commentary for Wall-Type Pier should be C8.6.10. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Requirements for pier wall 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes No No
reinforcement is in Article 8.6.10 not 8.6.7.
441 2 8 Eqn. 8.35 AK Why is the expected steel yield strength (fye) used in this Elmer Marx Agree. In all locations where the member resistance OK 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes No Yes
equation, but not the expected concrete strength? is being provided (such as when calculating the
strength of a capacity-protected member), the
nominal strength (Fy, f'c) should be specified and
not the expected strength (Fye, f'ce). This comment
applies to Articles 8.6.2, 8.6.5, 8.6.9, 8.7.2, 8.8.6,
8.13.2, 8.13.4.2, 6.4.5, and perhaps others that I
have overlooked. (date 2-1-7)
442 2 8 8.9 1st Para. AK Why no mention of the required shear capacity of capacity Elmer Marx Agree. Delete this article and replace it with the OK 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes No No
protected members? following: "Design members such as footings, bent
caps, oversized pile shafts, joints, and girders that
are adjacent to plastic hinge location to remain
essentially elastic when the plastic hinge reaches its
overtrength capacity, Mpo and the correspond shear
and axial demands." Also see response to comment
number 441. (date 2-1-7)
443 2 8 8.11 WA/ Jugesh Should MO in article 8.11 and MOCOL in article 8.13.4.1 Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. To be consistent, also revise Figure 02-19-07: (by ELMER) fixed Article 8.11. Refer to new Yes Yes No No
Kapur be MPO ? 8.7. Article 8.13
444 2 8 8.12 1st Para. AK Shouldn’t the lateral force transfer mechanism be stronger Elmer Marx Agree. In SDC C and D, plastic hinging is 2-28-7: LOADS BETTER DEFINED Yes Yes No Yes
than the shear Vd from Article 8.6.1? anticipated and the requirements should be similar
to those previously stated in the guide specifications
(e.g. 8.6.1). In SDC C and D, the use of the lower of
the plastic hinging forces and the elastic EQ forces
is unwarranted and the forces associtated with
plastic hinging should be used. Remove the first
paragraph and replace it with the following: "Satisfy
the transverse design requirements for frames and
bents with integral bent caps. Provide a lateral force
transfer mechanism at the superstructure-to-
substructure interface that is capable of transfering
the maximum lateral force associated with plastic
hinging of the ERS." (date 2-1-7)
445 2 8 8.13 all AK Why are there no provisions for joint design in non- Elmer Marx Agree. Propose a new Article 8.13 that includes OK 02-19-07: currently working on new joint design Yes Yes No Yes
integral bent caps? Alaska DOT has developed a both integral and non-integral cap beam joints. Will specifications.
procedure for stress checking and detailing those joints try to submit first draft ASAP perhaps before 2-8-7.
which looks very similar to what is presented in Article (date 2-1-7)
8.13.
Page 21 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
446 2 8 C8.8.4.4 WA/ Jugesh C8.8.4.4 (page 8-21) recommends making the footing Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Recommend adopting effective 02-19-07: refer to revised article and equation. NEED Yes Yes No No
Kapur effective width equal to footing effective depth, while width used by Priestley (p.408, “Seismic Design INPUT FROM TEAM AND DR. IMBSEN. Chyuan-Shen
LRFD 5.13.3.5 allows entire footing width to be used for and Retrofit of Bridges.” Add “ The footing 3/1/07: Team discuss this comment and accept Elmer's
moment design in a two-way square footing. This effective width is defined as the column diameter or Proposal.
requirement may result in a very deep and uneconomical width of column plus two times of the effective
footing. depth of the footing.” before “If a larger …” and
Add “For footings exhibiting rigid response and
satisfying joint shear criteria the entire width of the
footing can be considered effective in resisting the
column overstrength flexure and the associated
shear (Article 6.4.6).” at end of paragraph.
447 2 Appendix Appendix B WA/ Tony Appendix B, Provisions for Site Exploration – Much of Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. Agree JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Allen this appendix is a repeat of what is already covered in Parking lot.
Article 10.4 of the LRFD specifications. I recommend that
only Sections B.2.2 and B.3.2, which describe special
requirements for characterization and laboratory testing of
soil for seismic analysis, be left in this appendix. The rest
of this appendix should be deleted and instead Article 10.4
be referred to.
448 2 Appendix Appendix D WA/ Tony Appendix D, Liquefaction design – I was told at the T-3 Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See Comment Insert #8 (see WORD Document: Chyuan- JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Allen meeting at the AASHTO Subcommittee meeting in may in PGA Maps are included in the guide specification in 02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #8). Parking lot.
Utah that liquefaction would be estimated based on the December 06 version. (Figure 3.4.1-2a & 2b).
spectral acceleration at 1 second rather than the peak
ground acceleration. The provisions in the draft report
indicate that liquefaction design is to be conducted in
accordance with Appendix D, which appears to
recommend using peak ground acceleration, though it
recommends that the PGA be calculated as 0.4SDS, where
SDS is the short period spectral acceleration. Peak ground
acceleration is what we should be using for liquefaction
design. It makes no sense to use a spectral acceleration,
especially considering that liquefaction design is empirical
in nature, and changing to a spectral acceleration will mess
up the empirical design model.
449 2 Appendix Appendix D WA/ Tony Furthermore, a spectral acceleration is the acceleration on Chyuan-Shen Lee See Item 448. See Item 448. JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Allen a structure with 5% damping as it is currently defined and Parking lot.
has little to do with the forces needed to generate
liquefaction in soils. If there is some future plan to require
a spectral acceleration to be used to estimate liquefaction, I
strongly recommend against doing that. Also, while
approximating the PGA as 0.4SDS will yield an
approximately correct value of PGA, it would be more
accurate to get the PGA directly from a USGS developed
acceleration map as we have done in the past. I strongly
encourage the T-3 committee to request the USGS to also
product a 1,000 yr PGA map, as we need the PGA not only
for liquefaction assessment, but also for determining
seismic earth pressure for retaining wall and abutment wall
design.
450 2 Appendix Appendix D WA/ Tony Appendix D – This appendix was written before the major Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Allen rewrite of Section 10 (Foundations) of the LRFD design more specific input can be developed. Parking lot?
specifications. Furthermore, the appendix appears to refer
to other appendices that are part of the report from which
this appendix was originally published, but that are not
part of the subject report. Therefore, this appendix needs
some updating to be consistent with the recently rewritten
Section 10 of the LRFD specifications, especially for areas
where there is significant overlap between this Appendix
and Section 10 (e.g., lateral load analysis of deep
foundations, designing for downdrag, etc.), and to be
consistent with the subject report. This is especially
important if it is intended to make Appendix D a special
appendix to the AASHTO LRFD Design specifications. I
expect that this will take a considerable cross-checking
effort to compare Appendix D with the current LRFD
specifications.
451 2 Figures Figures WA Revise Figure 3.3.3. "Earthquake Resisting Elements that Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. To be consistent with Article 3.3. JQ 02-22-07: Modified to "…not Recommended". Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
are not Permitted for New Bridges" to "Earthquake
Resisting Elements that are not Recommended for New
Bridges"
452 2 Figures Figures WA Revise Figure 5.4. Revise [x] Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Add Reference: Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, Reference Will be added. Yes Yes No No
F., and Chai, Y.H., Design Guidelines for
Assessment Retrofit and Repair of Bridges for
Seismic Performance, Report No. SSRP-92/01,
Dept. Applied Mechanics and Engineering
Sciences, University of California, San Diego,
1992, 266 pp."
453 2 Figures Figures WA Revise Figure 6.2. "Flowchart for Design of a New Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Revise List of Figures. Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: See revised guide spec. Yes Yes No No
Column on Spread Footing" to "Flowchart for Design of a
New Column on Spread Footing using Rocking Analysis"
Page 22 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
454 2 General General WA Guidelines are inconsistent throughout using "chapter", Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree. Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: See revised guide spec. Yes Yes No No
'Section", and "Article" interchangebly. Recommend
use"Section" for chapter Title and "Article" for others
(consistent with LRFD spec.).
455 2 General General WA Commentary should be adjacent and alignmented with Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: See revised guide spec. Yes Yes No No
specification.
456 2 General General WA Commentary should use the same title as specification Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/06/07 Agree Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: See revised guide spec. Yes Yes No No
(similar to Appendices ) or use Aritcle number w/o title
(consistent with LRFD spec.)
457 2 General General WA/ Tony 15. In general, I saw no recommendations on load or Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Load Factors are specified in Article Yes Yes No No
Allen resistance factors (other than 9. Section 6.5 Drilled Shafts). more specific input can be developed. 3.7. See revised guide spec.
Shouldn’t some recommendations be provided on this
issue?
458 2 General General AK Please align commentary so that is always next to the Elmer Marx Agree. In addition, some of the commentary is 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
relevant Article. It is confusing to have commentary from inappropriate or unnecessary and should be
one Article next to specifications from a different Article. removed. Presumably, the needed changes will be
based upon a comment-y-comment basis.
PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE
ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date 2-1-7)
459 2 General General AK Equation and Table numbering is inconsistent with LRFD Elmer Marx Agree. PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
standards. BE ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date 2-1-7)
460 2 General General AK Please follow standard LRFD practice of consistently Elmer Marx Agree. PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL 2-28-7: RESOLVED Yes Yes No No
defining equation terms below the equation. BE ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date 2-1-7)
461 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Recommend Delete "Section No."&"Page No.". Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents (consistent with LRFD spec.).
462 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Add Articles: 1.2.1 Project Direction from AASHTO T-3. Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents 1.2.2 Technical Assistance Agreement Between AASHTO
and USGS
463 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Add Article: 2.2 Definitions Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents
464 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Add Articles:3.4.2.1 Site Class Definition. 3.4.2.2 Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents Definitions of Site Class Parameters. 3.4.2.3 Site
Coefficients.
465 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Revise 4.1.1. "Balanced Stiffness" to "Balanced Stiffness Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents SDC D"
466 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Revise 4.1.2. "Balanced Frame Geometry" to "Balanced Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents Frame Geometry SDC D"
467 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Revise 4.7. "Design Requirements for Seismic Design Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents Categories B, C, and D" to "Design Requirements for
Seismic Design Categories (SDC) B, C, and D"
468 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Revise 4.8.2. "Local Displacement Capacity for SDC D" to Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents "Local Displacement Capacity for SDC D (i.e., Pushover
Analysis)"
469 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Revise 4.13. "Support Restraints for SDC B, C AND D" to Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents "Support Restraints for SDC C AND D"
470 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Add Articles:5.2.3.1 Abutment Longitudinal Response for Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents SDC B and C 5.2.3.2 Abutment Longitudinal Response
for SDC D 5.2.3.3 Abutment Stiffness and Passive
Pressure Estimate
471 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Add Articles:5.2.4.1 Abutment Transverse Response for Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents SDC B and C 5.2.3.2 Abutment Transverse Response
for SDC D
472 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Revise 5.6.1. "Effective Section Properties For Seismic Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents Analysis" to "Effective Reinforced Concrete Section
Properties For Seismic Analysis"
473 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Revise 5.6.2. "Ec Ieff and GAeff For Ductile Members" to Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents "Ec Ieff and (GA)eff For Reinforced Concrete Ductile
Members"
474 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Revise 7. "SUPERSTRUCTURE STEEL COMPONENT" Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents to "STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPONENT"
475 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Recommend to switch Article 8.6.7 and Article 8.6.8. Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents Since Articles 8.6.9 and 8.6.10 are spec. for pier wall.
476 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Revise 8.7.2. "Maximum Axial Load in A Ductile Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents Member" to "Maximum Axial Load in A Ductile Member
in SDC C and D"
477 2 Table of Table of Contents WA Add Articles:8.13.4.1 Principal Stress Definition Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents 8.13.4.2 Minimum Joint Shear Reinforcement SDC C or D
8.13.4.3 Joint Shear Reinforcement SDC D
478 2 Table of Table of Contents WA ADD "REFERENCES" at End of each Section Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
Contents
479 2 Tables Tables WA Delete ":" at Table 3.4.2-1, 3.4.2.3-1, 3.4.2.3-2 and 3.5.1 Chyuan-Shen Lee JQ 02-22-07: Removed ":" from Figures in Section 3 Yes Yes No No
480 2 Tables Tables WA Delete Table 7.3. It's not included in Spec. Chyuan-Shen Lee Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes Yes No No
501 3 3 C3.2 MO Table C3.2-1 that is referenced in commentary should be Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest JQ 02-22-07: Paragraph deleted. Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
Fig C3.3-1? deleting paragraph with this referecne. Table not in
Guide Specs.
502 3 3 C3.3 MO "C3.3" is shown on page 3-2 & 3-11 Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for JQ 02-22-07: Will change pending discusion regarding Yes Yes No Yes
CA to administer. overall commentary content in this discussion
503 3 3 C3.3 MO "Figure X.X" on page 3-13 should be Fig. 3.5.1? Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Do not think JQ 02-22-07: Paragraph deleted. Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
proper reference is Fig. 3.5.1. Suggest deleting
paragraph.
504 3 3 C3.4.5 MO Section 3.4.5 does not exist. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes Yes No No
delting or modifying any references to this Article.
Suggest CA take lead on this.
505 3 3 Following 3.7 MO Paragraph at top of page 3-25 appears to be a misprint (Not Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Agree with JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
the commentary) commenter. Suggest deleting paragraph.
506 3 4 C4.1.2 MO "C4.1.2" is used twice Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest Dan/IL 2/19/07: Commentary Deleted Yes Yes No No
deleting second instance of C4.1.2 Minimum Seat
Widths. Is out of place here.
Page 23 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
507 3 4 C4.3 MO Articles X.X and X.X? Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Suggest Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
deleting this commentary Article. It appears out of
context. The topic is really Eq. Static Analysis,
which is in Section 5 with a decent commentary in
C5.4.2.
508 3 4 4.3.3, Table 4.3 FHWA The term Ss should be SDS Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Table 4.3 has been deleted by panel 02-12-07 OK 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No Yes
509 3 4 SDC B FHWA Section 4.8 provides a displacement check based on a Derrell Manceaux Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes No No Yes
capacity with only geometrical properties. There is no proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
section in the provisions that provides a check for anticipated for resolution. … Need to add to the
longitudinal reinforcing steel requirements commentary that these formulas are valid if minimum steel
requirements are met -03-01-07
510 3 4 4.12 FHWA Change title to read "MINIMUM SUPPORT LENGTH Derrell Manceaux 02/02/07 - Change title to read "MINIMUM MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
REQUIREMENTS" to be same as proposed LRFD specs SUPPORT LENGTH REQUIREMENTS" to be consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
same as proposed LRFD specs 2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
511 3 4 4.12.1 FHWA Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 4.15 and the Derrell Manceaux 02/02/07 - Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 02-12-07- Elmer did not make this correction but did make MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
definition for ∆ot. 4.15 and the definition for ∆ot. same suggestion in his attachment consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
512 3 4 4.12.1, ∆ot FHWA The definition for ∆ot should not be 1 inch per 100 feet of Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Comment will go away if #511 is adopted MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
length between joints, but rather 1 inch per 100 feet from consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
the point of no movement 2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
513 3 4 4.12.1 & 4.12.2, FHWA The denominator of 4000 should only be under the "S" Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 OK 02-12-07 OK 02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
Formula 4.15 & 4.16 (skew) and not the denominator for the entire formula. Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
agree…………Dan/IL 2/19/07: Support width provsions
edited revised to be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
514 3 4 4.12.2 FHWA Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 4.15 and the Derrell Manceaux 02/02/07 - Delete the variable ∆ot from equation MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
definition for ∆ot. 4.15 and the definition for ∆ot. consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
515 3 4 4.12.2 FHWA Delete the variable ∆ot from the sentence "∆ot and Sk are Derrell Manceaux 02/02/07 - Delete the variable ∆ot from the sentence 02-12-07 Same as 511 02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
defined in in Article 4.12.1" "∆ot and Sk are defined in in Article 4.12.1" Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
516 3 4 4.12.2 FHWA First sentence, change the word "width" to "length" and Derrell Manceaux 02/02/07 - First sentence, change the word "width" MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
delete the words "thermal movement, prestress shortening, to "length" and delete the words "thermal consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
creep, shrinkage, and the" movement, prestress shortening, creep, shrinkage, 2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
and the" consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
517 3 4 4.12 FHWA Correct Figure 4.3 to remove ∆ot from figure Derrell Manceaux 02/02/07 - See attachment MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
518 3 4 4.12 FHWA Add commentary similar to LRFD. C4.12 Support lengths Derrell Manceaux 02/02/07 - Add commentary similar to LRFD. MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
are equal to the length of the overlap between the girder C4.12 Support lengths are equal to the length of the consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
and seat as shown in figure4.3. To satisfy the minimum overlap between the girder and seat as shown in 2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
values for N in this Article, the overall seat width will be figure4.3. To satisfy the minimum values for N in consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
larger than N by an amount equal to movments due to this Article, the overall seat width will be larger
prestress shortening, cree, shrinkage, and thermal than N by an amount equal to movments due to
expansion/contraction. THe minimum values for N given prestress shortening, cree, shrinkage, and thermal
in equations 4.15 & 4.16 includes arbitrary allowance for expansion/contraction. THe minimum values for N
cover concrete at the end of the girder face of the seat. If given in equations 4.15 & 4.16 includes arbitrary
above average cover is used at these locations, N should be allowance for cover concrete at the end of the girder
increased accordingly face of the seat. If above average cover is used at
these locations, N should be increased accordingly
519 3 4 4.12.2, Formula4.16 FHWA Is the term ∆eq increased with the multiplier in 4.3.3? Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 OK 02-12-07 OK 02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
520 3 4 4.14, 1st paragraph FHWA Two design levels are referenced. There is only one design Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Correct paragraph to read as shown in the Dan/IL 2/19/07: Actually, do not think Roy was technically Yes Yes No No
level attachment wrong, but his language was cleaned up.
521 3 4 4.14, 1st paragraph FHWA Sections 7.1 & 7.2 are incorrect references Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Section 7.1 & 7.2 are for steel only. Add Dan/IL 2/19/07: References deleted and verbaige cleaned Yes Yes No No
the words "for steel and concrete structures" up.
522 3 4 4.14, 2cd paragraph FHWA shear keys are often poured at a second pour. For this Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Correct paragraph to read as shown in the Dan/IL 2/19/07: Reformatting, I think, cleaned this up. Yes Yes No No
reason, the "monolithic" shear factor should be changed to attachment
reflect the actual condition..ie…"roughened surface" when
applicable
523 3 6 6.3.1 MO Appears to an error in equation 6.4? Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest 3-6-07 SB Rocking Analysis has been moved to Appendix. Yes Yes Yes Yes
moving to Parking Lot
524 3 6 C6.3.1 MO Table C3.2-1 that is referenced in commentary should be Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest 2-15-07-SB Edited Yes Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
Fig C3.3-1? deleting "as suggested in Table C3.2.1".
525 3 6 6.3.2, Forces from FHWA After the longitudinal force and transverse for rocking are Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Rocking analysis has been removed by the 02-12-07 OK 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No Yes
rocking analysis calculated, are they combined with the 2 different 100% panel
+30% cases?
526 3 6 6.3.2 & 6.3.4, Rocking FHWA 6.3 is covered under spread footing, but near end of 6.3.4 Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Rocking analysis has been removed by the 02-12-07 OK 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No No
analysis column design is being covered by following flow chart. panel
How does this fit in spread footing?-very confusing
527 3 6 6.3.4 MO Information for Mo>Mr is lacking. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest 3-6-07 SB Rocking Analysis has been moved to Appendix. Yes Yes Yes Yes
528 3 6 6.3.4, Rocking FHWA The formulas and procedures given are for a single colum Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Rocking analysis has been removed by the 02-12-07 OK 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes No Yes
analysis bent. How are multiple column bents analyzed in the panel
transverse direction? I question if we should be doing a
rocking analysis in the DESIGN phase. This should only
be performed in a retrofit scheme
529 3 6 C6.4.2 MO Numbering error with "C7.4.3.3" in Commentary C6.4.2 Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest 2-15-07 SB Edited Yes Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
530 3 7 C7.5.3, wrong FHWA Wrong commentary numbers and sections starting on page Lian Duan / Elmer Marx 02-12-07 Stephanie is working on this item REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
commentary 7-14 through7-17 LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
Page 24 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
531 3 8 8.3.2, 1st paragraph FHWA 8.3.2 indictaes design column for minimum of plastic Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Rocking analysis has been removed by the 02-12-07 OK 02-12-07 OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
hinge, elastic forces, but 6.3.4 indicates column can be panel
design with rocking analysis-Conflicting
532 3 8 8.4.1 MO Clarify for circular columns: "Hoops and ties shall be Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Suggest to 3-6-07 SB This material moved to Art. 8.6 and wording Yes Yes No No
arranged so that every corner and alternate longitudinal bar clarify that this requirement is applicable only to clarified.
has lateral support provided by the corner of a tie having rectangular columns.
an included angle of not more than 135 degrees."
533 3 8 8.4.1 MO Clarify “No longitudinal bar shall be farther than 6 inches Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Suggest to 3-6-07 SB This material moved to Art. 8.6 and wording Yes Yes No No
clear on each side along the tie from such a laterally clarify that this requirement is applicable only to clarified.
supported bar.” rectangular columns.
534 3 8 8.4.2 MO Why does SDC D require A706 reinforcing steel? Is it Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggested 3-6-07 SB More guidance on material properties provided Yes Yes No No
welding requirements? If reinforcement not going to be response to MO: Our understanding is that A706 in Art 8.4.2
welded, is A706 still required? Is it due to the greater has greater ductility in addtion to other good
quality control as discussed in the commentary of the qualities.
current LRFD AASHTO Section 5.4.3.1?
535 3 8 8.4.2, Last sentence FHWA Ultimate strain of .12 or .09 is given based on bar size, but Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Need the Panel to help resolve this item 02-19-07: (by ELMER) this requirements is taken directly Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
it is .06 for longitudinal bars. Why is there no reference to from Clatrans SDC. The limit on longitudinal reinforcing
bar size as ultimate strain requires? strain is due to several factures such as high stress/low-
cycle fatigue. No revision is likely needed at this time.
536 3 8 Figure 8.2, Mod of FHWA Es should be 28500 ksi, not 285000. Units of Mpa should Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 Figure corrected in attachment Yes Yes No No
Elast/Units be removed
537 3 8 8.4.4 MO Equation 8.7 indicates to use the greater of the two values. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: We think it is 3-6-07 SB Art. 8.4.4 edited to say: " The expected concrete Yes Yes No No
Is this correct or should it be the minimum? the greater of the two. However, the requirement compressive strength, fce , shall be taken as the most
implies a minimum concrete strength, correct? And probable long-term concrete strength based upon regional
if so, this miminum should be specified experience and shall be taken as: 1.3*fc"
somewhere? We suggest 3.5 ksi.
538 3 8 8.5, All FHWA This section assumes pier is a single column bent. In Derrell Manceaux 02-13-07-1st paragraph, 3rd sentence change the 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes No No
reality, an iteration is required to calculate axial load based sentence to read as "The axial forcesconsidered in
on plastic hinging forming in a multiple column bent and the section shall be based on dead load modified
iterate to find new plastic moment with cooresponding with axial forces that are derived based on capacity
plastic shears. Once new axial load is found, then new design principles included in Section 4.11.
moment curvature analysis is required...iterate until
convergence
539 3 8 8.5, last paragraph FHWA Paragraph indicates that capacity protected elemnts shall Derrell Manceaux 02-13-07- Comment is void since the panel 02-13-07 OK 02-13-07 OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
be designed for moments with overstrength factors, but 6.3 eliminated Rocking Analysis
indicates footings can be designed for lessor of rocking or
elastic analysis-Conflicting
540 3 8 8.6.1, eq 8.9 FHWA Vd is checked against Vn, but Vo is listed as demand on Derrell Manceaux 02-13-07-Problem was resolved, but the variable 02-19-07: (by ELMER) suggest that shear demand by Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
structure "vd" should be added to the list of variables in called Vu as is done throughout the AASHTO LRFD
Chapter 1 specifications. The term Vd would seeem to mean the dead
load shear.
541 3 8 8.6.2 MO Units for equation 8.13 appear to be in error (P should be Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under Yes Yes No Yes
multiplied by 1000) other comments associated with problems with the review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
shear strength Article as well. Will take further 07 SB Equation modified.
investigations and revsions.
542 3 8 8.6.2 MO “fyt” is used in Eq. 8.14, 8.15, and 8.16 but the symbol is Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under Yes Yes No yes
not defined in Section 2. other comments associated with problems with the review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
shear strength Article as well. Will take further 07 SB definitions provided.
543 3 8 8.6.2 MO Units for Eq. 8.20 appear to be in error (P should be Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under Yes Yes No Yes
multiplied by 1000?) other comments associated with problems with the review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
544 3 8 8.6.2 MO “fyt” in Eq. 8.21 & 8.22 is not defined in Section 2 Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under Yes Yes No Yes
other comments associated with problems with the review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
545 3 8 8.6.2 MO “D” is not defined in Section 2 Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under Yes Yes No Yes
546 3 8 8.6.2 & 8.6.3 MO Appears that Eq. 8.23 & 8.25 should use D’ instead of D. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under Yes Yes No Yes
547 3 8 8.6.2, eq 8.14-16,17- FHWA fyt is not defined Derrell Manceaux 02-13-07- Variable fixed with Elmers revision of 02-13-07 OK 02-13-07 OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
19,21-22 equations
548 3 8 8.6.2, eq 8.23 FHWA Ds is defined as superstructure depth on page 2-2. The Derrell Manceaux 02-13-07 Elmer fixed this in his equations 02-13-07 OK 02-13-07 OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
denominator, Ds, should be (diam of core x spiral spacing)
549 3 8 8.6.2, eq 8.25,27 FHWA D is not defined Derrell Manceaux 02-13-07- Elmer revised equations 02-13-07 OK 02-13-07 OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
550 3 8 C8.6.3 MO Uses “D” but not defined in Section 2 Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under Yes Yes No Yes
551 3 8 C8.6.3, ii ρs FHWA D` is not defined in the denominator Derrell Manceaux 02-13-07- Elmer revised equations 02-13-07 OK 02-13-07 OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
552 3 8 8.6.6, min steel ratio FHWA ps of .2% provides a maximum transverse spacing of 14" Derrell Manceaux 02-13-07- Need discussion with Panel-Ask CA 02-19-07: (by ELMER) I agree that 0.2% seems pretty JQ 03-08-07: SDC B minimum spiral reinforcement ratio Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
for a 4' diam column. This appears excessive to contain a policy small but perhaps the thought is that shear requirements increased to 0.003 per Caltrans' recommendation.
plastic hinge zone. may govern -- need to verify with Roy Imbsen and team.
Page 25 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
553 3 8 8.6.6, min steel ratio FHWA There are no provisions for tighter transverse steel spacing Derrell Manceaux 02-13-07-Section 8.6.3 resolves this issue 02-13-07-Section 8.6.3 should have the title "Transverse Yes Yes No No
in plastic zones versus "middle of column" zones Reinforcement for Confinement at Plastic Hinges" as
shown in Commentary
554 3 8 C8.6.7.1.1, units FHWA ksi should be used instead of Mpa Derrell Manceaux 02-13-07-Elmer missed this equation 02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.13 -- this Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
commentary is out of place and does not belong with "pier
walls in the weak direction." It appeasr to be for joints.
555 3 8 8.6.10 MO There appears to be a conflict between Section 8.6.10 and Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Further 02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.6.10. Yes Yes No Yes
Section 8.8.2 (Eq. 8.33 & 8.34) investigation required.
556 3 8 8.7.1, min lateral FHWA This section appear to be the only flexural requirement in Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: (by ELMER) good point. I'm not sure what the Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
strength calculating longitudinal steel in SDC B. The force proper answer is but I have tried to clarify the intent by
is .1xDead Load. This should be contributory mass the providing an equation. THIS EQUATION MUST BE
column will carry in an event. It is not clear if phi factors REVIEWED BY CALTRANS AND ROY IMBSEN.
are required or if this is compared to an elastic capacity or
plastic capacity. Also, this is only valid for a single column
since a multiple column bent will have different DL’s.
Since they will deflect the same amount due to the rigid
diaphragm, they will require the same flexural capacity.
My example problem has an acceleration is .191 so the
actual force is doubled from the minimum capacity
requirements.
557 3 8 8.8, SDC B FHWA Since plastic hinging can form in SDC B, there should not Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: (by ELMER) I tend to agre but this issue is best No No Yes-03-01-07 Yes
be provisions permitting lessor requirements than in SDC addressed by Roy Imbsen and Caltrans. JQ 03-08-07: DM
C,D in the plastic hinge zone suggested to place in parking lot for next revisions.
558 3 8 8.8.2, min steel ratio FHWA How does 8.8.2 min steel differ from min steel in 8.7.1? Derrell Manceaux No No No Yes
559 3 8 8.8.3, splicing in SDC FHWA Since plastic hinging can form in SDC B, there should not Derrell Manceaux JQ 03-08-07: DM suggested to place in parking lot for next No No Yes-03-01-07 Yes
B be provisions permitting splicing in the plastic hinge zone revisions.
560 3 8 8.8.4 MO Minimum Development Length of Reinforcing Steel for Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Imbsen 02-19-07: (by ELMER) The transverse joint reinforcing Yes Yes No No
SDC C or D – It is assumed that these proposed guidelines suggests that a minimum embedment length of 24db requirements may be intended to confine and therby reduce
would replace seismic information in the current LRFD is required, cannot use hooks or mechanical devices the developmet length of the longitudinal column bars in
AASHTO. Is it correct that the 1.25 factor discussed in to reduce that length. LRFD development lengths the footings and cap beams. VERIFY WITH ROY
the current LRFD Section 5.10.11.4.3 is unnecessary and will in many cases be larger than this value - may IMBSEN 3-6-07-SB Agree, this
only 24 bar diameters needed? need to suggest some language to clarify intent. requirement should be considered along with joint shear
requirements of Art 8.13.
561 3 8 8.8.4 & 8.8.5, FHWA Since plastic hinging can form in SDC B, there should not Derrell Manceaux JQ 03-08-07: DM suggested to place in parking lot for next No No Yes-03-01-07 Yes
development in SDC be provisions permitting smaller development length in the revisions.
B plastic hinge zone
562 3 8 C8.8.4.3.2 MO Format error in the numbering of the commentary sections. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for 3-6-07 SB Edited Yes Yes No No
CA to administer.
563 3 8 8.9 MO Clarify for non-monolithic connection between Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: 02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised language Yes Yes No No
superstructure and substructure the statement “. . .girders Statement/provisions in Guide Spec. seem clear but
shall be designed to remain essentially elastic when the hard to apply. Possible suggest some commentary.
column reaches its overstrength capacity.”
564 3 8 8.9, capacity protected FHWA How is this section different from the last paragraph in Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: (by ELMER) rvised the language and added Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
8.5? What is the "overstrength" factor to use in this some commentary. Refernce to figure 8.5-1 is provided to
section? Define "essentially elastic" illustrate point on the M-f curve corresponding to Mne.
565 3 8 8.11, 2cd paragraph FHWA Overstrength moment should be Mpo and not Mo Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes No No
566 3 8 8.13.4.1 MO Typographic error of Ajv instead of Ajh. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Agree with 3-6-07 SB Edited Yes Yes No No
commenter. Editorial for CA to administer.
567 3 8 8.13.4.2, units FHWA psi units should be ksi Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.13. Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
568 3 8 8.16.2 MO Clarify “. . .the extent of longitudinal reinforcement can be Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggested 3-6-07 SB Edited to clarify intent. Yes Yes No No
reduced to only the upper portion of the pile required to response to MO: Statement in Guidelines seem
develop ultimate tension and compression forces.” Based clear. Context begins with verbiage about "In
on what analysis or deflection? special cases" and "when permanent casing is used".
Permanent casing serves as longitudinal
reinforcement. Consider matter resolved.
601 4 1 1.1 TRB Section 1.1, Task 5, Item 2 (p. 1-3). Geotechnical site Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee investigations are increasing using cone penetration tests to more specific input can be obtained.
AFF50(1) of characterize stratigraphy and soil properties. Methods that
AFF50 - use the CPT should be included in national specifications.
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
chaired by Dr.
Ed Kavazanjian
602 4 1 Figure 1.3A FHWA 02-06-07- Change the term "SEAT WIDTH" to Derrell Manceaux 02-20-07 This will be consistant with LRFD Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
"SUPPORT LENGTH" in 2 locations
603 4 3 3.1 TRB Section 3.1 (p.3-1); “no detailed seismic analysis is Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. This is an important issue to consider. If we have potential JQ 02-22-07: Paragraph is tentatively deleted pending Yes Yes No Yes
Subcommittee required for a single span bridge…”. This ignores for significant lateral spreading or other form of instability discussion with Team. … JQ 02-27-07: Retained
AFF50(1) of potential ground instability, liquefaction & lateral spread due to liquefaction at the abutments, we should not be paragraph; modified per suggestion. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07
AFF50 - effects that could result in collapse of even a long single eliminating the need to perform the geotechnical seismic Team discussed in Sacramento. See modified guide spec.
"Seismic span bridge in a very high seismic area. Perhaps there analysis. I suggest the wording in Comment Insert #1 (see
Design of could be some consideration or commentary to at least WORD document: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc Comment
Bridges" consider looking at long single span bridges (>200 feet?) Insert #1).
in high seismic areas with end bents on high embankments
over liquefiable soils.
604 4 3 3.2 AR Art. 3.2 mentions "Life Safety for the Design Event", Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/4/07: Suggested JQ 02-22-07: Item is closed on condition response is Yes Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
"Significant Damage Level" and "Significant Disruption to Response to AR: The phrases Life Safety for the adequate to AR.
Service Level". These terms are somewhat cumbersone. Design Event, Significant Damage Level, and
The could be called Performance Level I, II, and III for Significant Disruption to Service Level are better
example. Also, how does Figure C3.3-1 relate to these defined and clarified in Art. 3.2. These phrases are
levels? What is the "operational objective"? How do the all tied together when describing one level of
Design Levels differ, and what is specifically required of performance. Other higher levels of performance,
each? such as the "operational objective" are not coverved
by the Guide Specs. With acceptance of suggested
response, mattter considered resolved.
605 4 3 C3.2, 3rd Para. BERGER/ Lee Either delete the entire paragraph, or delete the reference to Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM JQ 02-22-07: Paragraph tentatively deleted. Yes 02-22-07 JQ Yes 02-22-07 JQ No Yes
Marsh Table C3.2-1 and reference ATC 49 for the information
developed at the workshop.
Page 26 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
606 4 3 3.4 TRB (p. 3-9) Articles 3.4 and 3.4.3 are mixing up the term “site Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See Comment Insert #2 (see WORD Document: Chyuan- JQ 02-26-07: Tentatively inserted proposed commentary. Yes Yes No Yes
Subcommittee specific” procedures. There has been confusion in the past 02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #2). Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 Team discussed in Sacramento. See
AFF50(1) of as to what a “site specific” procedure consists of. There are modified guide spec.
AFF50 - two takes on this 1) a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
"Seismic Analysis (PSHA), or deterministic methods, to assess the
Design of affects of all earthquake sources on a given site and 2) a
Bridges" Site Response Analysis (SRA) which just evaluates the
soil response at the site. Both of these have been referred
to as a “site response” analysis. The distinction between
these two different procedures should be clearly defined in
the commentary to Article 3.4. Also it might be best to
keep these two procedures separated and not intermixed
when possible.
607 4 3 C3.3, 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee Start a new paragraph for 'Conventional Ductile Design'. Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes 02-15-07 JQ Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
Marsh
608 4 3 C3.3, 3rd Para. BERGER/ Lee The reference to Article 4.7 should be to 4.3.3. Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes 02-15-07 JQ Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
Marsh
609 4 3 C3.3, Page 3-11 BERGER/ Lee This is the second entry for a commentary section C3.3. Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM JQ 02-22-07: Require team approval on rewrite (if any) of Yes Yes No No
Marsh The information in this second section directly supports the entire commentary in this section. See S.
the mandatory directions given in 3.3 several pages earlier. Brandenberger's proposal.
Suggest moving all the second C3.3 ahead of the first
C3.3. The last paragraph of the second C3.3 contains an
incomplete reference to a flow chart.
610 4 3 C3.4, Heading BERGER/ Lee Shaking is mis-spelled. Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes 02-15-07 JQ Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
Marsh
611 4 3 3.4.1 TRB (p. 3-10) Figure 3.4.1.1; Why reduce the spectral Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this Yes Yes Yes Yes
Subcommittee accelerations at To from SDS to 0.4SDS. Why not keep it issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input
AFF50(1) of flat like the old spectra? It would seem that some bridges and supporting evidence can be obtained.
AFF50 - with very low periods in this range may start to deform
"Seismic plastically and the period of the structure could shift
Design of towards a higher period during the course of the
Bridges" earthquake (especially in a high M event) and might be
required to take on higher loads than designed for. This
may be unconservative especially in high seismic areas.
612 4 3 C3.4 FHWA 02-06-07-Change the word "SHARING" to "SHAKING" Derrell Manceaux JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Yes 02-15-07 JQ Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
613 4 3 3.4.2.1 TRB Site Class Definitions, Page 3-12: Even though these are Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this Yes Yes Yes Yes
Subcommittee straight from NEHRP, some notice that NERHP may not issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input
AFF50(1) of be appropriate for sites with Rock at less than 100 ft or for and supporting evidence can be obtained.
AFF50 - deep soil sites should be included. We recommend these
"Seismic cases be considered as special study sites.
Design of
Bridges"
614 4 3 C3.4.2.2 2nd Para BERGER/ Lee Reference to Appendix B with the strikethrough should ? 3-1-07: OK, LM JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement Yes 02-22-07 JQ Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
Marsh stand. Remove strikethrough, and keep current Appendix
B. However, if App A is moved then the citations should
change accordingly.
615 4 3 C3.4.2.2 Last Para BERGER/ Lee Missing reference to an an appendix should be to App C. ? 3-1-07: OK, LM JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement Yes 02-22-07 JQ Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
Marsh Include NCHRP 12-49 Appendix C verbatim. Renumber if
required.
616 4 3 3.4.3 BERGER/ Lee Reference to "Appendix A" should be "C3.4.1", which ? 3-1-07: OK, LM JQ 02-22-07: Deleted reference to Appendix A and placed Yes 02-22-07 JQ Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
Marsh matches the original use in NCHRP 12-49. referal to Article C3.4.1.
617 4 3 C3.4.5 FHWA 02-06-07- Commentary does not coorespond to and Spec Derrell Manceaux JQ 02-22-07: Article C3.4.5 deleted. Yes 02-22-07 JQ Yes 02-22-07 JQ No No
provisions. Consider deleting it or parking lot that section
618 4 3 3.5 Alaska/ Elmer Remove the "g" fom table 1. Note that "g" is not included Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. The spectral maps should reflect JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation including Yes Yes 02-15-07 JQ No No
as part of SD1 of Article 3.4.1 that the plot values are acceleration coefficients (or Tables 3.4.2.3-1 and 2.
similar language) not actual accelerations and as
such the consideration of gravity "g" is not
specifically needed.
619 4 4 C4.1.2 AR P. 4-2, "C4.1.2 Minimum Seat Width" should be C4.12 Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/4/07: Suggest this 02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Yes Yes No Yes
and should be relocated to P. 4-22. The formula for N is Article be deleted. Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
given in Metric Units and should be given in U.S. agree…………Dan/IL 2/19/07: Support width provsions
Customary Units to match the rest of these Guidelines. It edited revised to be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot...3-
is said in this commentary that the multiplier for skew is 6-07 SB Seat width calculation for SDC D using rigorous
(1/cos S) but is should be (1+0.000125S2). S being the analysis is maintained.
skew.
620 4 4 C4.1.2 FHWA 02-06-07 "Minimum Seat Width" Should be "Minimum Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
Support Length". Also, the scetion should be relocated and Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
renumbered C4.12. agree…………Dan/IL 2/19/07: Support width provsions
621 4 4 C4.1.2-second FHWA 02-06-07-Change the word "Seat" to "Support" and change Derrell Manceaux 02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
paragraph the symbol □ to Ø Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
622 4 4 C4.3 AR Art. C4.3 is titled "SDC B". Either the C4.3 designation or Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/4/07: Text of C4.3 is Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
the "SDC B" title incorrect. Art. 4.3 is titled not bad, but completely out of context with
"Determination of Seismic Lateral Displacements corresponding code side Article. Tried to "find a
Demands". home" without success. Suggest deleting. C4.3.2
seems more or less OK.
623 4 4 C4.3, 3rd Para. BERGER/ Lee Paragraph seems to conflict with the limits given in Table Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
Marsh 4.2 and the procedures of Table 4.1.
624 4 4 4.3.2 Alaska/ Elmer Suggest that effective damping greater than 5% be Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. As the following phrase to the end Dan/IL 2/19/07: Edited this into Article. Yes Yes No No
permitted only with owner's approval. of the first sentence of the first paragraph: "with the
owner's approval."
625 4 4 C4.3.2 Alaska/ Elmer Remove te fourth and fifth paragraphs of the commentary. Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Remove the commentary Dan/IL 2/19/07: Commentary language deleted beginning Yes Yes No No
This information is not required nor is it applicable to this language beginning with "Equivalent viscouse with "Equivalent viscouse damping may be considered…"
article. damping may be considered…" and ending with "… and ending with "…is the damping ratio, capped at 30%."
is the damping ratio, capped at 30%."
626 4 4 C4.3.2, 3rd Para. BERGER/ Lee Consider adding: 'responding as a single-degree-of- Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
Marsh freedom system' to the end of the 3rd sentence.
Page 27 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
627 4 4 4.3.3 Alaska/ Elmer Commentary should be added about the background of the Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Add the following commentary: Dan/IL 2/19/07: Commentary added with grammatical and Yes Yes No Yes
short-period structure modification factor, Rd. "C4.3.3 The assumption that displacements of an notational corrections.
elastic system will be the same as those of an elasto-
plastic system are not valid for short-period
structures that are expected to perform inelastically.
The proposed adjust factor is one method for
correcting the displacement determined from an
elastic analysis for a short-period structure."
628 4 4 C4.5, 3rd Para. BERGER/ Lee Which plane is being referred to? Horizontal, top and Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
Marsh bottom trusses?
629 4 4 Table 4.3 FHWA 2/6/2007-Ss should be SDS Derrell Manceaux Dan/IL 2/19/07: Table deleted. Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
630 4 4 C4.8 AR Art. C4.8 exists two times, one titled "Capacity Design and Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/4/07: As a first Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA 3-6-07 SB Commentary edited. Yes Yes No Yes
Strength Requirements of Members Framing into iteration, suggest deleting the first title for C4.8 and proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
Columns" and "Structural Displacement Capacity for SDC replacing with the second. Then delete the second anticipated for resolution.
B, C, and D". The "Capacity Design …." C4.8 should be title.
nearer C4.11.
631 4 4 C4.8 AR Art. C4.8 mentions P-, should this be P-D? Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/4/07: Suggest: Yes Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA 3-6-07 SB Commentary edited. Yes Yes No Yes
with CA to administer. proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
632 4 4 C4.8.2 AR C4.8.2 references Figure C3.3.1.1(b) which should be Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Editorial: Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA 3-6-07 SB Commentary and Article edited. Figures Yes Yes No Yes
Figure 3.3.1(b). Rename: Figures 3.3.1a, 3.3.1b, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 to proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is renamed following AASHTO style guidelines.
3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-3, and 3.3-4, respectively. Change anticipated for resolution.
these figure references in Article 3.3 also. In C4.8.2
change the reference to Article 3.3.1 to Article 3.3.
In C4.8.2 change the reference to Figure C3.3.1.1(b)
to Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3. Note that comment
sparked more cleanup than originally indicated.
633 4 4 C4.8.2, 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Suggest deleting the first sentence. The way the guidelines Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No No
Marsh are written, I am not sure that this is true. proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
634 4 4 C4.8.2, 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Limits on the plastic rotations for in-ground hinges are not Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA Yes Yes No No
Marsh provided in the Guidelines, as far as I can tell. proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
635 4 4 C4.11, 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee Numerous missing references (Article X.X) are included. Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
Marsh
636 4 4 C4.11.2, First Entry BERGER/ Lee There are two C4.11.2 sections. The first possibly could be Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes Yes No No
Marsh renumbered C4.11.1(a).
637 4 4 4.12 FHWA 02-05-07-Correct Figure 4.3 to remove ∆ot from figure Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-See attachment MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
638 4 4 4.12 FHWA 02-05-07-Add commentary similar to LRFD. C4.12 Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Add commentary similar to LRFD. C4.12 MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
Support lengths are equal to the length of the overlap Support lengths are equal to the length of the consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
between the girder and seat as shown in figure4.3. To overlap between the girder and seat as shown in 2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
satisfy the minimum values for N in this Article, the figure4.3. To satisfy the minimum values for N in consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
overall seat width will be larger than N by an amount equal this Article, the overall seat width will be larger
to movments due to prestress shortening, cree, shrinkage, than N by an amount equal to movments due to
and thermal expansion/contraction. THe minimum values prestress shortening, cree, shrinkage, and thermal
for N given in equations 4.15 & 4.16 includes arbitrary expansion/contraction. THe minimum values for N
allowance for cover concrete at the end of the girder face given in equations 4.15 & 4.16 includes arbitrary
of the seat. If above average cover is used at these allowance for cover concrete at the end of the girder
locations, N should be increased accordingly face of the seat. If above average cover is used at
these locations, N should be increased accordingly
639 4 4 4.12.1 FHWA 02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 4.15 and Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from equation MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
the definition for ∆ot. 4.15 and the definition for ∆ot. consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
640 4 4 4.12.2 FHWA 02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 4.15 and Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from equation MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
the definition for ∆ot. 4.15 and the definition for ∆ot. consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
641 4 4 4.12.2 FHWA 02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from the sentence "∆ot Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from the sentence MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
and Sk are defined in in Article 4.12.1" "∆ot and Sk are defined in in Article 4.12.1" consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
Page 28 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
642 4 4 4.12.2 FHWA 02-05-07-First sentence, change the word "width" to Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-First sentence, change the word "width" to MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
"length" and delete the words "thermal movement, "length" and delete the words "thermal movement, consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
prestress shortening, creep, shrinkage, and the" prestress shortening, creep, shrinkage, and the" 2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
643 4 4 4.14 Alaska/ Elmer The wording in this article is confusing. Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Specific reference to Article 5.8.4 Dan/IL 2/19/07: LRFD Article has been referenced. Yes Yes No No
of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications may be warranted.
644 4 4 C4.14 AR In Art. C4.14, the over-strength shear key capacity is used Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Suggested Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article has been improved. Yes Yes No No
for "assessing the load path to adjacent members". Is this Response for AR: If we understand the question, we
higher shear force used to design shear blocks? believe the answer is yes, in a sense. It is our
understanding that the "overstrength capacity" of a
shear key is a kind of plastic capacity. At the Life
Safety Design Event acceleration for the Guide
Specs, the key is typically designed to fuse or break,
but this is not always the case. If the overstrength
capacity of a shear key is exceeded and it fuses, the
load path to adjacent members will change and this
should be taken account of by the designer. So,
generally, or typically, the shear key overstrength
capacity would be the seismic force from the Life
Safety Design Event.
645 4 4 Chap 4, General BERGER/ Lee There is nothing in Chapter 4 about the abutments and Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say OK….Say Done. Yes Yes No No
Marsh whether to include them in the ERS. It seems that the
material in Section 5.2.1 that relates to design choices (as
opposed to modelling) should go into Chapter 4.
646 4 4 4.12 FHWA 02-05-07-Change title to read "MINIMUM SUPPORT Derrell Manceaux 02-05-07-Change title to read "MINIMUM MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes Yes 03-01-07 No Yes
LENGTH REQUIREMENTS" to be same as proposed SUPPORT LENGTH REQUIREMENTS" to be consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
LRFD specs same as proposed LRFD specs 2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
647 4 5 5.1.2 Alaska/ Elmer The third and fourth paragraphs are more commentary than Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Move third and fourth paragraphs Dan/IL 2/20/07: Same as 381. Yes Yes No No
specification requirements. to the commentary.
648 4 5 C5.1, 2nd Para. BERGER/ Lee Either remove or define the term 'very flexible'. Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/21/07: "Very flexible" deleted. "shall" revised to Yes Yes No No
Marsh "should".
649 4 5 5.2.2 Alaska/ Elmer The last sentence of the first paragraph is more Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Move the last sentence of the first Dan/IL 2/21/07: Same Comment as 382. Yes Yes No No
commentary then specification requirements. paragraph to the commentary.
650 4 5 5.2.3.3(b) TRB (p. 5-8) Section 5 has values for determining deflection to Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this Dan/IL 2/21/07: IL's geotechnical engineer helped me take Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee mobilize the passive earth pressure. The basis for 0.04 issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input a look at this Article. These computed stiffnesses were
AFF50(1) of term on page 5-8 is unknown. The deflection for cohesive and supporting evidence can be obtained. judged "reasonable". However, the 0.04 factor in the
AFF50 - soils should be increased from from 0.02H to 0.04H or denominator was removed and 0.02 was replaced with the
"Seismic 0.05H. variable Fw. Commentary was added which reads:
Design of "Guidance on the value of Fw to use for a particular bridge
Bridges" may be found in Table C3.11.1-1 of the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. The table presents values of
Fw for dense sand, medium dense sand, loose sand,
compacted silt, compacted lean clay, and compacted fat
clay. If the influence of passive pressure extends beyond
one particular soil type at an abutment, averaged or
weighted average values for Fw may be used at the
engineer’s discretion."...Advice from WA was very
beneficial. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 Team discussed in
Sacramento. See modified guide spec.
651 4 5 5.3 Alaska/ Elmer The arrowhead in the "Diaphragm Abutments" figure does Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Fix the arrow to point to the Dan/IL 2/21/07: Yes it points to the dashed line however Yes Yes No No
not point to anything. dashed line. clunkily. If we have time, will revise, but leave for now.
652 4 5 5.3.1 Alaska/ Elmer The reference to SDC D in the third paragraph seems to Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Remove the reference to SDC D Dan/IL 2/21/07: Agree, has been revised. Yes Yes No No
contradict the requirements of the fourth paragraph. in the third paragraph.
653 4 5 C5.3.1, 1st Para. BERGER/ Lee In the second sentence, this should read 'point of fixity', Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/21/07: Fixed. Yes Yes No No
Marsh not 'point of flexibility'.
654 4 5 5.3.2 TRB Page 5-12 gives strain factors that were developed based Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this Dan/IL 2/21/07: Agree. This was heavily edited. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee upon the 2500 year EQ from the ATC/MCEE work. It issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input References to Appendix C were removed and now reads:
AFF50(1) of does not appear that anyone ever checked them for the and supporting evidence can be obtained. "The shear modulus (G) used to compute stiffness values
AFF50 - 1000 year event. should be determined by adjusting the low-strain shear
"Seismic modulus (Gmax) for the level of shearing strain using strain
Design of adjustment factors (G/Gmax) which are less than one (1.0).
Bridges" Strain adjustment factors for SDC D should be less than
those for SDC B or C."
655 4 5 C5.4.4 FHWA 02-06-07-Delete 1st paragraph since it is not applicable Derrell Manceaux Dan/IL 2/21/07: Stehpanie and Dan have modified Yes Yes No No
commentary. Should be OK.
656 4 5 C5.5.1 FHWA 02-06-07-word wrap problems between 2cd and 3rd Derrell Manceaux Dan/IL 2/21/07: Stehpanie and Dan have modified Yes Yes No No
paragraph commentary. Should be OK.
657 4 5 C5.5.2, 3rd Para. BERGER/ Lee Consider adding some guidance alerting the Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM Dan/IL 2/21/07: Stehpanie and Dan have modified Yes Yes No No
Marsh analyst/designer to the fact that warping torsional commentary. While a good idea, may not have time.
resistance (from individual girder flexure) can exceed the
pure torsional stiffness for open girder bridges.
658 4 6 6.2.4 TRB (p. 6-2) Why require a seismic slope stability analysis in Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See Comment Insert #4 (see WORD Document: Chyuan- JQ 03-05-07: Team agreed to include statement regarding Yes Yes No No
Subcommittee SDC B & C but not require a liquefaction analysis and it’s 02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #4 ). slope stability and liquifaction in Art. 6.2.1
AFF50(1) of effects on slope stability? Limiting liquefaction effects to
AFF50 - only SDC D will likely ignore areas where liquefaction
"Seismic could occur and cause significant slope instability and
Design of bridge damage.
Bridges"
Page 29 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
659 4 6 6.3.4 Alaska/ Elmer Remove this article until it becomes more commmonly Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Remove Article 6.3.4. Article 2-28-7: moved rocking to appendix A and permit with Yes Yes No Yes
used and understood. 6.7.1will need to be modified to remove the owners approval.
reference to the rocking analysis -- specifically,
removing the second to last sentence of the second
paragraph. Article 5.3.2 will need be modified to
remove the reference to the rocking analysis --
specifically, removing the last sentence of the last
paragraph. Article 5.3.2 will need to be modified to
remove the reference to the rocking analysis --
specifically, removing the last sentence of the last
paragraph. Delete Figures 6.1 and 6.2. Remove the
last sentence of the first paragraph of Article 8.3.1.
Remove option 9 from Figure 3.3.1b. Remove
option 4 from Figure 3.3.2. Remove "rocking"
notation from Section 2. Replace the language in
Article 6.3.2 with "Design spread footings in SDC
B for the forces associated with the elastic seismic
analysis." Replace the language in Article 6.3.3 with
"Design spread footings in SDC C and SDC D for
the forces associated with the overstrength plastic
moment capacity, Mpo."
660 4 6 C6.3.1 AR The commentary after Art. C6.3.1 reads C7.4.2.1. Should Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Suggest 3-6-07 SB Rocking Analysis has been moved to Appendix. Yes Yes No No
this designation be C6.3.4? Rocking analysis be moved to Parking Lot.
661 4 6 C6.3.1, 4th Para. BERGER/ Lee There is not a Table C3.2-1. Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM 2-15-07-SB Edited, same as #529 Yes 2-15-07 SB Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
Marsh
662 4 6 C6.3.1 FHWA 02-06-07-Delete last paragraph"Inertial response…" since Derrell Manceaux Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
it is not applicable.
663 4 6 6.4.2 TRB Section 6.4.2, describes foundation design for “standard Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. In the 1st paragraph of Article 6.4.2, suggest changing "16 SB 02-15-07 Suggest compromise: 18" pipe piles. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee size piles”, (diameters ≤ 16”). Diameters of 18”-24” are inches" to "18 inches". Regarding what to do with larger
AFF50(1) of not that uncommon. What does a designer do for piles diameter piles, put that issue in the parking lot for now,
AFF50 - larger than 16”? Why not go to 24” diameter for until more specific guidance can be developed.
"Seismic “standard” piles and then provide commentary on what
Design of additional considerations are needed for larger diameter
Bridges" piles?
664 4 6 C6.4.1 AR Art. C6.4.1 talks about battered piles. Why isn't this in the Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Suggested 3-6-07SB Commentary has been edited. Yes Yes No No
Actual Code itself? Does Art. C6.4.1 apply to Art. 6.4.1? Response to AR: This Commentary Article could be
misplaced or does not have a "good home yet". It
will either be moved, revised or deleted for the first
publication of the Guide Specs. As far as batter is
concerned, it is our feeling that this subject is fairly
well suited for a commentary, especially with the
style that this Commentary Article is written.
Battered piles have been traditionally discouraged in
regions of high seismicty and really should be dealt
with on a case-by-case basis as the Guide Specs
state.
665 4 6 C6.4.2 AR The commenary after Art. C6.4.2 reads C7.4.3.3 and Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Suggest at a 2-15-07-SB Edited Yes Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
C7.4.3.4. What is the correct Article Designation? Also, minimum the headings for C7.4.3.3 Moment and
C7.4.3.4 "Liquefaction Check" does not have any text. Shear Design and C7.4.3.4 Liquefacion Check be
deleted. As commentary is addressed further, the
text for C7.4.3.3 may be deleted as is apparent.
666 4 6 C7.4.2.1, Heading BERGER/ Lee Should this heading number be C6.3.4? Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM 2-15-07-SB Edited Yes Yes No No
Marsh
667 4 6 C7.4.3.3 FHWA 02-08-07- Title should be bold Derrell Manceaux 2-15-07-SB Edited Yes Yes No No
668 4 6 C7.4.3.3 FHWA 02-08-07-First sentence should read "…SDC B for two Derrell Manceaux 2-15-07-SB Edited Yes Yes No No
reasons…"
669 4 6 C7.4.3.4 FHWA 02-08-07-Delete this commentary. It has no text and is Derrell Manceaux 2-15-07-SB Edited Yes Yes No No
incorrectly numbered
670 4 6 6.4.4 AR Art. 6.4.4, 2nd paragraph, last sentence says "in no case Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: To be 3-6-07-SB Information moved to C6.4.4 and reworded to Yes Yes No No
shall uplift exceed the weight of material surrounding the addressed further. say "uplift capacity need not be taken less than the weight
embedded portion of the pile". Does this mean there of the pile (buoyancy considered)".
should be no net uplift at the service limit state,
considering Dead Load and Buoyancy? The weight of
material surrounding the pile might be only a small
fraction of the total applied Dead Load (i.e. columns and
caps). What is the "material surrounding the embedded
portion of the pile"?
671 4 6 6.4.4 WA/ Tony (p. 6-10) Section 6.4.4, 3rd paragraph – Why are treated Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. Recommend deleting "Treated or" in "Treated or untreated Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment. Yes Yes No No
Allen timber piles not allowed? timber piles are not allowed." Delete the paragraph.
672 4 6 C6.4.4 AR Art. C6.4.4 is titled "Drilled Shafts", should this be Art. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Suggest taking 2-15-07-SB Edited Yes Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
C6.5? the two paragraphs under the heading C6.4.4 Drilled
Shaft and moving them to be the first two
paragraphs under the heading C6.5 Drilled Shafts.
The delete the heading C6.4.4.
673 4 6 C6.4.4 TRB (p. 6-10) C.6.4.4 : “Drilled Shafts”; this section is in the Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. Move the two paragraphs in Article C6.4.4 to Article C6.5. 2-15-07-SB Edited Yes Yes 2-15-07 SB No No
Subcommittee “Pile Cap Foundation section and it should be moved to
AFF50(1) of Section 6.5.
AFF50 -
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
674 4 6 C6.4.4 FHWA 2/8/2007-Commentary should be numbered as C6.5 Derrell Manceaux 2-15-07-SB Edited Yes Yes No No
Page 30 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
675 4 6 6.5 TRB In Section 6.5 it states: A stable length shall be ensured Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See Comment Insert #6 (see WORD Document: Chyuan- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in Yes Yes No Yes
Subcommittee for a single column/shaft. The stable length can be 02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #6). Sacramento. See revised guide spec.
AFF50(1) of determined by using the lesser of 1.5 times the stable
AFF50 - length achieved by applying lateral forces based on
"Seismic overstrength properties or applying a 1.5 multiplier factor
Design of on the lateral forces based on overstrength principals
Bridges" considered in determining the tip of the shaft required for
lateral stability. What is the purpose of this multiplier?
How was the 1.5 value determined? This is really a load
factor and I think most load factors are 1.0 (or less) under
seismic loading. There should be some discussion in the
commentary about this multiplier and what a “stable
length” is. Why is this required if all of the limit states
have already been satisfied? Could this result in a
significant cost increase for shafts in solid rock?
676 4 6 6.8 TRB (p. 6-17) Regarding Section 6.2.5, “Foundation Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I agree that this is a general problem with the proposed Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in Yes Yes No Yes
Subcommittee Investigation for SDC – D” and Section 6.8 “Liquefaction specifications, in that structural criteria are being force fit Sacramento. See revised guide spec.
AFF50(1) of Design Requirements”, liquefaction assessment is only into the geotechnical design. Criteria for deciding whether
AFF50 - required in SDC – D and then only if certain “mean” or not a liquefaction assessment should be conducted needs
"Seismic magnitude requirements are met. The SDC – D category to be separate from the structural response spectra criteria,
Design of is based on SD1 (one-second spectra acceleration) > 0.50g as those criteria are not applicable to geotechnical design.
Bridges" (section 3.5). Why was the one-second spectral See suggested wording in Comment Insert #7 (see attached
acceleration selected to evaluate the need for liquefaction WORD document: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc Comment
analysis? The Site Coefficients were not developed for Insert #7).
liquefaction assessment; they are for use in characterizing
site response for the development of response spectra.
What is the connection between a 5% damped, 1 sec.
design response spectra and the liquefaction potential at a
given site?
677 4 6 6.8 TRB Using the criteria in Artcle 6.8 for determining whether or Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See suggested wording in Comment Insert #7 (see attached Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in Yes Yes No Yes
Subcommittee not liquefaction needs to be assessed, a soil profile is WORD document: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc Comment Sacramento. See revised guide spec.
AFF50(1) of classified as Site D if the average N value for the upper Insert #7).
AFF50 - 100 feet of soil is ≥ 15, even if there may be a significant
"Seismic layers of say N = 3 – 8 liquefiable sands present. With the
Design of average N greater than 15 you can find (depending on the
Bridges" S1) that you don’t have to evaluate liquefaction at all. This
method for screening liquefiable sites may be extremely
unconservative in many areas. Also, the magnitude 6.5
cutoff is extremely unconservative.
678 4 6 6.8 TRB In paragraph b, is “the” [(N1)60] blow count referring to Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I assume that this is referring to the average blowcount in Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in Yes Yes No No
Subcommittee the any (N1)60 value in the soil column? the column, but this is not clear. In any case, see suggested Sacramento. See revised guide spec.
AFF50(1) of rewording in Comment Insert #7 (attached WORD
AFF50 - document: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #7)
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
679 4 6 6.8 TRB Sometimes the “mean” magnitude doesn’t represent the Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in Yes Yes No No
Subcommittee magnitude of any real earthquake that might actually affect more specific input can be obtained. Sacramento. See Modified Guide Spec.
AFF50(1) of the site. You should look at all the sources affecting the
AFF50 - site through the deaggregation process described in the
"Seismic Appendix.
Design of
Bridges"
680 4 6 6.8 TRB Section 6.8 (p. 6-17). Moment magnitude limits for no Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See Comment Insert #7 (see WORD Document: Chyuan- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in Yes Yes No Yes
Subcommittee liquefaction of 6.5 to 6.7 are too unconservative for use in 02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #7). Sacramento. See revised guide spec.
AFF50(1) of general practice. In general, magnitude 5.5 earthquakes are
AFF50 - capable of triggering liquefaction near the earthquake
"Seismic source.
Design of
Bridges"
681 4 6 6.8 TRB Section 6.8 (p. 6-18). It is overly conservative to use Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee liquefied conditions for resistance, but use essentially more specific input can be obtained. Sacramento.
AFF50(1) of “peak” strength conditions for demand (i.e., a non
AFF50 - liquefied spectrum).
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
682 4 6 6.8 TRB Section 6.8 (p. 6-18). The limit of 2/3 of the nonliquefied Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee spectrum on a “liquefied” spectrum should only be more specific input can be obtained. Sacramento. Agree with Originator's Proposal.
AFF50(1) of allowed for periods up to 1 second. At greater than 1 to 2
AFF50 - second period, this limit could be highly unconservative
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
683 4 6 C6.8 FHWA 02-08-07-2nd Paragraph. Need a reference to the Derrell Manceaux 2-15-07 SB Edited. Note all appendices deleted per Yes Yes No No
Appendix for liquifaction. committee decision.
684 4 7 7.1 Alaska/ Elmer It appears that for the most part, structural steel members Lian Duan / Elmer Marx Agree. No change recommended due to the REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
are designed using force-based principals. apparent significant amount of work involved. LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
685 4 7 C7.1 AR The fourth paragraph of Art. C7.1 starts out "The intent of Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/7/07: Suggest at a REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 3-6-07 SB See revised Article and Commentary Yes Yes No No
Article 7.2……." Should this be Art. C7.2? minimum inserting a C7.2 heading above current LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
"4th paragraph". Others are also re-examining this REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
section and part may be moved to another
Section/Article entirely.
686 4 7 C7.1, 7th Para. BERGER/ Lee Remove the reference to 'expected earthquake'. Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
Marsh LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
687 4 7 C7.1, Overall BERGER/ Lee The commentary runs over into the next spec sections. Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
Marsh LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
688 4 7 Figure 7.1 FHWA 02-08-07-The note in Figure 7.1 has incorrect fonts Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
Page 31 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
689 4 7 7.4.1 Alaska/ Elmer Present Table 7.1 in LRFD (dimensionless) format. Lian Duan / Elmer Marx Agree. See attached MS Word document. REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
690 4 7 7.4.2 Alaska/ Elmer Present Table 7.2 in LRFD (dimensionless) format. Lian Duan / Elmer Marx Agree. See attached MS Word document. REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
691 4 7 Table 7,1 FHWA 02-08-07-Incorrect fonts used Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
692 4 7 Table 7.2 FHWA 02-08-07-Incorrect fonts used Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
693 4 7 7.5.1 Alaska/ Elmer It seesm odd that of the three bulleted plastic hinge regions Lian Duan / Elmer Marx Agree. No change is required. PERHAPS ROY REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
the last value is 39 inches. CAN ADDRESS WHY A FIXED DIMENSION LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
RATHER THAN A VARIABLE DIMENSION IS REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
USED.
694 4 7 C7.5.3,C7.5.4,C8,7,6, FHWA 02-08-07-Incorrect commentary-Suggest parking lot these Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes Yes No
C8.7.6.3,C8.7.6.2,C7. items LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
7.1,C8.7.5.4 REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
695 4 7 C7.6 AR Art. C7.6 mentions Art. 8.7.7, this Article could not be Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/7/07: Suggest REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 3-6-07 SB See edited Article and Commentary Yes Yes No No
found. deleting the sentence: "The provisions of Article LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
8.7.7 are added to prevent this behavior." in C7.6. REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
Article 8.9 could be refered to, but it only deals with
capacity protected concrete foundation members
and does not deal with steel, e.g. H-piles, etc.
696 4 7 C7.6 AR Art. C7.6, C7.6.1, C7.6.2, and C7.6.3 are out of place. Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/7/07: Suggested REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 3-6-07 SB See edited Article and Commentary Yes Yes No No
They follow C7.7.1 and the C8's listed in the following repsonse to AR: Yes, major cleanup and revision is LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
comment. required in this area of the Guide Specs. which the REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
Improvement Team will address.
697 4 7 C7.6.2 AR Art. C7.6.2, Paragraph 3, Figure mentioned as C8.7.7.2-2 Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/7/07: Suggested REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 3-6-07 SB See edited Article and Commentary Yes Yes No No
and should be Figure C7.6.2-2. Paragraph 4 mentions repsonse to AR: Yes, major cleanup and revision is LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
C8.7.7.2-3 and should be C7.6.2-3. required in this area of the Guide Specs. which the REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
698 4 7 7.7 AR Found near Art. 7.7 are Articles C8.7.6, C8.7.6.1, Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/7/07: Suggested REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 3-6-07 SB See edited Article and Commentary Yes Yes No No
C8.7.6.2, C8.7.6.3, and C8.7.5.4. What is the correct repsonse to AR: Yes, major cleanup and revision is LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
designation or location for these Article? required in this area of the Guide Specs. which the REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
699 4 7 7.7.6, equation 7.20 FHWA 02-08-07-Incorrect fonts used Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: finalized Yes Yes No No
700 4 7 C7.10 FHWA 02-08-07-Parkinglot Commentary until a specification is Lian Duan / Elmer Marx REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY 2-28-7: removed commentary Yes Yes Yes Yes
developed LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
701 4 8 8.3.1 Alaska/ Elmer Either the Strength or Service Load Combiantion may Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Remove the first paragraph and ok 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
govern the design of a member. replace it with the following: "Initial sizing of
columns can be performed using the Strength and
Service Load Combinations."
702 4 8 8.3.2 Alaska/ Elmer This article references itself. Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Remove the last sentence of the ok 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
first paragraph and replace it with the following:
"Force demands shall be less than capacities
established in Article 8.5 and Article 8.6."
703 4 8 8.3.4 Alaska/ Elmer The term "Equivalent Member" is undefined. Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Suggest that the term "Equivalent ok 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
Member" by replaced with "member." PERHAPS
ROY OR OTHER MEMBER OF THE TEAM
CAN PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE.
704 4 8 8.4 Alaska/ Elmer This article is confusing. Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. Remove the first paragraph and ok 02-19-07: see revised language Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
replace it with the following: "Use the expected
material properties to determine section stiffness
and overstrength capacities."
705 4 8 Figure 8.2 FHWA 02-08-07-Delet the term (Mpa)-See attached file Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: okay Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
706 4 8 8.6.2 FHWA 02-08-07- all equations-fyt is not defined. Should this be Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: see previous item and revised article Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
fyh as shown in the nomenclature?
707 4 8 8.6.2, Equation 8.23 FHWA 02-08-07-Ds should read "D'". Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: see previous item and revised article Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
708 4 8 8.6.3, Equation 8.25, FHWA 02-08-07-"D" is not defined. Change D to D' Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: see previous item and revised article Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
8.27
709 4 8 8.6.3, Equation 8.26 FHWA 02-08-07-Equation 8.26 is missing-add a note "equation Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: revised all equation numbers Yes Yes No No
8.26 is deleted" OR renumber the equations and all
references
710 4 8 C8.6.3 AR Art. C8.6.3 mentions Figure C8.8.2.4-3. This designation Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Coment is 3-6-07-SB See edited commentary Yes Yes No No
should be Figure C8.6.3-3. correct. Editorial change.
711 4 8 C8.6.3 AR Art. C8.6.3 and Fig. C8.6.3-1 mention 200 mm as the Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Coment is 3-6-07 SB See edited commentary Yes Yes No No
maximum spacing for the longitudinal bars. As this correct. Editorial change.
specification is in English units, 8" should be the preferred
dimension.
712 4 8 C8.6.3 AR Art. C8.6.3 mentions "Equation 7.8.2.5-1 or 8.8.2.5-1 of Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: We think 02-19-07: see revised Article 8.6.3 Yes Yes No No
the Specifications". Where are these equations and which Specifications refers to the Guide Specifications.
Specifications re the guidelines referring to? Dr. Imbsen "adapted" this Commentary from 12-49
(That is why the refered to equation numbers are
what they are). Suggest this is part of the
Commentary that will require futher clean-up as
apparent through time.
713 4 8 C8.6.3 FHWA 02-08-07-Change the title to read "Shear Reinforcement Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: okay Yes Yes No No
Capacity"
714 4 8 C8.6.3 FHWA 02-08-07-Change the term "D=diameter of column" to Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: okay Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
D'=Core diameter of column"
715 4 8 C8.6.3, Heading BERGER/ Lee The commentary and guidelines section of the same Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM 02-19-07: see revised - okay Yes Yes No No
Marsh number do not seem to match? I believe the commentary
goes with C8.8.7?
Page 32 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
716 4 8 C8.6.3-1 FHWA 02-05-07-Replace the figure with the one attached in the Derrell Manceaux Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
file. This clears out the mm term. Last sentence, change
the term from "200 mm" to "8 inches". Change the
reference rom C8.8.2.4.3" to C8.6.3-4"
717 4 8 8.6.6 FHWA 02-08-07-Add SDC A, (if SDS > .05) Derrell Manceaux JQ 03-08-07: DM suggested to place in parking lot for next No No Yes-03-01-07 Yes
revisions.
718 4 8 C8.6.7 AR Should Art. C8.6.7 "Limited Ductility Requirements for Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: We believe 02-19-07: okay Yes Yes No No
Wall-Type Piers" be labeled C8.6.10? comment is correct. Editorial change.
719 4 8 8.6.7.1 AR There is not an Art. 8.6.7.1 or 8.6.7.1.1 but there are Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Suggest 3-6-07 SB Commentary edited. Yes Yes No No
commentaries referring to them. What is the proper deleting these Articles in Commentary.
designation for these Articles? This Article refers to Figure
C8.8.4.3-1. Where does this Figure exist? The formula
contained in this Article should be in English units instead
of MPa?
720 4 8 8.6.9, Equation 8.30b FHWA 02-08-07-Fonts incorrect Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: OKAY Yes Yes No No
721 4 8 8.7.1 FHWA 02-08-07-Pdl is defined at the bottom of the column in the Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: refer to revised article and equation. NEED Yes Yes 03-01-07 No No
nomenclature. Change the 2nd sentence to read from "top INPUT FROM TEAM AND DR. IMBSEN
of column" to "bottom of column"
722 4 8 8.7.1 FHWA 02-08-07-Need to discuss with Panel-A flexure strength Derrell Manceaux JQ 03-08-07: DM suggested to place in parking lot for next No No Yes-03-01-07 Yes
of .1DL is required for SDC B,C,D, but SDC "A" requires revisions.
a connction/flexure strength of .2DL. This is a
discrepency-See #360
723 4 8 C8.8 AR The designation for Articles C8.8.4.3.2, C8.8.4.4, Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Suggested 02-19-07: see revised Section Yes Yes No No
C8.8.5.3, C8.8.6, and C8.8.6.1 is incorrect or these Articles response to AR: The commentary in this area of the
are out of place. They are near Articles 8.12 and 8.13. Guide Specifications will be revised, edited and
organized.
724 4 8 8.8.2, Equation 8.32a FHWA 02-08-07- Add SDC A (if SDS>0.05) Derrell Manceaux JQ 03-08-07: DM suggested to place in parking lot for Yes No Yes-03-01-07 Yes
future revision.
725 4 8 C8.8.2.7 FHWA 02-08-07-Titel should read "C8.8.3 Splicing of Derrell Manceaux JQ 03-08-07: SDC B not included; DM suggested to place Yes No Yes-03-01-07 Yes
Longitudinal Reinforcement in Columns Subject to in parking lot for future revision.
Ductility Demands for SDC B,C, or D"
726 4 8 8.8.3 FHWA 02-08-07-Change the word "shaft" to "pile" Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: used "pile or shaft". Yes Yes No No
727 4 8 8.8.3 & 8.8.4 FHWA 02-08-07-Add SDC B to satisfy minimum splicing and Derrell Manceaux JQ 03-08-07: SDC B not included; DM suggested to place Yes No Yes-03-01-07 Yes
development length requirements in parking lot for future revision.
728 4 8 C8.8.7 FHWA 02-08-07-Change the Title to read "Lateral Reinforcement Derrell Manceaux 02-19-07: see revised Section Yes Yes No No
Inside the Plastic Hinge Region for SDC D"
729 4 8 C8.8.7 AR The Article after Art. C8.8.7 is C8.8.2.7 "Splices". Is this Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: It appears that 02-19-07: see revised Section Yes Yes No No
Article out of place or is its designation inncorrect? this commentary applies to Article 8.8.3. Suggest
730 4 8 8.8.10 WA/ Chyuan- Revise Sub-Article as follows: " 8.8.10 Development Chyuan-Shen Lee moving
2/07/07.and renumbering
Agree. Consistentfor firstArticle
with editorial
8.8.11 & 02-19-07: OKAY Yes Yes No No
Shen Lee Length for Column Bars Extended into Oversized Pile interation.
8.8.12.
Shafts for SDC C or D"
731 4 8 8.8.10 WA/ Chyuan- Embedment length for column longitudinal bars seem Chyuan-Shen Lee 2/07/07. See see attached WORD document: 02-19-07: This is Caltrans standard detail. Need to verify Yes Yes No No
Shen Lee excessive. For a 6' dia. Column needs to place Chyuan-2007-02-07 Article 8-8-10.doc with them prior to making change. Chyuan-She : 3/1/07.
construction 18' below bottom of column. It's hard for Team discussed this comment in Sacramento. See revised
construction. guide spec.
732 4 Appendix Appendix A BERGER/ Lee Suggest moving Appendix A into Commentary as C3.4.4. ? 3-1-07: OK, LM In a future revision some consideration JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh This will match the original use of this text in NCHRP 12- should be given to adding this information to the Parking lot?
49. commentary. This would provide engineers with useful
background information.
733 4 Appendix Appendix B TRB Appendix B -- this appendix needs to integrated with Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee what is in the Section 10 of the 2006 Interim. When the more specific input can be developed. Parking lot.
AFF50(1) of initial write up for NCHRP 12-49 was prepared, LRFD
AFF50 - didn't have much guidance.
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
734 4 Appendix Appendix B TRB Note that liquefaction (page B-4) is what we came up with Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee for ATC/MCEER 12-49 -- so greater than 0.15g. This more specific input can be developed. Parking lot.
AFF50(1) of contradicts what is in the Guidelines.
AFF50 -
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
735 4 Appendix Appendix B TRB Referernce is made in this appendix to Youd and Idriss Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee (1997). We should be changing this reference to Youd et more specific input can be developed. Parking lot.
AFF50(1) of al. (2001). The same comment applies throughout this
AFF50 - Appendix as well as to the next Appendix.
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
736 4 Appendix Appendix B TRB Ideally, we should also add words to mention Cretin and Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee Moss's work with Ray Seed and the work that Boulanger more specific input can be developed. Parking lot.
AFF50(1) of and Idriss have done recently for liquefaction. Geoff,
AFF50 - recall that we had some of the same discussions on the
"Seismic update to the NEHRP documents. What the current write-
Design of up reflects is our thinking 8 years ago. It seems to me that
Bridges" if we are updating AASHTO, we should be within the
decade on references. I see this as a serious shortcoming
of the work that was taken from 12-49.
737 4 Appendix Appendix C TRB Appendix C -- this appendix is terrible. Someone tried to Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee extract parts of what we did for 12-49, and made a mess of more specific input can be developed. Parking lot.
AFF50(1) of things. The texts now refers to factors for strain and liftoff
AFF50 - without providing these factors (page C-2). The order is
"Seismic inconsistent, and there is little explanation in the way of
Design of commentary. I don't recall if some of this discussion was
Bridges" what we wrote for commentary or specification. But
whatever, it was taken out of context and now is very
difficult to understand.
Page 33 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
738 4 Appendix Appendix C TRB Group effects (page C-5) assume 3 diameters. This was Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee what we thought 10 years ago. But I wonder if the work more specific input can be developed. Parking lot.
AFF50(1) of by Rollins, Ashford, McVay, Brown and others suggest
AFF50 - the group effect should be different. Note that WSDOT
"Seismic and others are now use different factors for trailing piles
Design of versus forward piles. Maybe Po could provide some
Bridges" guidance on this.
739 4 Appendix Appendix C AR Page C-5. Where does the 1.25 constant in the axial Brandenberger / Tobias MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Appendices 3-6-07 SB Appendix deleted Yes Yes No Yes
stiffness equation (C-1) come from? Removed from Guide Spec. Guide Specs reference
other documents as required.
740 4 Appendix Appendix C TRB Section C.5 needs to be put back with the spread footing Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee discussion. The equation for moment rotation was more specific input can be developed.
AFF50(1) of dropped from page C-7 -- or did I overlook it in the
AFF50 - Guideline? The displacement to mobilize passive pressure
"Seismic is inconsistent with the text in the Guideline.
Design of
Bridges"
741 4 Appendix Appendix C TRB The discussion of passive earth pressures (page C-8) was Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee what we thought in 1997. I think that reference needs to more specific input can be developed.
AFF50(1) of be made to Anoosh's recent work at Caltrans -- at least to
AFF50 - get us a little more current.
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
742 4 Appendix Appendix C TRB Discussion at the end of page C-9 is inconsistent with the Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee next Appendix. more specific input can be developed.
AFF50(1) of
AFF50 -
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
743 4 Appendix Appendix C BERGER/ Lee Evaluate whether to include this material at all. If no ? 3-1-07: OK, LM In a future revision some consideration JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh return-period specific values are included, then this should be given to updating the corresponding appendix of
appendix may be fine as is. 12-49. This would provide engineers with useful
744 4 Appendix Appendix D TRB Appendix D refers to SDRs. How do these relate to the Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee SDCs. They should be consistent. more specific input can be developed.
AFF50(1) of
AFF50 -
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
745 4 Appendix Appendix D TRB There appears to be some conflicting recommendations Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee between Appendix D.4.1 where it seems to say spread more specific input can be developed.
AFF50(1) of footings over liquefiable soils are acceptable in some cases
AFF50 - and the requirements in Section 6.3 (no footings over
"Seismic liquefiable soil). It should be clear that footings are not
Design of recommended over liquefiable soils under any condition.
Bridges" Again there is the SDR inconsistency in this appendix
section
746 4 Appendix Appendix D TRB Appendix D -- overall I think that this appendix is OK -- Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee better than everything else that I read. At least it followed more specific input can be developed.
AFF50(1) of a consistent story. The screening for liquefaction is not
AFF50 - consistent with what is stated in the Guidelines -- in terms
"Seismic of looking at liquefaction for SDR 3-6. As noted above,
Design of the work is now at least 8 years old, and needs to be
Bridges" updated to give newer references -- Youd et al. (2001) as a
minimum but probably also recent work by Cretin, Moss,
Boulanger, etc.
747 4 Appendix Appendix D TRB Criteria for fines on page D-4 is no longer accepted by Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. See Comment Insert #7 (see WORD Document: Chyuan- JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee most folks -- per work by Boulanger, Idriss, Bray, etc. 02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #7).
AFF50(1) of This needs to be changed.
AFF50 -
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
748 4 Appendix Appendix D TRB Need to check to see if reference to Youd's lateral spread Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee equation is the most up to date. I thought that he revised in more specific input can be developed.
AFF50(1) of 2003 or so.
AFF50 -
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
749 4 Appendix Appendix D TRB Geoff's curves on page D-18 and D-19 have been updated. Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee Also, as I have noted to Geoff several times, I don't think more specific input can be developed.
AFF50(1) of that we should be showing displacements less than 1 inch
AFF50 - -- and maybe it should be 4 inches on these plots.
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
750 4 Appendix Appendix D TRB Discussion on page D-28 (last paragraph) needs to be Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee checked against our original write-up. I am not sure if this more specific input can be developed.
AFF50(1) of is what we said. References on page D-32 seem to be to
AFF50 - Sections that no longer exist.
"Seismic
Design of
Bridges"
751 4 Appendix Appendix D BERGER/ Lee Check with NCHRP 12-49 geotech authors regarding Lee Marsh 3-1-07: OK, LM In a future revision some consideration JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marsh appropriateness of retaining this appendix verbatim. If should be given to updating the corresponding appendix of
changes are required, then delete completely. 12-49. This would provide engineers with useful
Page 34 of 35
578540254.xls 02/23/2022
Comment Spreadsheet
752 4 Appendix Appendix E TRB Appendix E -- I do not believe that this should be Chyuan-Shen Lee 02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment. I recommend deleting Appendix E from the guide JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes Yes No
Subcommittee included in the guide spec. This was an example that was specification.
AFF50(1) of included to show cost comparisons for the 475 and 2475
AFF50 - year earthquake. Since the 1000 year EQ is not treated, it
"Seismic has limited application to the rest of the appendix. Also, I
Design of am not sure that our conclusions should be used as a guide
Bridges" for the spec. Lastly, it seems to me that our methodology
has improved somewhat. We would probably be better to
refer to work done by UCD. In Appendix E, the
Washington DOT’s case study has time-acceleration input
motions specified at the till, not in hard rock. It would be
very helpful if the subject report could provide some
guidelines on how to reasonably revise the rock input
motions to those for shallower stiff soil sites and still yield
an accurate ground response analysis?
753 4 Appendix Appendix E BERGER/ Lee Remove this appendix completely. ? 3-1-07: OK, LM JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement. Yes Yes No No
Marsh
754 4 General Equations Alaska/ Elmer Rewrite all equations in the same style and format as the Elmer Marx 02-09-07: Agree. See attached MS Word documents 02-19-07: OK Yes Yes No No
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. (4 parts).
Page 35 of 35

2007-03-08 Final Compilation of Comments On AASHTO Guide Specifications For LRFD Seismic Bridge D

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

2007-03-08 Final Compilation of Comments On AASHTO Guide Specifications For LRFD Seismic Bridge D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team

You might also like