Commentary To Seismic Design For Railway Structures - 2017

9
Part 2
Commentary to Seismic Design for
Railway Structures1
— 2017 —
FOREWORD
The purpose of this part is to furnish the technical explanation of various Articles in Part 2, Commentary to Seismic Design for
Railway Structures. In the numbering of Articles of this Section, the numbers after the “C-” correspond to the Section/Article
being explained.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section/Article Description Page
C- Section 1.2 Post-Seismic Event Operation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-2

C -1.2.2 Guidelines (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-2
3
C- Section 1.3 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-4
C -1.3.1 Approach (2004) R(2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-4
C -1.3.2 Ground Motion Levels (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-4
C -1.3.3 Performance Criteria (2006) R(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-11
C- Section 1.4 New Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-12

C -1.4.3 Conceptual Design (2001) R(2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-12
C -1.4.4 Structure Response (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-14
C -1.4.5 Analysis Procedures (2003) R(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-19
C -1.4.6 Load Combinations and Response Limits (2002) R(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-21
C -1.4.7 Detailing Provisions (2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-22
C- Section 1.5 Existing Bridges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-26

C -1.5.2 Inventory (1995) R(2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-26
C -1.5.3 History (1995) R(2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-26
C -1.5.4 Assessment and Retrofit (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-26
C- Section 1.6 Other Facilities and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-26

C -1.6.3 T rack and Roadbed (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-26
C -1.6.4 Culverts (2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-27
1
References, Vol. 94, 1994, p.110; Vol. 96, p. 64, Vol. 97, p. 113.
© 2017, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association 9-2-1

Seismic Design for Railway Structures
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)
Section/Article Description Page
C -1.6.5 Retaining Walls (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-28

C -1.6.6 Tunnels and T rack Protecting Sheds (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-28
C -1.6.7 Buildings and Support Facilities (2007) R(2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Description Page
9-C-1 Peak Ground Acceleration vs. Return Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-11

9-C-2 Example Response Spectra with Low Period Reduced Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-18
9-C-3 Example Response Spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-21
LIST OF TABLES
Table Description Page
9-C-1 Damping Values for Structural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-15

9-C-2 Exceptions to Seismic Response Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-16
9-C-3 FRA Horizontal Track Alignment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-22
C - SECTION 1.2 POST-SEISMIC EVENT OPERATION GUIDELINES
C - 1.2.2 GUIDELINES (2017)
C - 1.2.2.1 Operations
The post-seismic event operation guidelines are intended for use where experience or adequate knowledge of regional
attenuation rates is not available. The response guidelines are based primarily on decades of experience with earthquakes in
California. They provide the basis for a policy for areas where attenuation rates are relatively high, such as California. A more
conservative policy is appropriate in areas where seismic experience is limited and/or attenuation rates are relatively low.
These conditions exist in most of central and eastern North America. Seismic attenuation models were used to extend the
California guidelines to cover other areas of North America. Where justified by adequate experience and/or analysis, a less
conservative policy may be appropriate.
For earthquakes of 6.0 (Richter) and greater, a two-level response is recommended. In areas closer to the epicenter, operations
are more restricted. In areas further from the epicenter, a zone of less restrictive response is recommended. This less
restrictive zone may be useful for moving trains away from the affected zone. Further information on the response levels is
found in Reference 23.
In 1998, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) conducted a study of seismic attenuation rates in various regions in
North America, primarily the United States and Canada (Reference 23). The study reviewed the response policies of four
railroads, the various seismological regions in North America, and the corresponding seismic attenuation models. The seismic
attenuation models were used to extend California-based policies to cover other areas of North America, based on equivalent
levels of acceleration. The development of one railroad’s response policies, including extension of California-based policies
to other regions, is described in Reference 6. Examples of findings in post-earthquake inspections of railroad infrastructure
can be found in Reference 7, 15, 18 and 22.
© 2017, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association
9-2-2 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering

Commentary to Seismic Design for Railway Structures
C - 1.2.2.3.7 Other Structures
It may be desirable to have an arrangement with a qualified inspector to inspect essential buildings immediately after an
earthquake so that their safety can be determined and certified to avoid unnecessary evacuations and/or restrictions on building
use. Essential buildings would include, among others, dispatching centers, yardmaster’s towers, shop facilities, fueling
facilities, buildings containing certain communications facilities, and, for lines with commuter service, passenger stations.
C - 1.2.2.4 Tsunamis
Tsunamis are associated with large offshore, and some near-shore, earthquakes. In some cases, they have been a primary
source of earthquake-associated damage. Of over 1101 earthquakes known to have damaged railroads, fewer than 40 have
occurred in locations where they could possibly have caused tsunamis. Tsunamis associated with nine of these earthquakes
have caused significant railroad damage. They washed out embankments, washed spans off bridges and overturned rolling
stock along coasts near the earthquakes. In addition to these events, two other tsunamis caused lesser damage.
Because of its very long wavelength, a tsunami behaves as a shallow surface wave. Its amplitude in mid-ocean is very small;
as it approaches land, the amplitude builds up and all the energy of the original disturbance is concentrated into a few
wavelengths with devastating results, erroneously called a tidal wave.
In addition to damage in the immediate area of an earthquake, tsunamis have caused damage at large distances from an
earthquake. The tsunami generated by the December 26, 2004 magnitude 9.0 earthquake off the coast of Sumatra washed a
train off a track adjacent to the coast in southern Sri Lanka, killing a large number of passengers. Alaskan earthquakes have
caused damage and loss of life in Hawaii and California and significant damage in Oregon and Washington. Earthquakes near
Chile have caused damage and loss of life in Japan. Hawaii, Japan and some other islands in the Pacific appear particularly
vulnerable to tsunamis from distant earthquakes.
1
Evaluation of the potential hazard to railroad lines along the coasts of Alaska, Washington, California, and a few locations in
Mexico is appropriate. A portion of the Alaska Railroad was severely damaged by a tsunami in 1964. The Washington coast
and west coast of Mexico are subject to earthquakes that could generate large tsunamis. Tsunamis have been generated by
submarine landslides due to earthquakes in California. There is a small, but definite, risk of tsunamis affecting the Atlantic
coast. 3
Tsunami hazard can be considered in two scenarios: tsunamis generated by nearby earthquakes, and those generated by distant
earthquakes. In 1812, an earthquake near Santa Barbara, CA caused a tsunami that produced a run-up (increase in the water
surface elevation) of about 10 feet at the coast. Tsunamis from northern California earthquakes in 1859 and 1868 caused local
run-ups of between 10 and 15 feet along the coast and in San Francisco Bay. The March 28, 1964 Alaska earthquake caused a
tsunami that produced run-ups in the range of 10 to 15 feet at locations in Washington, Oregon and northern California. About
1100 years ago, a tsunami with wave heights in the range of 15 to 20 feet apparently occurred in Puget Sound due to a 4
magnitude 7 or larger, earthquake on the Seattle fault (Reference 16). The 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake caused a tsunami
with wave heights exceeding 30 feet that destroyed a number of trains and other railroad facilities.
A study prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicates maximum tsunami wave heights for distant
earthquakes of about 4 feet, in deep water off the coast, for both Washington and southern California, and up to 7 feet for
northern California, with the height increasing dramatically as the wave moves into more shallow coastal waters. In the case of
Washington, the narrow channels and islands between the open ocean and the Puget Sound coast could reduce the wave height
from the height at the outer coast. In the case of California, the coast is exposed. Advance warnings related to distant
earthquakes would be issued by the West Coast & Alaska Tsunami Warning Center of the National Weather Service one to
several hours before arrival of the first wave, with identification of vulnerable coastal areas.
The waves generated by a nearby earthquake will arrive shortly after the earthquake occurs. The time between the earthquake
and the arrival of the tsunami is dependent on the distance between the location of landfall and the source of the tsunami. For a
large earthquake, the wave height could be much greater than for a comparable distant earthquake. The strike-slip earthquakes
1
As of 2012
AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering 9-2-3

that occur in California are relatively unlikely to produce a large tsunami unless they cause submarine landslides. On the other
hand, a large interplate subduction zone earthquake, similar to the 1964 Alaska earthquake, which can occur near the coast in
Washington, is likely to produce a major tsunami. There is good evidence that a large earthquake near the Washington-Oregon
coast caused a tsunami in Japan in January of 1700. A very crude estimate of the time interval between such an earthquake off
the Washington coast and the arrival of the first wave at the coast in Puget Sound is in the order of one hour. If the generating
earthquake occurred in Puget Sound, the travel time would be a matter of minutes.
Characteristics of the tsunami generated by the June 23, 2001 magnitude 8.4 earthquake in southern Peru, although affecting
the open coast, which is a different environment from the rail lines along Puget Sound in Washington, are of interest as the
generating earthquake is similar to what could occur in Washington. At a location near the earthquake, the first wave arrived
about 6 minutes after the earthquake. At a location near the end of the tsunami damage, the first wave arrived about 35 minutes
after the earthquake. At most locations, the second and third waves were larger than the first wave. The earthquake occurred at
low tide, which resulted in a smaller area of damage than would have been produced at high tide. The maximum run-up was
about 30 feet. In a relatively flat area where the run-up was about 16 feet, inundation extended nearly a mile inland from the
coast (Reference 10). The tsunami produced extreme scour. If a tsunami-generating earthquake and landslide were to occur off
the California coast, travel times would be similar to those observed in Peru.
The appropriate response for a tsunami with a distant source would be movement of trains and, to the extent possible, other
equipment out of designated tsunami warning areas before the estimated arrival of the tsunami. In the case of a nearby
earthquake, advance warning may not be possible. Although most earthquakes do not cause tsunamis, the possibility does exist
for large earthquakes in coastal areas.
Vulnerable areas are close to the coast and have relatively low elevations. Wave run-up heights are rarely greater than 30 to 35
feet, although extreme values in the order of 100 feet have been estimated and local variations due to ocean floor topography
and focusing effects can be large. The crest to trough measurements for the December 26, 2004 tsunami at points on the
Pacific coast of North and South America were generally in the range of 6 to 20 inches but the crest to trough at Manzanillo,
Mexico was about 9 feet (Reference 24). Although most information on tsunami effects is related to vertical run-up, distance
from the coast without significant increase in elevation would provide a degree of protection. A first approximation of the
maximum inland penetration of a tsunami wave in a very flat region, based on the 2001 southern Peru earthquake and 30 to 35
feet of vertical run-up, would be in the order of two miles.
C - SECTION 1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
C - 1.3.1 APPROACH (2004) R(2014)
The vulnerability of a bridge is determined by the risk associated with the earthquake ground motion and the specified
performance criteria. The risks associated with the magnitude of the ground motion at a given location are defined by the
acceleration coefficient maps in Article 1.3.2.3.
The performance criteria specified in this Section is consistent with the post seismic event operating procedures described in
Section 1.2, Post-Seismic Event Operation Guidelines. Together, they aim to minimize consequences of earthquakes.
C - 1.3.2 GROUND MOTION LEVELS (2017)
C - 1.3.2.1 Risk Factors

There are many sources of uncertainty involved in seismic design. The greatest source of uncertainty is associated with the
regional seismicity and the expected ground motion characteristics at the site. The response of the bridge, which is affected by
both the soil and the structure dynamic characteristics, and also the methods of analysis used, add to the overall degree of
uncertainty.
Even when conservative earthquake magnitudes and assumptions are used in design, during its life a bridge may be subjected
to maximum earthquake loads that exceed the desired performance criteria. The design of a bridge for extreme ground motion

is economically undesirable, unless there is a severe social penalty associated with bridge failure. Therefore, a certain amount
of risk must be accepted so that a balance between the probability of large earthquakes and the costs of overdesign can be
achieved.
Determining “acceptable seismic risk” is a very complex task that must consider both social and economic aspects. Obviously
the amount of risk that may be accepted for some bridges is greater than for others. Factors such as the volume and the type of
train traffic, the value and the importance of the bridge and the cost of loss of use have to be considered when establishing
acceptable seismic risk levels (see Article 1.3.2.2). The acceptable seismic risk levels must also be consistent with the risks
due to other extreme events such as flood waters, fire and ship collision.
A relatively simple approach is to adjust the acceptable seismic risk levels used by seismic design codes of other structures,
such as buildings and highway bridges to railroad bridges. Buildings and highway bridge design codes put a major emphasis
on life safety. This is primarily due to their high occupancy rate and the social implications of a large loss of life at one
location. Also, some highway bridges are part of lifelines that must remain open even after severe earthquakes. When the
occupancy rate of most railroad bridges is compared to the occupancy rate of buildings and highway bridges the very large
difference between the levels of risk of loss of life becomes apparent. In addition to this, the movement of trains is controlled
by signalization and dispatchers, so that in the event of an earthquake trains may be stopped. Thus, lower ground motion return
periods may be used for railroad bridge design, and more emphasis can be put on the economic aspects that are more rational
and easier to express in a quantitative way.
Another approach is to perform a probability-based overall seismic risk or cost-benefit analysis. A probabilistic approach can
account for uncertainties in the ground motion, the performance of the bridge during a given ground motion and the methods
of analysis used. Seismic risk analysis may be performed in three steps: (1) Seismic Hazard Analysis, that yields a probability
distribution function of ground motion parameters at the bridge site, (2) Seismic Performance Analysis, that yields
probabilistic statements of the risks of the bridge exceeding the specified limit states, conditioned upon specified levels of
1
ground motion, (3) Seismic Risk Analysis, that integrates the first two steps to yield the overall risk of the bridge exceeding
the specified limit states. This approach, however, is only recommended for special bridge projects and is limited by the
uncertainty involved in seismic hazard estimates.
C - 1.3.2.2 Structural Importance Classification

3
Examples of Determining Structural Importance Classification
Example 1
The proposed structure is a 130’ concrete trestle consisting of 5 spans each 26’ long. The bridge has a height of 30’. The
structure is located on a branchline that has 12 million gross tons of traffic a year. There is no detour around the bridge.
Approximately 25% of the traffic is hazardous material. There is not any passenger service on the line and the structure does
not cross a community life line. 4
Immediate Safety Replacement Value
Occupancy Factor= 1 Span Length Factor = 1
Hazardous material Factor = 1 Bridge Length Factor = 1.50
Community Life Line Factor = 0 Bridge Height Factor = 1.00
2 1.50
Immediate Value
Utilization Factor = 2
Detour Factor = 1.00
2
Serviceability Weighing Factor Weighted Value

Immediate Safety 2 0.80 1.60


Immediate Value 2 0.20 0.40
Replacement Value 1.5 0.00 0.00
2.00
Return Period = 50 +2.00(100-50)/4 = 75 years
Ultimate Weighing Factor Weighted Value

1.95
Return Period = 200 + 1.95(475-200)/4 = 334 years
Survivability Weighing Factor Weighted Value

1.60

Example 2
The proposed structure is a 500’ steel bridge consisting of 2 trusses each 250’ long. The bridge has a height of 50’. The
structure is located on a mainline that has over 50 million gross tons of traffic a year. There is no detour around the bridge.
Approximately 25% of the traffic is hazardous material There are two passenger trains per day on the line. The structure does
not cross a community life line.

Hazardous material Factor = 1 Bridge Length Factor = 1.50
Community Life Line Factor = 0 Bridge Height Factor = 1.25
3 5.63
Note: the factor cannot exceed 4
Immediate Value Replacement Value = 4.00
Utilization Factor = 4
Detour Factor = 1.00
4
Serviceability Weighing Factor Weighted Value

Replacement Value 4 0.00 0.00 1
3.20
Return Period = 50 +3.20(100-50)/4 = 90 years
Ultimate Weighing Factor Weighted Value

3
Replacement Value 4 0.10 0.40
3.90

4
Survivability Weighing Factor Weighted Value
Replacement Value 4 0.80 3.20
4.00

C - 1.3.2.2.1 Immediate Safety
Immediate safety is divided into three factors; occupancy, hazardous materials and community life lines to represent the three
most likely risks during and immediately after a seismic event.
These risks are:
Occupancy: Risk to train crews and passengers due to damage to the structure
Hazardous Materials: Risk to the community caused by the possible release of hazardous
materials
Community Life Lines: Risk to the community caused by the damaged structure disrupting a
community lifeline
The engineer should factor in any additional hazards that may be caused by the structure becoming unserviceable during a
seismic event. The immediate safety factors are added together because the threat that each factor represents to railroad
personnel and the public is independent of each other.
C - 1.3.2.2.2 Immediate Value
Immediate Value evaluates the railroads’s need to return the structure to service after a seismic event. The utilization factor is
multiplied by the detour factor because the need to return a structure to service is reduced when a detour route is available.
The engineer should examine the possibility of the detour route also being damaged in a seismic event when determining the
detour availability factor.
C - 1.3.2.2.3 Replacement Value
Replacement Value evaluates the costs associated with replacing the structure. Replacement Value accounts for three of the
major factors that affect replacement cost: span length, bridge length and bridge height. These factors are designed to be
multiplied together to obtain a value which reflects the difficulty associated with replacing the structure. These factors may not
represent the total cost to replace the structure. Other factors that should be considered are double track structures, movable
structures, urban location, difficult access, environmental and political concerns.
C - 1.3.2.3 Base Acceleration Coefficient Maps
Acceleration coefficient maps reflect the seismic hazard at a site. They account for both maximum ground motion intensity
expected and frequency of occurrence. The maps give ground acceleration levels with a uniform probability of being exceeded
in all areas of the country. The steps involved in the development of these maps include: (1) the definition of the nature and
location of earthquake sources, (2) magnitude-frequency relationships for the source, (3) attenuation of ground motion with
distance from the source, and (4) determination of ground motion parameters at the site having the required probability of
exceedance.
The base acceleration maps for return periods of 100 years, 475 years and 2475 years in the United States were prepared by the
United States Geological Society (USGS) for AREMA. These maps are included mainly for illustrative purposes. Procedures
for determining design accelerations for sites located in the United States and Canada are described in the following
paragraphs.
Accelerations for sites in the United States may be estimated from the maps or, more accurately, determined by using the
interactive tools found on the USGS website at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/. Determination of accelerations for sites in
Canada will require the use of a web-based hazard calculator found on the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) website at
http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-alea/. Example procedures for each website are shown below. The
acceleration values shown are for example purposes only and should not be used for design.
Procedure for sites in the United States

a. Navigate to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/
b. Select the 'Hazard Maps and Site-Specific Data' link, then select the '2008' link under the Hazard Curves heading
c. Select 'Launch Application' (a map of the United States will appear)
d. Type in site location information (for this example Latitude = 33.06277, Longitude = -115.759)
e. Select the 'UHRS' (Uniform Hazard Response Spectra) tab. A graph will appear with several default response spectra
plotted on it. The default Curve Selection is the Site Class B/C boundary which corresponds to Site Class B in the Site
Factor Tables shown in Article 1.4.4.1.2.
f. Add custom return periods as needed (for this example a return period = 100 years was added)
g. The graph will update automatically with any custom return periods added. Acceleration values may be determined
graphically by using the Value tooltip and scrolling across the vertices of the response spectra curves. Acceleration
values for this example are as follows:
Lat: 33.06277, Lon: -115.759
PGA ~40% in 50 yrs 0.2498 (g)

PGA 10% in 50 yrs 0.4659 (g)
PGA 2% in 50 yrs 0.7672 (g)
0.2 sec ~40% in 50 yrs 0.5974 (g)
0.2 sec 10% in 50 yrs 1.146 (g) 1
0.2 sec 2% in 50 yrs 1.936 (g)
1.0 sec ~40% in 50 yrs 0.1696 (g)
1.0 sec 10% in 50 yrs 0.3383 (g)
1.0 sec 2% in 50 yrs 0.5757 (g)
Notes:
3
2% in 50 yrs = 2475-year Return Period
10% in 50 yrs = 475-year Return Period
~40% in 50 yrs = 100-year Return Period
Procedure for sites in Canada

4
a. Navigate to http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-alea/
b. Locate the ‘Hazard Maps and Calculations’ and select ‘Hazard Calculators – Determine seismic hazard at your site’
c. Select ‘Get 2010 hazard values’ from available selections
d. Enter the Latitude and Longitude of the site under consideration (for this example Latitude = 49.26, Longitude = -
123.11)
e. Select the ‘Number of closest points for interpolation’ from the pull-down menu (for this example 15 points was
selected, it is recommended to run the calculation on all 3 available options and select the highest acceleration values
for design)
f. Enter additional optional information as desired (for this example no additional information was entered)

g. Click on CALCULATE
The page will reload after the calculation is complete. Scroll down to the acceleration values which will appear similar
to this:
2%/50 years (0.000404 per annum) probability
Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA

0.932 g 0.642 g 0.333 g 0.173 g 0.462 g
40%/50 years (0.01 per annum)
Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA

0.229 g 0.155 g 0.080 g 0.040 g 0.117 g
Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA

0.492 g 0.334 g 0.172 g 0.087 g 0.246 g
Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA

0.669 g 0.455 g 0.235 g 0.120 g 0.332 g
Notes:
2%/50 years = 2475-year Return Period
40%/50 years = ~100-year Return Period
Future earthquakes and earthquake research will continue to improve the overall understanding of the seismic hazard and will
result in revisions to the acceleration maps. The 2008 edition of the USGS maps and the 2010 edition of the GSC maps were
used in the examples above. More recent maps, maps from different sources, or site-specific procedures may be used as long
as they are based on accepted methods and are consistent with the site factors and response spectra equations in Article 1.4.4.
Formulas are included to determine base accelerations for return periods other than those shown on the maps. These formulas
are based on the procedure shown in Article 2.6.1.3 of Reference 13. The FEMA 273 formulas were simplified for use with
the AREMA base acceleration maps. The FEMA 273 formula for return periods less than 475 years has an exponent that is
based on the acceleration level and site location. This exponent can be determined more directly using the accelerations for

return periods of 100 and 475 years. Section C2.6.1.3 of Reference 14 indicates that the acceleration-return period curves are
nearly linear on a log-log plot between return periods of 475 years and 2475 years, therefore a single formula is used in this
range. Example peak ground acceleration vs. return period curves, developed using the formulas shown in this Article, are
shown in Figure 9-C-1 for various cities throughout the United States. These curves were developed for example purposes
only using specific latitude and longitude values and should not be used for design.
0.70
0.60
Peak Ground Acceleration (G's)
0.50
Los Angeles,
0.40 CA
Seattle, WA
Butte,
Montana
0.30 Memphis, TN
0.20
0.10 1
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Return Period (years)
Figure 9-C-1. Peak Ground Acceleration vs. Return Period 3
C - 1.3.3 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA (2006) R(2014)
A three-level ground motion and performance criteria approach is employed to ensure train safety and structure serviceability
after a moderate earthquake, minimize the cost of damage and loss of structure use after a large earthquake and prevent
structure collapse after a very severe earthquake. Considering all the limit states can account for the unique structural and
4
operating characteristics of railroad structures, and the specific needs of railroad bridge owners. Also, the performance based
format used allows for future updates as the state of the art in earthquake engineering advances. Railroad bridge owners may
use alternate seismic design criteria or waive certain requirements contained herein provided that adequate precautions are
taken to protect the safety of trains and the public following an earthquake.
C - 1.3.3.1 Serviceability Limit State
The primary aim of the serviceability limit state is to ensure the safety of trains. After Level 1 earthquakes, trains are allowed
to proceed at a reduced speed until inspections are completed, and the track is cleared. The stresses and deformations are
limited to immediate use of the structure after a Level 1 earthquake. The allowable deformations of the structure and track may
be related to the train speed restrictions after a Level 1 earthquake. Vibration of flexible bridges with natural periods in the
transverse direction around 1 second may cause derailments even in the elastic response range.

C - 1.3.3.2 Ultimate Limit State
The primary aim of the ultimate limit state is to minimize the extent of damage and to ensure the overall structural integrity of
the bridge. After Level 2 earthquakes, trains are stopped until inspections are completed. Structural damage that can be readily
detected and economically repaired may be allowed. By allowing the structure to respond beyond the elastic range and
undergo inelastic deformations, the earthquake resistance capacity of bridges with good ductility is significantly increased.
C - 1.3.3.3 Survivability Limit State
The survivability limit state aims to prevent overall bridge collapse. After Level 3 earthquakes, the expected track damage
would prevent immediate access to the bridge. The performance of the bridge during such earthquakes will mainly depend on
the ductility and redundancy characteristics of the bridge and on the additional safety measures designed to prevent bridge
collapse.
C - SECTION 1.4 NEW BRIDGES
C - 1.4.3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN (2001) R(2011)
The behavior of bridges during past earthquakes has shown that the structure type, configuration and structural details have a
significant effect on seismic performance. At many locations certain bridge types have survived earthquakes with relatively
minor damage, while other bridges in the same vicinity have sustained extensive damage or collapsed. The survival or failure
of bridges of a similar type has been linked to their configuration and the particular design and detailing criteria used. For
example, bridges with skewed or irregular configurations have experienced extensive damage, often at locations where other
bridges remained unharmed.
The conceptual approach recommended for satisfying the ultimate and survivability limit states consists of seismic design
guidelines based on conceptual principles regarding structure type, configuration and details. Incorporating conceptual seismic
design principles, especially during the early stages of bridge planning and design, can significantly improve seismic behavior
at low additional costs. Also, such an approach is less sensitive to the uncertainties involved in the ground motion description,
the numerical analysis of structure response in the post-yield range, and the limited analytical and experimental seismic
research data on railroad bridges that is currently available.
The recommendations provided are intended to reduce the seismic demands by selecting an appropriate structure type for the
existing site conditions. Following basic requirements for simplicity, symmetry and displacement capability will increase the
seismic resistance by providing adequate strength, stability, ductility, redundancy, energy dissipation and deformation
capability. Strength and stability are important attributes for satisfying the serviceability limit state, while ductility and
redundancy have a significant effect on the ultimate and the survivability limit states. Displacement and deformation capacity
is quite important for structures on poor soil conditions or near a fault line.
The conceptual design phase for railroad bridges should consider the soil conditions and the seismic hazard at the site and
incorporate appropriate means to cope with the seismic induced forces that affect superstructure, substructure (including
foundation) and load bearing strata. Since the nature and direction of gravity and seismic induced forces are significantly
different, it is incumbent upon the design engineer to consider both types of loading conditions in the conceptual design phase
in order to meet the performance requirements of the structure.
C - 1.4.3.1 Configuration
Bridge vulnerability to seismic effects is determined by the ability to resist earthquake forces and/or to withstand large relative
movements. The selection of an appropriate structure type and configuration should take into account the seismic hazard at
the site, the soil conditions and the bridge performance requirements. In general, sites near active faults, sites with potentially
liquefiable or unstable soil conditions, and sites with unstable sloping ground conditions should be avoided, if practical, and
measures to improve the soil conditions should be considered as an alternative. Conventional bridge structures are difficult to
design to resist the load magnitudes generated by large ground displacements and possible settlement or shifting of

foundations. Therefore, where the extent of poor soil conditions is relatively large, a structure type that can accommodate
large ground displacements is recommended. For example, simple span structures with ample bearing support length can
accommodate large movements, without accumulating loads.
Criteria for determining adequate structure configuration and layout include simplicity, symmetry and regularity, integrity,
redundancy, ductility and ease of inspection and repair. Bridges should be simple in geometry and structural behavior. Simple
structures provide a direct and clear load path in transmitting the inertial forces from superstructure to ground. The bridge
behavior under seismic loads can be predicted with more certainty and accuracy with fewer dominant modes of vibration. To
the extent possible, the preferred configuration characteristics of Article 1.4.3.1 should be incorporated. The horizontal
strength and stiffness of substructure elements should not vary much along the bridge and the placement of the fixed and
expansion bearings should be such that a balanced seismic load distribution to all piers can be achieved. Severe skews should
be avoided even at the expense of providing longer spans or making changes in alignment.
Bridges with features such as extreme curvature or skew, varying stiffness or mass and abrupt changes in geometry require
special attention in analysis and detailing to avoid premature damage or failure. The use of integral crash walls with piers in
high seismic areas requires special considerations, since it creates an abrupt change in the pier stiffness. Alternative crash wall
configurations, such as separate walls or piers of heavy construction as defined in Chapter 8, Article 2.1.5.1c, are
recommended.
Redundancy and ductility considerations should also be taken into account when establishing the bridge configuration. In
addition, it is desirable to have a certain degree of deformation capability within the seismic load transfer path, since seismic
demands are reduced when controlled movements are allowed. Bridges with rigid superstructures and rigid substructures
could benefit from some allowance for movements at the bearing location. However, adequate bridge seat widths are needed
to ensure that movements can be accommodated without potential for span loss. A strong and stiff superstructure to
substructure connection is more appropriate when the substructure is not too rigid or when the end diaphragms or cross frames
1
of spans are designed and detailed to undergo ductile deformations during a strong earthquake.
C - 1.4.3.2 Superstructure
Simple spans of standard configuration are preferred by railroads since they have performed well during past earthquakes and
can be returned to service or replaced. Continuous spans may reduce the likelihood of unseating at the piers. This feature can 3
be incorporated in simple spans by providing wider seat widths or span ties. Long spans produce higher load demands on
fewer foundations which will increase foundation vulnerability and reduce redundancy. Heavy ballasted concrete spans will
produce higher load demands on the foundation with subsequent increases in foundation cost. These costs should be
compared to the increase in material and maintenance costs of steel to determine the optimum superstructure type. Excessive
ballast and other non-structural weight should be avoided as much as practical. Intermediate hinges attract high seismic
demands and require special detailing to provide the lateral load paths required to withstand seismic loads.
4
C - 1.4.3.3 Substructure
Wide seat widths at the abutments and piers allow for large displacements without unseating the bridge spans. Integral bent
caps have performed poorly during large earthquakes and require extensive detailing to reduce the likelihood of superstructure
damage. Multiple columns provide redundancy in the substructure which is needed to survive the higher level ground
motions. Battered piles tend to attract most of the lateral load during an earthquake.
C - 1.4.3.4 Ground Conditions
The foundation soil should be investigated for susceptibility to liquefaction and slope failure during the seismic ground
motion. To the extent possible, bridges in regions of high seismicity should be founded on stiff, stable soil layers.
Consideration should be given to ground improvement techniques when the extent of soil instability threatens the performance
of the bridge or approach embankments. It may be possible to satisfy the performance requirements by other means, such as
designing the foundation to survive the soil instability. Large diameter pile foundations may be used to withstand a slope
failure or carry the bridge loads through liquefiable soil layers to competent material.

In some cases, ground improvement or design for soil instability may be impractical. Approach embankments may be allowed
to fail during the higher level ground motion events provided that they can be quickly repaired using earth moving equipment.
Retaining walls founded on deep liquefiable soils may require costly ground improvement to ensure stability. The effects of
wall failure on rail operations should be carefully evaluated and weighed with the costs to improve the soils.
C - 1.4.4 STRUCTURE RESPONSE (2014)
C - 1.4.4.1 Site Effects
The behavior of a bridge during an earthquake is strongly related to the soil conditions at the site. Soils can amplify ground
motions in the underlying rock, sometimes by factors of two or more. The extent of this amplification is dependent on the
profile of soil types at the site and the intensity of shaking in the rock below. Sites are classified by type and profile for the
purpose of defining the overall seismic hazard, which is quantified as the product of the soil amplification and the intensity of
shaking in the underlying rock.
C - 1.4.4.1.1 Site Class
The site classes are consistent with those in Reference 4 and Reference 19. The stiffness of a site may be classified by the
average shear wave velocity, average Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts or average undrained shear strength of soils
in the upper 100 feet (30 m) of the soil profile. Several methods to determine these average values are presented in
Reference 4, along with steps that may be followed to classify a site. A default site class is not given, as this would require a
judgment based on little to no knowledge of the soils.
Experience has shown that most railroad bridge failures that have occurred in seismic events were due to soil failures such as
lateral spreading or liquefaction. Because of this, it is recommended that the foundation investigation should include soil
borings or test pits taken to an adequate depth to determine the soil profile. It should be emphasized that an adequate
foundation investigation is necessary to determine the appropriate foundation type for the structure.
C - 1.4.4.1.2 Site Factors
The site factors are consistent with those in Reference 4 and Reference 19. Site Class B is the reference site class for the
USGS acceleration coefficient maps, and is therefore the site condition for which the USGS site factor is 1.0. Site Class C is
the reference site class for the GSC acceleration coefficient maps, and is therefore the site class condition for which the GSC
site factor is 1.0. Other Site Classes have separate sets of site factors which generally increase as the soil profile becomes
softer. Except for USGS Site Class A and GSC Site Classes A and B, the factors also decrease as the ground motion level
increases, due to the strongly nonlinear behavior of the soil.
Caution should be exercised when applying site factors if acceleration maps other than those discussed in Article 1.3.2.3 are
used. In this case it would be appropriate to use site factors consistent with the maps being used.
C - 1.4.4.2 Damping Adjustment Factor
The Damping Adjustment Factor provides a simplistic method for scaling the seismic response coefficient to account for
different structure types and conditions. The seismic response coefficient is given for 5% critical damping without the
damping adjustment factor. The percent critical damping varies based on the structure material and system, effect of structure
attachments (i.e., track and ballast), whether the structure responds in the elastic-linear or post-yield range, and whether or not
the structure response is dominated by the foundation or abutment response.
The percent critical damping (preferably should be based on actual test data from similar structure types. A table of
damping values for different structural (building) systems from Reference 11 is included below for information and guidance.

Table 9-C-1. Damping Values for Structural Systems
Structural System Elastic-Linear Post-Yield

Structural Steel 3% 7%
Reinforced Concrete 5% 10%
Masonry Shear Walls 7% 12%
Wood 10% 15%
Dual Systems See note 1 See note 2
Notes:
1. Use the value of the primary, or more rigid, system. If both
systems are participating significantly, a weighted value,
proportionate to the relative participation of each system, may
be used.
2. The value for the system with the higher damping value may
be used.
C - 1.4.4.3 Seismic Response Coefficient

1
The Seismic Response Coefficient is the basis for determining the structure design loads for both the Equivalent Lateral Force
Procedure and the Modal Analysis Procedure. The Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure only uses a single value based on the
natural period of vibration of the structure for each of the two principal directions of the structure. The Modal Analysis
Procedure combines values for multiple modes of vibration in each of the two principal directions of the structure.
For areas with soft soil conditions and high seismicity, or close proximity to known faults, or for special bridge projects, a site-
specific hazard analysis is preferred. The analysis should be based on accepted practice using the ground motion return period
3
determined in accordance with Article 1.3.2.2 “Structure Importance Classification.” A good discussion of site-specific hazard
analysis is contained in Reference 4 and Reference 11.
The formula for the Seismic Response Coefficient is adopted from Reference 4, rearranged to more closely resemble previous
editions of this chapter and modified by the Damping Adjustment Factor from Reference 11. The coefficient is based on 5%
critical damping. There are exceptions to the formula; however, they were not included since the exceptions differ from code 4
to code and unnecessarily complicate the Seismic Response Coefficient. The values obtained using the basic formula are
conservative compared to the exceptions. The exceptions from various codes are listed below for information. If the bridge
designer believes that the exceptions are needed for a particular site, they may be included or preferably use site-specific
response spectra.

Table 9-C-2. Exceptions to Seismic Response Coefficient
Source Exception
Reference 2 For long period bridges (greater than about 3 seconds) response accelerations are proportional to
1/T2.
Reference 12 For structures where any modal period of vibration (Tm) exceeds T1, the long period transition
period (varies between 4.0 seconds and 16.0 seconds), the Seismic Response Coefficient for that
mode is permitted to be determined by the following equation: F v S 1 DT L
C m = -----------------------
-
2
Tm
C - 1.4.4.4 Low Period Reduced Response
Railroad bridges are often more rigid than typical multi-level buildings or highway bridge structures. Therefore the response
of railroad bridges in the low period range needs to be thoroughly addressed. Most general response spectra curves, such as
those defined in Reference 13 have reduced responses in the low period range. Typically, these curves vary linearly from the
peak ground acceleration at zero period to a maximum constant acceleration response at the initial transition period, To as
shown in Figure 9-C-2. Other response spectra curves, such as those given in Reference 5 show a flat region for very low
periods that represent perfectly rigid response. The AREMA seismic response coefficient defined in Article 1.4.4.3 does not
include the reduced response at low periods since it was felt that typical railroad bridge analysis underestimates the actual
period of the bridge. Underestimation of the structure period can result in unconservative response for low period structures
when the reduced response region of the response spectra is used. This section was developed to allow the bridge designer to
take advantage of the reduced response for low period structures when appropriate. The provisions listed in Article 1.4.4.4
account for the most common sources of flexibility in the structure, however, the bridge designer should consider any other
component that will increase the structure period.
Typical railroad bridge analysis uses the gross moment of inertia for reinforced concrete members to determine the stiffness
and load distribution. Use of the gross moment of inertia for a reinforced concrete substructure member will underestimate the
structure period when the flexural tension stress exceeds the concrete modulus of rupture. The effective moment of inertia, as
determined from EQ 2-12 in Chapter 8, Part 2, Article 2.23.7c, of reinforced concrete members will provide a more
representative structure period. The cracked moment of inertia used in EQ 2-12 may be determined from moment-curvature
analysis of the member using the following relationship.
My1 = Moment at first yield of reinforcing steel

y1 = Curvature at first yield of reinforcing steel
Ec = Concrete modulus of elasticity (Chapter 8, Part 2, Article 2.23.4)
It is common practice to model bridge foundations as either pinned or fixed. If the foundation stiffness is overestimated, then
the structure period will be underestimated. Foundation flexibility for spread footings may be accounted for by including a
rotational footing stiffness calculated in accordance with accepted procedures, such as those defined in Section 5.3 of
Reference 17. Lateral translation flexibility of a spread footing need not be considered provided that the base soil friction is
not exceeded. Foundation flexibility for pile footings may be accounted for by using accepted procedures, such as including a
rotational pile cap stiffness that is derived from realistic pile load-deflection (t-z) data. When vertical piles are used, the lateral
translation foundation stiffness should be determined from realistic pile lateral load-deflection (p-y) data, supplemented, if
appropriate, by lateral soil resistance on the pile cap. If either of these foundation types is founded on sound rock, the effects
of foundation flexibility can be neglected.
Lateral flexibility of the bridge spans may amplify the seismic response between the bridge piers. For example, a point in the
middle of the span may have a higher response acceleration than the point at the top of the pier. This effect is typically
accounted for by performing modal analysis of the bridge using a model with at least four elements making up the span length.

Foundation rocking is a response that occurs when the applied moment on a spread footing exceeds the overturning moment
resistance. Rocking response will increase the period of the foundation and most likely take it out of the low period reduced
response range.
The low period reduced response defined in this Article has been developed based on review of the response spectra from
other codes along with visual inspection of a number of response spectra generated from actual strong motion records. The
perfectly-rigid period limit of 0.03 seconds corresponds to a frequency of 33 Hz and has generally been considered appropriate
for this type of response. Evaluation of response spectra generated from actual strong motion records indicates that this is
conservative except for sites very close (< 10 miles or 16 km) to the fault. The only structures that are expected to fall in the
perfectly-rigid range are rigid piers with spread footings or piles founded on rock. Other rigid piers will generally fall in the
low period linear transition region due to foundation flexibility.

0.00 < T  0.03 Perfectly-rigid region
0.03 < T  To Low period linear transition region
To < T  Ts Constant acceleration region
To = Initial transition period = 0.2(FvS1/FaSs)
Ts = Constant acceleration transition period = FvS1/FaSs
T = Period of vibration
SS = Short-period (0.2 second) Spectral Response Acceleration Coefficient determined

in accordance with Article 1.3.2.3
S1 = Long-period (1.0 second) Spectral Response Acceleration Coefficient determined

in accordance with Article 1.3.2.3
Fa = Site Factor for short-period range of acceleration spectrum determined in

accordance with Article 1.4.4.1
Fv = Site Factor for long-period range of acceleration spectrum determined in

accordance with Article 1.4.4.1
Figure 9-C-2. Example Response Spectra with Low Period Reduced Response

C - 1.4.5 ANALYSIS PROCEDURES (2003) R(2014)
C - 1.4.5.1 General
C - 1.4.5.1.1 Serviceability Limit State
Within the serviceability limit state the response of a bridge is limited to its elastic range. Therefore, methods based on elastic
analysis are most appropriate. The methods specified depend on the bridge configuration. The Equivalent Lateral Force
Procedure expresses earthquake loads in terms of structure mass and Seismic Response Coefficient for the site. It will
probably be applicable to the majority of the existing railroad bridges. The Modal Analysis Procedure is a more accurate
approach that can evaluate irregular bridges, effects of higher modes of vibration and specific ground motion characteristics.
Other analysis procedures such as time-history analysis or deformation-based methods may be appropriate for certain
structures and/or site conditions, but are not addressed herein.
C - 1.4.5.1.2 Ultimate and Survivability Limit State
The response of a bridge near its ultimate limit state is highly nonlinear and uncertain due to incomplete knowledge of
inelastic structural action. Seismic highway bridge design codes specify the use of elastic analysis for the ultimate loads, and
response modification factors that account for nonlinear behavior. Satisfying the ultimate state criteria is practically the main
requirement of these codes, and there is on-going research to improve the analysis models and to get more reliable estimates of
the response modification factors recommended. Using a similar approach for the evaluation of railroad bridges for the
ultimate limit state would require more research into nonlinear response of railroad bridges to extreme horizontal loads. Also,
for railroad bridges, satisfying the serviceability limit state, that is concerned with the continuing operation of trains after a
seismic event, is the main design condition. The serviceability limit state criteria is associated with very low risk levels of 1
being exceeded, and it will most likely be more restrictive than the other limit states. Using a conceptual design approach for
the ultimate and the survivability limit states can overcome the high level of uncertainties involved in numerical analysis of the
nonlinear bridge response. Conformance with the ultimate and the survivability limit states is based on requirements for type,
geometry, materials, ductility and redundancy. The conceptual design methods recommended to ensure satisfactory
performance for the ultimate and the survivability limit states are based primarily on experience from past earthquakes and
from research and testing results applicable to railroad bridges. Commonly accepted detailing provisions and guidelines for a
specific seismic region which are consistent with railroad practices may be used until more specific requirements for adequate 3
details, connections, ductility and redundancy are developed herein.
The requirement for non-ductile, non-redundant primary load carrying elements of structures to be designed for higher seismic
loads is necessary to ensure survivability of some structures during an extreme event. The design forces to be used in this case
are the lesser of the seismic forces or the maximum load which can be transmitted to the element. Non-ductile, non-redundant
primary load carrying elements are bridge components whose failure can cause structure collapse. An example of such a
component is a poorly reinforced single column concrete bent. 4
C - 1.4.5.2 Procedure Selection
The procedure used to analyze the structure is based on the bridge configuration. Single-span bridges do not require formal
analysis, however they should be investigated using commonly accepted empirical formulations to ensure that the abutment
seat widths are adequate to prevent span collapse. Two-span bridges are considered regular since they have only one bent,
which precludes stiffness irregularity. Irregular bridges may be those with bridge vulnerability aspects as listed in
Article 1.4.3.1. A more specific description of bridge irregularity may be found in other codes such as Reference 2.
C - 1.4.5.3 Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure
The Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure is included as a simple method of analysis that may be used for regular bridges. The
calculations for this procedure are appropriate for hand calculation methods in most cases, though static computer analysis
may be used to determine the load distribution to the individual members.

The two principal directions of the structure are typically the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge. For curved
bridges, the longitudinal direction may be taken as a straight line connecting the centerline of the bridge at the beginning and
end.
The natural period of vibration (Tm) for each of the two principal directions of the structure may be calculated using any
commonly accepted method. The following simple formulation may be used.
W
T m = 2 -------
gK
W= Total weight of the bridge.

g= Acceleration due to gravity (length/time2)
K= The total structure stiffness including the stiffness of the superstructure, supporting members and
surrounding soil.
The seismic response coefficient, Cm, applied to the substructure of single level bridges may be reduced to the average of the
Cm value calculated in Paragraph 1.4.5.3a for the superstructure and the peak ground acceleration coefficient multiplied by the
appropriate site factor, FpgaPGA, determined in accordance with Article 1.3.2.3 for the ground, but shall not be less than the
peak ground acceleration coefficient, multiplied by the appropriate site factor, FpgaPGA. The actual seismic response
coefficient, Cm, varies throughout the structure in proportion to the relative lateral movement. A common method of
equivalent lateral force analysis assumes that one-half the weight of the substructure is lumped at the superstructure level for
the period calculation and the foundation load is calculated using the complete bridge weight with the seismic response
coefficient determined for the superstructure. This analysis approach is accurate when the substructure weight is small relative
to the superstructure weight, but may be too conservative for heavy pier substructures. Rather than using the more accurate
modal analysis approach, a simple modification to the equivalent lateral force procedure may be used to minimize the
foundation demand for bridges supported by large pier substructures. It is conservative to assume that the actual seismic
response coefficient, Cm, varies linearly from the peak ground acceleration coefficient, multiplied by the appropriate site
factor, FpgaPGA, at the ground level to the seismic response coefficient calculated at the superstructure level as long as the
response at the superstructure level exceeds the peak ground acceleration coefficient multiplied by the appropriate site factor.
Therefore the average of these two acceleration values may be applied to the weight of the pier to more accurately determine
the demand at the foundation.
The seismic load should be distributed to the individual members based on the stiffness and support conditions. For a regular
structure with uniform weight per unit length and simple supports, this reduces to a simple beam calculation for the
superstructure between supports and a single lateral load calculation for the supporting bents.
C - 1.4.5.4 Modal Analysis Procedure
The Modal Analysis Procedure is included as a general method of analysis that may be used for any bridge configuration. The
calculations for this procedure are appropriate to be performed by any commonly available finite element computer program.
The response spectra is developed from Paragraph 1.4.4.3 “Seismic Response Coefficient.” The value of the Seismic Response
Coefficient (Cm) should be calculated for a range of period (Tm) values to adequately define the spectral shape for the range of
period (Tm) values needed to represent the structure. Figure 9-C-3 gives an example spectral shape for values of Fv, F1, S1 and
D all equal to 1.0 and SS equal to 2.5.

1
Figure 9-C-3. Example Response Spectra
C - 1.4.6 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND RESPONSE LIMITS (2002) R(2014)
The load combination used for the level 1 ground motion should be consistent with the probability of occurrence of the 3
earthquake. For this reason, live load is usually not included in the load combination. Certain situations, such as long viaducts
with high traffic volume or bridges in yard and terminal areas, may require consideration of combinations which include live
loading. Extreme loads, such as wind and stream flow pressure, are not normally combined with the seismic loading. In cases
where a certain minimum level of stream flow is constant, that minimum level should be included in the earthquake load
combination. Friction forces can vary significantly due to contact surface conditions and vertical earthquake accelerations,
therefore the use of friction should be carefully considered if it reduces the effects of the earthquake load.
4
The stress limits are provided to satisfy the performance requirements of the serviceability limit state. The seismic loads are
calculated at the yield level rather than at the working stress level, so it is appropriate to use a 50% allowable stress increase
for steel and a 1.0 load factor for concrete.
Specific lateral deflection limits are not provided, however, the bridge must satisfy the performance requirements of
Article 1.3.3. P effects should be considered if they are significant enough to affect the performance of the bridge. Columns
designed in accordance with Article 1.4.7.3.1 may account for P effects using conventional methods for the level 1
earthquake, however, this is not appropriate for the higher level earthquakes. The only reliable way to account for P effects
in the inelastic range of the columns for the higher level earthquakes is to perform nonlinear time history analysis. A practical
limit from Reference 9 may be used which requires that the P moment should not exceed 20% of the plastic moment capacity
of the column for the maximum credible earthquake. To perform a similar comparison, the column P moment for the level 1
earthquake should be multiplied by the ratio of the level 3 seismic response coefficient divided by the level 1 seismic response
coefficient and should not exceed 20% of 1.3 times the nominal moment capacity of the column.

The lateral deflection of the bridge must not preclude train operations outlined in Article 1.2.2.1. Because the fixed steel rails
are the riding surface over which rail equipment operates, railroad bridges have inherently strict limitations on the tolerable,
permanent displacement and distortion they can undergo in a seismic event, and still remain serviceable. After a level 1
ground motion event, the trains are allowed to continue at restricted speed. For most bridges, there is a very low probability
that the train will be on the bridge during the earthquake. Therefore the track deflection to be considered is the permanent
deflection which will remain after the earthquake has occurred. It is the responsibility of the bridge designer to determine how
much permanent track deformation will result from the elastic deflection of the structure. For bridges where a train is
considered to be on the bridge during the earthquake, the deflection limitations must be satisfied directly. The Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 49, Part 213, Section 55 (49 CFR 213.55) provides alignment requirements based on the class of track and
49 CFR 213.9 defines the speed limits for each class of track. Table 9-C-3 includes the information from the 49 CFR and is
provided herein as an indication of order of magnitude limits to track misalignment tolerable for 'safe' conditions at various
speeds. However, the designer must establish with the railroad(s) the tolerable limits for permanent track deformations used in
the design. The individual railroads may have maintenance limits on various railways for horizontal, vertical and
superelevation alignments that are more restrictive than the FRA standards. Table 9-C-3 can be used to determine the track
alignment requirements for a given train speed. For example, the track on a bridge supporting a freight train operating at a
restricted speed, which cannot exceed 20 mph (32 kph) after an earthquake, would have to satisfy the alignment requirements
of a class 2 track, which is no more than a 3" (76 mm) mid-offset on a 62 ft. (18.9 m) long tangent section of track.
Table 9-C-3. FRA Horizontal Track Alignment Requirements
Class of Maximum Operating Speed Maximum Horizontal Track

Track mph (km/h) Deviation from Alignment, in (mm)
Freight Passenger Tangent track1 Curved track2
1 10 (16) 15 (24) 5 (127) 5 (127)
2 25 (40) 30 (48) 3 (76) 3 (76)
3 40 (64) 60 (97) 1.75 (44) 1.75 (44)
4 60 (97) 80 (129) 1.5 (38) 1.5 (38)
5 80 (129) 90 (145) 0.75 (19) 0.625 (16)
NOTE:
(1) The deviation of the mid-offset from 62 foot (18.9 m) line. The ends of the line must be at points on the gage side
of the line rail, five-eighths of an inch (16 mm) below the top of the railhead.
(2) The deviation of the mid-ordinate from 62 foot (18.9 m) chord. The ends of the chord must be at points on the
gage side of the outer rail, five-eighths of an inch (16 mm) below the top of the railhead.
C - 1.4.7 DETAILING PROVISIONS (2013)
The detailing provisions are required to meet the performance requirements of the Level 2 and 3 Ground Motion. These
provisions are based on accepted practice in high seismic areas and recent research. The structure design need not meet the
required provisions provided that the structure is capable of resisting the Level 3 Ground Motion loadings in the elastic range.
C - 1.4.7.1 Continuity Provisions
Continuity provisions for transferring lateral forces from the superstructure to the ground are necessary to ensure structural
integrity during a seismic event. All portions of the load path must be investigated to see that the lateral forces can be
transferred. This is especially true for the load path from the superstructure span to the substructure, which is often not
investigated for static loads. Friction should be neglected as a means to transfer lateral forces where there is a potential for
uplift. At locations where movements are allowed, they should be accommodated or limited.

C - 1.4.7.1.1 Superstructure
Critical members which transfer lateral forces from the superstructure to the substructure and are non-ductile must be designed
for the Level 3 Ground Motion forces or the maximum loads which can be transmitted to the member. Lateral bending of the
girders is the load path for concrete box girders. Lateral bending resistance may also be used for other structures as long as the
loads are investigated. For example, shorter open deck steel girders will often have the capability to transfer lateral loads
without additional bracing since the live load is usually not combined with the seismic load.
C - 1.4.7.1.2 Bearings
Bearings are often the critical component in transferring seismic loads to the substructure. They shall be configured to transfer
the lateral loads to the substructure or accommodate movement while allowing access for maintenance and replacement.
Seismic isolation bearings are not commonly used in railroad bridges due to the restraint or limits in span or bearing
translation induced by other railroad bridge components such as continuous rail. If these bearings are used, the design of the
superstructure, substructure, and bearings must consider the translation restraining effects of the railroad bridge components
that limit the span or bearing displacements that seismic isolation bearings are intended to accommodate.
C - 1.4.7.2 Ductility Provisions
The importance of ductility during bridge response to large magnitude earthquakes is well recognized. During large
earthquakes stresses in bridge members and connections exceed the elastic range and structures could experience large
inelastic deformations. The ductility of a structure is usually defined in terms of the ratio between maximum deformation
without failure and yield deformation. It depends on the individual member ductility and their loading condition, the ductility
of the connection details and also on the structure configuration. For example, nonductile and poorly braced members loaded
1
in compression may experience sudden failure even prior to reaching yield stresses. A ductile structure can undergo large
inelastic deformations without significant strength degradation.
Ductile behavior reduces seismic loads and provides an energy dissipation mechanism. To achieve good ductility, locations
that are expected to experience plastic deformations need to be adequately designed and detailed, and instability or brittle
failure modes need to be prevented. At the same time the structure should have sufficient stiffness to maintain stability and 3
avoid excessive drift.
The ductility provisions are required to ensure that the structure will meet the performance requirements of the Level 2 and 3
Ground Motion. These provisions are based on accepted practice in high seismic areas and recent research. The requirements
for structure ductility for reinforced concrete, steel or timber structures are different, since they must take into account the
inherent material properties and the typical structural configurations.
4
The requirements for reinforcement details in concrete structures in seismically active regions are well established in design
codes and State guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges. These requirements should be followed in a manner
consistent with railroad design and detailing practices. In general, these requirements are intended to increase ductility and
reduce the likelihood of brittle shear failures.
The ductility requirements for steel structures are intended to prevent buckling and fracture and provide adequate connections
and details. Due to differences in geometry, stiffness, ductility, mass and damping characteristics, the seismic behavior of
steel bridges is fundamentally different from that of concrete bridges. One main difference is that steel bridges can yield and
dissipate energy at various locations throughout the structure, and therefore plastic hinge regions do not need to be restricted
only to the columns. Also, in steel members, the shear yielding mechanism is preferable, since it provides substantial stable
energy dissipation, which is different from concrete members where flexural failure modes are desired and shear failure is
avoided.
Seismic design and detailing requirements for steel bridges are not as well established and codified as those for concrete
bridges. This is probably because of the inherent ductility of structural steel and the relatively good performance of steel

bridges during past earthquakes. In addition, by following relatively simple design and detailing guidelines, significant
ductility levels can be achieved. Such guidelines include the following recommendations:
• Limit the width to thickness (b/t) ratios for plates in compression;
• Limit the slenderness ratio for main compression and bracing members;
• Avoid using details susceptible to fracture in areas expected to respond in the plastic range;
• Avoid field welds and other fatigue prone details;
• Design steel members such that yielding of the gross section occurs before local buckling or fracture;
• Avoid triaxial tension stress conditions that may occur at locations such as near the intersection of welds in thick
elements. They can inhibit the ability of steel to exhibit ductility.
• Use stiffeners that are more rigid than the minimum needed to prevent buckling.
• Limit the axial compression load in columns to a percentage of their yield capacity;
• Provide means for an alternative load path in case of damage;
• Ensure that when damage occurs, the damage is confined to secondary, non-gravity carrying elements, such as
bracing members;
• Consider using the end diaphragms or cross frames as locations for ductile behavior.
C - 1.4.7.2.1 Longitudinal Reinforcing Confinement
The provisions in this Article were adapted from Sections 21.6.4 and 21.6.5 of Reference 3 with minor changes in notation and
terminology to be consistent with Chapter 8 notation and railroad bridge terminology. Notation which is not defined in this
section is defined in Chapter 8, Article 2.2.1 and additional commentary is contained in Sections R21.6.4 and R21.6.5 of
Reference 3.
Longitudinal reinforcing confinement is critical to ensuring that the concrete column will respond well in the post-yield range.
Concrete piles with fixed heads will develop high bending moments at the cap interface, therefore they should be adequately
confined to reduce the possibility of permanent damage. Extended concrete piles should be treated as regular columns above
the ground. The reduced requirements for concrete pier walls with low axial loading have been shown by testing to exceed a
ductility factor of 2.
C - 1.4.7.2.2 Splices in Reinforcing
The concrete cover tends to spall off of concrete members responding in the post-yield range. This eliminates the load transfer
of lap splices and can cause premature failure.
C - 1.4.7.3 Provisions to Limit Damage
To limit damage during Level 2 Ground Motion, the distribution of strength and stiffness should be such that damage occurs at
predetermined locations, and certain critical load carrying members are “protected” from inelastic response. The
predetermined damage locations must be well detailed to sustain large inelastic deformations without strength degradation,
and at the same time they should be the weakest links within their respective load paths in order to restrict damage to other
members. In addition, the distribution of stiffness and strength should be such that plastic response or damage does not occur
in locations inaccessible for inspection and repair.

Since seismic demands are reduced when movements and ductile deformations are allowed, such damage control criteria can
achieve good and reliable seismic performance at relatively low costs. The use of sacrificial elements, which could be easily
replaced in the event of damage, may also offer a cost-effective way of enhancing the bridge seismic response and providing
protection to other members. Knowledge of likely failure locations and modes also allows for the design of connection details
and jacking locations for temporary support during repairs.
C - 1.4.7.3.1 Weak Column Provisions
Bridges in high seismic areas are typically designed so that plastic hinging is allowed in the reinforced concrete columns. The
provisions for reinforcing steel material with maximum yield strength are adapted from Chapter 21, Section 21.1.5 of
Reference 3, and are necessary to limit the post-yield loads delivered to the adjacent bent cap and foundation. The bent cap
and foundation may be designed for 1.3 times the nominal column strength to ensure that they will not be damaged during
plastic hinging. This requirement is also applicable for the superstructure when it is built integrally with the bent cap, as with
cast-in-place box girder structures. Extended pile columns are not allowed to yield below the ground, since the area is
inaccessible for inspection and repair.
C - 1.4.7.3.2 Concrete Joints
The provisions in this Article were adapted from Section 21.7 of Reference 3 with changes in notation and terminology to be
consistent with Chapter 8 notation and railroad bridge terminology. Some of the ACI 318 provisions were modified or omitted
to be consistent with the other provisions of this Chapter. For example, provision 21.7.2.1 of Reference 3 is omitted since it
conflicts with the column overstrength requirements of Paragraph 1.4.7.3.1b and provision 21.7.4.1 of Reference 3 is modified
since the joint shear reinforcement requirements of this Article allow for higher joint stresses. Notation which is not defined
in this section is defined in Chapter 8, Article 2.2.1 and additional commentary is contained in Section R21.7 of Reference 3.
1
Concrete joints must be adequately detailed to reduce the likelihood of damage extending into the superstructure and bent cap.
The additional so called “joint shear” requirements for integral bent caps and superstructure have been used on California
bridges since the Northridge earthquake. Further details on these requirements may be obtained from Reference 20.
C - 1.4.7.4 Redundancy Provisions

3
Redundancy provisions are suggested to provide additional safety against failure during the Level 3 ground motion event.
These provisions are particularly important when the Level 3 ground motion acceleration is much greater than the Level 1
ground motion acceleration.
C - 1.4.7.4.1 Bearing Seats
The provisions in this Article were adapted from Division I-A, Section 7.3.1 of Reference 1 with minor changes in 4
terminology to be consistent with railroad bridge terminology. Some of the AASHTO provisions were omitted since they are
already addressed with the other provisions of this Chapter. For example, the AASHTO linkage provisions are omitted since
they are already addressed in Article 1.4.7.4.3.
Wide bearing seats will provide additional redundancy if bearing anchor bolts or shear rods fail during a high level ground
motion. The AASHTO requirements provide an empirical equation for determining the minimum seat width as a function of
the bridge length, height and skew. Seismic analysis of the bridge may also be used to determine the maximum relative
movements. The bearing seat width requirements are not necessary if the superstructure is adequately connected to the
substructure to prevent relative movement.
C - 1.4.7.4.2 Shear Connectors
Shear connectors are often used in high seismic areas to transfer the seismic loads from the superstructure to the substructure.
Reinforced concrete shear keys should be placed as close to the girders as practical so that the bearings do not fail before shear
key engagement. Shear connectors may also take the form of rods or pipes embedded through the superstructure of concrete
box girder structures supported on elastomeric bearings.

C - 1.4.7.4.4 Foundation Rocking
Rocking response is a form of seismic isolation which reduces the response frequency of the bridge while dissipating energy.
Bearing blocks are required on new bridge construction to reduce the permanent soil deformation which will result at the toe
and heel of the rocking footing. This response mode is especially useful for evaluating existing bridges with large, non-
ductile, single pier foundations. Further information on foundation rocking may be obtained from Reference 21.
C - 1.4.7.4.5 Continuous Welded Rail
The presence of track on railroad bridges has long been considered a distinguishing characteristic between the seismic
response of highway bridges and railroad bridges. Properly detailed continuous welded rail will provide a continuous load
path for longitudinal loads on the bridge. Further research into the load transfer mechanisms is required to adequately quantify
the effect of CWR at this time, however, the presence of CWR is considered a desirable feature to add redundancy and
increase damping in the longitudinal direction of short, straight bridges. Reference 8 allows an increase in damping of
between 10 and 15 percent for straight bridges less than 300 feet if the abutments are capable of mobilizing the soil and are
well tied into the soil. This increase in damping may be applied to straight railroad bridges less than 300 feet in length with
CWR to reduce the seismic loading.
C - SECTION 1.5 EXISTING BRIDGES
C - 1.5.2 INVENTORY (1995) R(2012)
Most railroads have a good inventory of their own facilities. However, in several earthquakes where damage to railroad
facilities was minor, structures owned by others, including structures over or adjacent to tracks, have collapsed. The presence
of any structures whose collapse could adversely affect operations should be determined and recorded. Underground structures
subject to seismic failure and buried utilities, including pipelines, should also be identified.
C - 1.5.3 HISTORY (1995) R(2012)
Areas with frequent significant seismic activity are more appropriate for historical analysis than areas that have rare, but
severe, earthquakes, such as parts of central and eastern North America.
C - 1.5.4 ASSESSMENT AND RETROFIT (2017)
C - 1.5.4.3 Investigation of Railway Owned Bridges and Structure
Previous wording allowed that the Engineer could declare a bridge structure resistant to a specific level of seismic load when
justified by historic event/results data and not perform an analysis in accordance with Section 1.4. Given the variables in
earthquake magnitude, proximity, depth and wave propagation, the historical data may be insufficient to definitively prove a
bridge structure completely seismic resistant. The revised wording allows the Engineer to consider bridges that have such a
historical record to be lower in priority for evaluation or analysis.
C - SECTION 1.6 OTHER FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
C - 1.6.3 T RACK AND ROADBED (2007) R(2016)
Although the track structure, with the possible exception of the ballast, is rarely affected by shaking, the distortion of the
underlying ground may severely impact track geometry. Longitudinal distortion can cause track buckling, or high tensile
stresses in the rails with the resulting risk of the track pulling apart. Lateral movements and/or settlement due to liquefaction
or embankment failure can cause serious defects in line, surface and cross-level.

Fills supporting track are subject to two types of failures as a result of seismic activity. They are horizontal or vertical
misalignment of the embankment and loss of fill materials by soil liquefaction.
Misalignment could result from:
a. Movement associated with tectonic plate acceleration differentials at, or near, fault lines.
b. Local soil shear failure from forces generated by earth mass acceleration differentials.
c. Slope failures of the fill embankment.
d. Soil liquefaction. (Liquefaction requires the existence of a specific set of soil grain sizes and soil moisture conditions
at the time a vibratory energy source is applied.)
e. Water damage caused by failed retaining structures, distribution systems or redirected water courses.
Track in earth cuts is subject to the same misalignment from tectonic plate movements as is track on fills. Local soil shear
failures and liquefaction may also occur, resulting in covering the track structure with debris.
It is suggested that efforts to analytically predict these failures is of little value, as there is no practical retrofit design that
would prevent the movement.
Whatever the type of movement imposed on the track it is likely the disturbance will affect the rail’s neutral temperature, for
continuously welded rail (CWR), or the joint gapping for jointed rail, thus reducing the rail’s resistance to buckling at high
temperatures (sun kinks). When realigning the track to the pre-earthquake alignment, CWR must be cut and stressed to the
1
neutral temperature, and jointed rail regapped to the requirements specified by the railroad.
C - 1.6.4 CULVERTS (2013)
Culverts fall into three general types; rigid pipe, flexible pipe (including pipe arches) and box. The mechanisms by which
these different types resist seismic loading are also different. Rigid pipe culverts primarily resist loads through their bending 3
strength. Flexible pipes and pipe arches are primarily supported by passive pressures exerted on the surrounding soils under
loading. Structurally, boxes do not depend on soil interaction for design capacity.
The primary modes of failure for culverts under seismic loading are;
• Failure of the structure through buckling or distortion.

4
• Pulling apart of joints through movement or displacement of surrounding earth.
• End failures through slope failure either burying the end of a culvert or the separation of end sections because of
slope movement.
Hence, the integrity of the barrel and the support provided under the culvert at the time of construction are key factors in
performance. Culverts should be installed in accordance with the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering, Chapter 1,
Part 4.
Partially collapsed or damaged culverts can be difficult to repair; thus, where the barrel is in good enough condition to accept
a structural sleeve and hydrolic conditions permit this is the recommended repair method. Structural sleeves should be
inserted and then grouted in place to assure the flow of water through the sleeve.

C - 1.6.5 RETAINING WALLS (2007) R(2016)
Design of retaining walls to fail by sliding instead of overturning or failure of the stem of cantilever walls is analogous to the
use of strong column-weak beam moment resisting frames in buildings. If a wall supporting the railway embankment slides
during an earthquake, a large amount of energy is absorbed and track damage is limited to loss of line and surface in amounts
that may be readily corrected. If a wall supporting a hillside above the track slides, the resulting reduction of clearance may be
corrected by realigning the track. In either case, restoration of service will likely be considerably faster than in the case of
collapse or overturning of the wall.
C - 1.6.6 TUNNELS AND TRACK PROTECTING SHEDS (2007) R(2016)
C - 1.6.6.1 Tunnels
Tunnels usually are subjected to less severe loading from earthquakes than structures on the surface of the ground. However,
they have been damaged by shaking and severely damaged by displacements at locations where they were intersected by fault
ruptures.
Tunnel lining damage, possibly due to earthquake accelerations even at some distance from the seismic event, has occurred
where the tunnel floor slab has been removed to increase vertical clearances within the tunnel.
C - 1.6.7 BUILDINGS AND SUPPORT FACILITIES (2007) R(2016)
Structures located near the fault rupture are likely to suffer serious damage in a major earthquake. Safety of operation
ultimately depends on post-event inspection of facilities in areas subjected to major ground movements and/or severe shaking.
Proper design can reduce, but not totally eliminate, the probability of significant damage.

Commentary To Seismic Design For Railway Structures - 2017

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Commentary To Seismic Design For Railway Structures - 2017

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

9

Commentary to Seismic Design for

C- Section 1.2 Post-Seismic Event Operation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-2

C- Section 1.4 New Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-12

C- Section 1.5 Existing Bridges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-26

C- Section 1.6 Other Facilities and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-26

© 2017, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association 9-2-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

Section/Article Description Page

C -1.6.5 Retaining Walls (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-28

Figure Description Page

9-C-1 Peak Ground Acceleration vs. Return Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-11

9-C-1 Damping Values for Structural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-15

C - SECTION 1.2 POST-SEISMIC EVENT OPERATION GUIDELINES

C - 1.2.2 GUIDELINES (2017)

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

9-2-2 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering

C - 1.2.2.3.7 Other Structures

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

AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering 9-2-3

C - SECTION 1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

C - 1.3.1 APPROACH (2004) R(2014)

C - 1.3.2 GROUND MOTION LEVELS (2017)

C - 1.3.2.1 Risk Factors

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

9-2-4 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering

C - 1.3.2.2 Structural Importance Classification

Serviceability Weighing Factor Weighted Value

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

AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering 9-2-5

Immediate Safety Replacement Value

Return Period = 50 +2.00(100-50)/4 = 75 years

Ultimate Weighing Factor Weighted Value

Return Period = 200 + 1.95(475-200)/4 = 334 years

Survivability Weighing Factor Weighted Value

Return Period = 1000 + 1.60(2475-1000)/4 = 1590 years

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

9-2-6 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering

Immediate Safety Replacement Value

Serviceability Weighing Factor Weighted Value

Return Period = 50 +3.20(100-50)/4 = 90 years

Ultimate Weighing Factor Weighted Value

Return Period = 200 + 3.90(475-200)/4 = 468 years

Return Period = 1000 + 4.00(2475-1000)/4 = 2475 years

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

AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering 9-2-7

C - 1.3.2.2.1 Immediate Safety

These risks are:

C - 1.3.2.2.2 Immediate Value

C - 1.3.2.2.3 Replacement Value

C - 1.3.2.3 Base Acceleration Coefficient Maps

Procedure for sites in the United States

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

9-2-8 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering

c. Select 'Launch Application' (a map of the United States will appear)

Lat: 33.06277, Lon: -115.759

PGA ~40% in 50 yrs 0.2498 (g)

10% in 50 yrs = 475-year Return Period

~40% in 50 yrs = 100-year Return Period

Procedure for sites in Canada

c. Select ‘Get 2010 hazard values’ from available selections

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

AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering 9-2-9