Category:756 Seismic Design: Difference between revisions

From Engineering_Policy_Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
Smithk (talk | contribs)
Modot, modot
20,986 edits
m Per Bridge, updated Bridge seismic design process flowchart
Smithk (talk | contribs)
Modot, modot
20,986 edits
m Per BR, revised the Bridge seismic design process flowchart.
Line 1: Line 1:
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:15px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"  
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:15px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"  
|-   
|-   
|[[media:756 flowchart.pdf|Bridge Seismic Design Process Flowchart]]
|[http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Attachments/534/16-020-DSC%20SeismicRetrofitFlow_LFD.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Process Flowchart]
|}
|}
All new bridges on the state system shall include some level of seismic design and/or detailing to resist earthquakes based upon an expected seismic event for a given return period. For example, in Seismic Performance Categories B, C and D, both design and detailing work is needed because of the increased probability of damaging earthquakes.
All new bridges on the state system shall include some level of seismic design and/or detailing to resist earthquakes per the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Attachments/534/16-020-DSC%20SeismicRetrofitFlow_LFD.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Process Flowchart] and an expected seismic event for a given return period. For example, for a multi span bridge in Seismic Performance Categories B, C or D, both design and detailing work is needed or detailing work only needed shall be determined as per “Bridge Seismic Design Process Flow chart”.  
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" align="left"
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" align="left"
|-
|-
|[[Image:756 Figure Seismic Performance Categories.gif|340 px|left|Seismic Performance Categories]]||[[Image:756 Figure St. Louis Area.gif|280 px|St. Louis Area]]
|[[Image:756 Figure Seismic Performance Categories.gif|340px|left|thumb|<center>'''Seismic Performance Categories'''<br/>The entire state of Missouri outside of<br/>Categories B, C and D is Category A.</center>]]||width="5"| ||[[Image:756 Figure St. Louis Area.gif|280px|left|thumb|<center>'''St. Louis Area'''</center>]]||width="5"|
|}
|}


Line 13: Line 13:
&nbsp;
&nbsp;


When existing bridges in SPC B, C and D are identified as needing repairs or maintenance, a decision on whether to include seismic retrofitting in the scope of the project should be made based on the location of the bridge, the extent of the rehabilitation work and the expected life of the bridge after the work. For example, if the bridge needs painting or deck patching, no retrofitting is recommended. However, redecking or widening the bridge indicates that MoDOT is planning to keep the bridge in the state system with an expected life of at least 30 more years.  In these instances, the project core team should consider cost effective methods of retrofitting the existing bridge.
When existing bridges are identified as needing repairs or maintenance, a decision on whether to include seismic retrofitting in the scope of the project shall be determined per the “Bridge Seismic Design Process Flowchart”, the extent of the rehabilitation work and the expected life of the bridge after the work. For example, if the bridge needs painting or deck patching, no retrofitting is recommended. However, redecking or widening the bridge indicates that MoDOT is planning to keep the bridge in the state system with an expected life of at least 30 more years.  In these instances, the project core team should consider cost effective methods of retrofitting the existing bridge.
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:15px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#ffddcc" width="210px" align="right"  
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:15px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#ffddcc" width="210px" align="right"  
|-
|-

Revision as of 10:54, 4 January 2017

Bridge Seismic Design Process Flowchart

All new bridges on the state system shall include some level of seismic design and/or detailing to resist earthquakes per the Bridge Seismic Design Process Flowchart and an expected seismic event for a given return period. For example, for a multi span bridge in Seismic Performance Categories B, C or D, both design and detailing work is needed or detailing work only needed shall be determined as per “Bridge Seismic Design Process Flow chart”.

Seismic Performance Categories
The entire state of Missouri outside of
Categories B, C and D is Category A.
St. Louis Area


 

When existing bridges are identified as needing repairs or maintenance, a decision on whether to include seismic retrofitting in the scope of the project shall be determined per the “Bridge Seismic Design Process Flowchart”, the extent of the rehabilitation work and the expected life of the bridge after the work. For example, if the bridge needs painting or deck patching, no retrofitting is recommended. However, redecking or widening the bridge indicates that MoDOT is planning to keep the bridge in the state system with an expected life of at least 30 more years. In these instances, the project core team should consider cost effective methods of retrofitting the existing bridge.

Bridge Dampers, Seismic
Report 2005
Summary 2005
Bridge, Cable-Stayed, Seismic
Report 2007
Earthquake Hazard Assessment
Report 2001
Summary 2001
See also: Innovation Library

Retrieved from "https://epgtest3.modot.org/index.php?title=Category:756_Seismic_Design&oldid=38663"