AASHTO Guide Specification

Document Sample
AASHTO Guide Specification Powered By Docstoc
					66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                         LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                            11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Comment Spreadsheet



     Item        Comment       Section           Article              State/                          Initial Comment                                                     Initial Response                              Lead Person                    Lead Person's Comments                                  Originator's Follow-Up Comment                               Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                         Resolved By      Resolved By       Parking Lot         Major
    Number        Cycle                                               Name                             (by Originator)                                                    (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Lead?            Team?             Issue?            Item?

1            1             1                                     AR              It would be good for these guidelines to use ksi (as opposed                                                                     Tobias / Brandenberger   (a) Ok to use ksi and USCU exclusively (see               We have been going over your conversions to ksi and            MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for CA to         Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                                 to psi) units exclusively, such as the LRFD Specification                                                                                                 proposed conversion of affected equations to ksi),        believe your conversions are correct. I wanted to clarify one administer.
                                                                                 does. Also, it would be good to use U.S. Customary Units                                                                                                  (b) Change units for fc', Pc, Pt, Vc to ksi in Art. 2.1   item though. The units in brackets are for the input
                                                                                 exclusively.                                                                                                                                              (Notations), (c) Delete "MPa" in the definition of fc'    variables and not the answer to the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           on Page 2-7.                                              equation, correct? The units need to be ksi for f'c, f'ce, and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     f'h on p. 2-7.
2            1             1                                     AR              Guidelines are inconsistent throughout using both                                                                                Tobias / Brandenberger   Ok to change all to Article. "Article" ~ 193              OK                                                             MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for CA to         Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                                 “Section” and “Article” interchangeably. LRFD Specs use                                                                                                   instances, "Section" ~ 60-70 instances                                                                                   Administer. For the AASHTO Code, Chapters are called
                                                                                 “Article”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          "Sections" and Sub-Sections or Articles are always
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    "Articles". The font is Times New Roman 10 pt. When to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    have titles in bold, caps, in italics, indented, etc. can be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    garnered from the style used in the LRFD Code.

3            1             1                                     TN/ Huff        There is no provision for checking the rotation capacity of         The plastic rotation capacity is an integral part of the Brandenberger / Tobias       Is this the intent?                     YES                                                                             MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Dr. Imbsen is correct. Yes                     Yes               No             No
                                                                                 plastic hinges in the guidelines. The assumption is made            displacement approach. Maximum displacement ductility is                              Should other criteria be used in determining ultimate                                                                   Added explanation/comments should lead to resolution.
                                                                                 that the only failure criteria for a hinge is strain in the         used to indirectly check for maximum rotation capacity.                               curvatures, displacements, and rotations                                                                                Suggest as follows: TN, please see Article 4.11.6 Analytical
                                                                                 confined core reaching the Mander model limit or                                                                                                          Another criteria is the confinement steel reaching its                                                                  Plastic Hinge Length. This Article has language which
                                                                                 reinforcing steel reaching it’s strain limit. Is this the intent?                                                                                         limiting strain       Call and discuss with Tim Huff                                                                    describes how rotations are a "step" in the calculations for
                                                                                 Should other criteria be used in determining ultimate                                                                                                     (TN)                                                                                                                    displacements.
                                                                                 curvatures, displacements, and rotations?
4            1             1                                     TN/ Huff        It appears that design for unreduced seismic forces is no           Yes. For SDC C and D, capacity protection is required.       Brandenberger / Tobias   Agree with Roy's response. Check adequacy of                                                                            MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Dr. Imbsen's response Yes                      Yes               No             No
                                                                                 longer an option for Seismic Design Categories C and D.             The response for SDC C is expected to be in the non-linear                            response with Tim                                                                                                       is somewhat tricky to understand and may be incomplete.
                                                                                 Hinging forces must be used even if they are greater than           range as implicit drift capacity corresponds to ductility                                                                                                                                                     Added explanation/comments should help lead to resolution
                                                                                 the seismic forces from an elastic analysis. Is this the case?      close to 3. See Task 6 Report.                                                                                                                                                                                with Tim/TN as follows: In LFD and LRFD force based
                                                                                 If so, why?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       design, Categories C and D and Zones 3 and 4 are expected
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   to be in the non-linear range also. Ductility is achieved in a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   more direct way with displacement based design than for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   force based design, however. In force based design,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ductility is achieved or "designed in" through the use of R-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   factors which gives a reduced design moment for columns.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   If the base shear required to achieve "overstrength"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   (approximate pushover) for the columns is lower than the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   originally calculated base shear from the elastic analysis,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   then this overstrength base shear can be used for design of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   the ties, etc. This roundabout approach is not really
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   necessary in displacement based design, becasue it is more
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   direct. This can be tricky to see when comparing the two
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   methods. Hopefully, this addresses at least an aspect of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   your concern.


5            1             1                                     TN/ Huff        The LRFD Specification uses ksi units exclusively now. It                                                                        Brandenberger / Tobias   See No. 1                                                 p. 2-7.                                                       MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for CA to          Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                                 would be a nice convenience if the Guidelines did too. Most                                                                                                                                                                                                                       administer.
                                                                                 equations in the Guidelines are based on using psi units.

6            1             1             1.1                     AR              Art. 1.1, Background: Task 1 is not mentioned. Task 6,    See Modified Guidelines.                                               Tobias / Brandenberger   Task 6 comprises Tasks 1-5. Clarify with R.                                                                             MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: A very short                 Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                                 with its five sections, is mentioned first. Then… tasks 2                                                                                                 Imbsen.                                                                                                                 description of Task 1 should be given for completeness.
                                                                                 thru 5 are discussed. Why not discuss them in order?                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Suggest adding: "Task 1- The reference material selected
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   for inclusion was attached as appendices to each of the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   remaining tasks."

7            1             1             1.2.2                   AR              Art. 1.2.2, 3rd paragraph under maps should read: “Alaska See Modified Guidelines.                                               Tobias / Brandenberger   OK                                                        OK                                                            MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Should be OK.          Yes                     Yes               No             No
                                                                                 was based on USGS data…Hawaii was based on USGS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Guidelines modified to indicate which USGS data sets were
                                                                                 data…”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            used to prepare maps. Please note that the Maps will
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   probably state "7% in 75 years" not "5% in 50 years" This
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   response also applies to comment 30.
8            1             1             1.3, Figures 1.3C &     BERGER/ Lee The 'B or C' decision point in Fig 1.3C seems to prevent                See Modified Guidelines                                      ? / Chris Unanwa         No new info from the modified Guidelines.                 02-09-07: Have Elmer Marx consider this in his rework of                                                                Yes                     Yes               No             No
                                         1.3F                    Marsh       SDC C designs from getting to Fig 1.3F, which includes                                                                                                        Observation by L. Marsh appears to be correct.            the flowcharts.
                                                                             many capacity protection steps for C.                                                                                                                         Check with other members/reviewers for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           concurrence with Marsh's observation.
10           1             2             2.1 / 2.2 Definitions   BERGER/ Lee Add a clear definition of 'local'                                       Defined in Section 4.8                                       ? / Chris Unanwa         "Local" indirectly defined in Art. 4.8. Ask Imbsen        3-1-07: Table for now, consider adding definition in next                                                                     Yes               Yes               Yes            No
                                         mD                      Marsh                                                                                                                                                                     to include a clear definition of "local" in Art. 2.1.     revision

11           1             2             2.2 SRSS                BERGER/ Lee The second use listed (vector combination) is not                       See Modified Guidelines                                      ? / Chris Unanwa         Modified per comment. However, there is a typo.      02-09-07: Delete entirely. I do not believe that SRSS is used                                                                      Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                 Marsh       'statistical'.                                                                                                                                                Document probably meant to use "vector" instead of in the Guidelines now.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           "vertical." Check adequacy of modification with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Marsh.
12           1             2             Pg2-5                   MO              S = Site coefficient specified in Article 3.5.1 (Article 3.5.1 See Modified Guidelines.                                          Brandenberger / Tobias   Modified. Check if OK with MO.                                                                                     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Should be OK. S (Site             Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                                 does not exist)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Coefficient) has been deleted from Notation.
14           1             3             3.1                     AR              The last paragraph of Art. 3.1 can be misleading. A better See Modified Guidelines.                                              Tobias / Brandenberger   Modified. Looks good.                                OK                                                            MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Nearly editorial.                 Yes               Yes               No             Yes
                                                                                 way to get the message across might be “Detailed seismic                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Suggest deleting that paragraph in it's entirety. It does not
                                                                                 analysis is not required for a single span bridge or for any                                                                                                                                                                                                                 add to the discussion and nearly identical language is
                                                                                 bridge in Seismic Design Category A”.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        provided in Article 4.1 (where it makes more sense). Dan:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Agree. ... JQ 02-22-07: Last paragraph tentatively deleted
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              per discussion of Item #603. ... JQ 02-27-07: Accepted
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              #603; paragraph retained with modifications.
15           1             3             Sec. 3.1 Paragraph 4    FHWA/ Derrell Add after "Design Category A." "Specific detailing                    See Modified Guidelines                                      Derrell Manceaux         Same as Comment No. 14 Check buy-off with            02-05-07-Paragraph 4, change last sentence word of "seat" 02-05-07-Paragraph 4, change last sentence word of "seat"                Yes 02-15-07 JQ   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                               requirements do apply"                                                                                                                                      Derrell.                                             to "support" to be consistant with other comments             to "support" to be consistant with other comments; JQ 03-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              02-07: Modified
16           1             3             Pg 3-2, Pg 1-3          MO              Clarify “For sites with lateral flow due to liquefaction,           It is not clear what to clarify.                             Brandenberger / Tobias   Propose modification to last paragraph of Art 1.1 to                                                               MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/30/07: Proposed solution                Yes               Yes               No             Yes
                                                                                 significant inelastic deformation is permitted in the piles.”                                                                                             be consistent with the ref. Statement (Art. 3.2) as                                                                not carefully worded enough. Apologize only slightly,
                                                                                 (Pg 1-3 states “Design requirements for lateral flow are                                                                                                  follows: "Design requirements for lateral flow are                                                                 delete verbiage about debatable and refer reader to NCHRP
                                                                                 still debatable and have not reached a stage of completion                                                                                                not completely agreed upon and have not reached a                                                                  12-49 Report. For example: "Design requirements and
                                                                                 for inclusion in the guidelines.”)                                                                                                                        final stage of completion for inclusion in the                                                                     recommendations for lateral flow have not yet reached a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Guidelines."                                                                                                       level of development suitable for inclusion in this document.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              However, current information and guidance on lateral flow
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              is provided in the report for NCHRP 12-49."




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Page 1 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                   LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                       11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section           Article               State/                        Initial Comment                                                    Initial Response                           Lead Person                    Lead Person's Comments                              Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                        Resolved By      Resolved By       Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                                Name                           (by Originator)                                                   (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Lead?            Team?             Issue?            Item?

17         1             3             3.2                      AR              Art. 3.2 mentions a “one level design”, what does this         See Modified Guidelines.                                    Tobias / Brandenberger   Modified.                                              OK                                                              MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Should be OK now.         Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                                mean?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Added explanation/comments should help lead to resolution
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           with Rick/AR about how it used to be two-level and then
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           was modified, etc. Response to AR: 'one level design' was
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           an inadvertant reference to MCEER/ATC 49 document
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (based upon NCHRP 12-49 work) and has been deleted
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           from these guidelines.
18         1             3             Sec. 3.2 Pg 3-1          CA              Not clear why “Significant Damage Level” and                   Not clear why need to exclude these definitions.            Chris Unanwa             May accept Imbsen's response. However, decision        OK                                                              02-26-07: Definitions are in order. “Significant Damage” Yes                   Yes               No             No
                                                                                “Significant Disruption to Service Level” are defined. Per                                                                                          to be reached internally by the CA team.                                                                               and “Significant Disruption to Service” are used in defining
                                                                                first paragraph of 3.2, bridges shall be designed for life                                                                                                                                                                                                                 the life safety performance objective.
                                                                                safety for the design event.
19         1             3             Pg 3-3 Several figures CA                Strongly recommend that Earthquake Resisting Systems           See task 6 report for background on the criteria used SDC   Chris Unanwa             May OK Imbsen's response. However, current                                                                             JQ 02-26-07: Accept status quo.                              Yes               Yes               Yes            No
                                                                                should be designed for plastic hinging of columns, NOT for     A, B displacement response is relatively small. Note that                            practice is to use columns instead of pier walls,
                                                                                elastic design using the 1000 year design earthquake. The      column shear is implicitly designed for SDC B.                                       except for serious hydraulic reasons.
                                                                                probability of collapse for an event exceeding the 1000
                                                                                year earthquake is very different for an ERS designed for
                                                                                ductile columns or elastic response without ductile
                                                                                detailing.
20         1             3             Pg 3-4 Figure middle     CA              Plastic hinges may occur in the strong direction of pier       Not a likely response. No owner permission required.        Chris Unanwa                                                                    OK                                                              JQ 02-26-07: Accept status quo.                              Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                       right pier wall and pg                   walls. Is owner permission needed for use of all pier walls?
                                       3-5 middle left
21         1             3             Pg 3-4 Figure bottom     CA              Design of abutment back walls that are to resist dynamic  No change recommended.                                           Chris Unanwa                                                                    OK                                                              JQ 02-26-07: Accept status quo.                              Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                       right                                    forces of superstructure elastically without fusing is
                                                                                unconventional and should require the Owner’s permission.

22         1             3             Pg 3-5 top right         CA       No guidance is given on how to calculate the sliding                  Can be provided by Geotechnical Engineer.                   Chris Unanwa             Response to be checked with Fadel.                                                                                     JQ 02-26-07: Accept current; address this issue during next Yes                Yes               Yes            No
                                                                         displacement of a spread footing abutment with nonfusing                                                                                                                                                                                                                          revision.
                                                                         shear keys.
23         1             3             Pg 3-6 last paragraph CA          Systems that do not fall in the listed permitted ERS should           See Modified Guidelines                                     Chris Unanwa             Modified caption of Fig. 3.3.3 per comment. Last       OK                                                              JQ 02-22-07: Figure caption modified 12/02/06.               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                         not be “not allowed”, but instead “not recommended”.                                                                                                       paragraph of Art. 3.3: … (I.e, those in the not
                                                                         There may be ERS that are not listed that are appropriate                                                                                                  permitted category …), changed "not permitted" to
                                                                         under certain circumstances with the Owner’s permission                                                                                                    "not recommended."
                                                                         as stated in the next sentence on pg 3-7.
24         1             3             3.2 1st Para.         BERGER/ Lee It would seem appropriate for the period of interest to               Neet T-3 direction.                                         ? / Chris Unanwa         Discuss with M. Keever, L. Marsh.                                                                                      JQ 02-22-07: All references in Section 3 of 5% probability   Yes 02-22-07 JQ   Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                             Marsh       match the design life in AASHTO LRFD, 75 years. This                                                                                                                                                                                                                              of exceedance in 50 years modified to 7% probability of
                                                                         would result in about a 7% probability of exceedence;                                                                                                                                                                                                                             exceedance in 75 years.
                                                                         perhaps this equivalence could be discussed in the
                                                                         commentary.
25         1             3             3.3                   AR          In Figures 3.3.1a, 3.3.1b, and 3.3.2 it would be convenient           See Modified Guidelines.                                    Tobias / Brandenberger   Modified per comment.                                  OK                                                              3-6-07-SB The EREs and ERSs in the figures of Art 3.3.       Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                         to have these elements numbered so they can be referenced                                                                                                                                                                                                                         have been numbered for easy reference.
                                                                         in a design. For example, it could be said “This design
                                                                         uses Longitudinal Response #1 and Transverse Response
                                                                         #3, for the ERS” and …….for the ERE.

26         1             3             3.3 Fig. 3.3.2           BERGER/ Lee Use of reduced (70%) strength for abutment passive should See Modified Guidelines.                                             ? / Chris Unanwa         Modified by deleting "Use 70% of … " from Fig.         02-09-07: OK, LM                                                                                                             Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                Marsh         only be for similar case for Fig. 3.3.1b for Permissible                                                                                              3.3.2 - No.1. Check adequacy of response with L.
                                                                              ERE. Full abutment resistance should only be permitted                                                                                                Marsh.
                                                                              with owner's permission. This is related to control of
                                                                              backfill placement.
27         1             3             Sec. 3.3.1 Pg 3.3.1b     FHWA/ Derrell Bottom left figure not legible                           See Modified Guidelines                                             Derrell Manceaux         Modified. Check if OK with Derrell.                02-05-07-OK                                                         02-05-07-OK                                              Yes                   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
28         1             3             Pg 3-10                  MO            Fig. 3.4.1-2 through 14 do not exist but are referenced                                                                      Brandenberger / Tobias   Figures included in updated Guidelines (Dec. 2,                                                                        MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Maps will be included Yes                   Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    2006). Recommended figures to be in oversized                                                                          in final publication. For CA to administer.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    paper. Check buy-off with MO.
29         1             3             Pg 3-11 1st paragraph CA                 Recommend that an adequate geotechnical investigation          See Modified Guidelines                                     Chris Unanwa             Modification on Art. 3.4.2.1, 2nd paragraph. Check                                                                     OK                                                           Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                                should be performed such that the Site Class can always be                                                                                          if OK with Fadel.
                                                                                determined rather than using Class D as the default.
30         1             3             3.4                      AR              Art. 3.4.1, Figures 3.4.1-2 thru 3.4.1-14 are not found in     See Modified Guidelines.                                    Tobias / Brandenberger   Same as Comment No. 28. Check buy-off with AR. OK                                                                      MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Maps will be included Yes                   Yes               No             No
                                                                                these guidelines.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          in final publication. For CA to administer.
31         1             3             3.4 2nd Para.            BERGER/ Lee     How will the hazard maps be controlled? Will a specific        T-3 Commitment.                                             ? / Chris Unanwa         Discuss with M. Keever, L. Marsh.                      3-1-07: OK, LM I understand that the maps will be                                                                        Yes                   Yes               No             No
                                                                Marsh           USGS version be referenced in the Guidelines? Will data                                                                                                                                                    specifically controlled by AASHTO, and will only be
                                                                                from USGS website be permitted to be used?                                                                                                                                                                 updated by request.
32         1             3             3.4.1                    BERGER/ Lee     Will the long-period transition and constant-displacement      T-3 Commitment.                                             ? / Chris Unanwa         Discuss with M. Keever, L. Marsh.                      3-2-07: This issue can be evaluated for a future revision of                                                                 Yes               Yes               Yes            Yes
                                                                Marsh           spectral ordinates included in the 2004 USGS maps,                                                                                                                                                         the document.
                                                                                FEMA-450 (NEHRP), 2003 and ASCE 7-05 be used? If
                                                                                so, why not include them now? Or is this data not available
                                                                                for the 1000-yr return period?
33         1             3             Sec. 3.4.1 Pg 3.4.1-1 FHWA/ Derrell      SDs should be SDS                                              See Modified Guidelines                                     Derrell Manceaux         Modified. Check buy-off with Derrell.                  02-05-07-OK                                                     02-05-07-OK                                                  Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
34         1             3             Sec. 3.4.1 Pg 3.4.1 (a) FHWA/ Derrell    Figures 3.4.1-2 through 3.4.1-14 are not provided as           See Modified Guidelines                                     Derrell Manceaux         Same as Comment No. 28. Check buy-off with             02-05-07-OK                                                     02-05-07-OK                                                  Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                                indicated                                                                                                                                           Derrell.
35         1             3             Sec. 3.4.1 Page 3-11     FHWA/ Derrell   "peak ground acceleration) is not defined. Possibly add        See Modified Guidelines                                     Derrell Manceaux         Modified. Check buy-off with Derrell.                  02-05-07-OK                                                     02-05-07-OK                                                  Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                       (Item 1)                                 PGA=0.4 SDS
36         1             3             3.4.3 4th Para.          BERGER/ Lee Are active fault maps available for the entire country?            Specifications are based on Task 6 report. This is an effort ? / Chris Unanwa        Check Imbsen's response with L. Marsh.                 3-2-07: Active fault maps need to be easily available for the                                                                Yes               Yes               Yes            Yes
                                                                Marsh       Furthermore, does this section need to be limited to surface       to include current state of the practice as confirmed and                                                                                   application of this section. Whether deep areal source (ie
                                                                            or shallow (definition?) faulting, or does it also cover deep      learned from past earthquakes. In summary the issue is still                                                                                subduction) earthquakes should be evaluated for inclusion
                                                                            faults, such as those in the Cascadia and New Madrid               open and needs further confirmation.                                                                                                        into (or excepted from) these requirements.
                                                                            regions? The requirements for the near-fault effects should
                                                                            be easy to apply.
37         1             3             Pg 3-14 first            CA          What attenuation relationship is to be used? How will T-3          T-3 item for future.                                        Chris Unanwa             Discuss with M. Keever.                                Agree. Attenuation relationships to be included in a future     JQ 02-26-07: Parking lot - major effort required on NGA      Yes               Yes               Yes            Yes
                                       paragraph                            incorporate the result of the PEER NGA (Next Generation                                                                                                                                                        review of the Guidelines.
                                                                            Attenuation) relationships?
38         1             3             Pg 3-14 last sentence    CA          “Peer Reviewed” needs to be defined as independent                 See Modified Guidelines                                     Chris Unanwa             Art. 3.4.3 (last sentence of 1st paragraph). Did not   OK                                                              Modified per comment in C3.4.1                               Yes               Yes               No             No
                                       of first paragraph                   internal or external body. Internal peer reviews are likely                                                                                             see modification. Check with R. Imbsen.
                                                                            adequate for Caltrans and other DOT’s for typical bridges.
                                                                            Recommend either allowing internal peer reviews, or
                                                                            external as determined by the Owner to be necessary.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Page 2 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                              LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                  11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section          Article               State/                        Initial Comment                                               Initial Response                             Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                            Originator's Follow-Up Comment                               Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                         Resolved By    Resolved By       Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                               Name                           (by Originator)                                              (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Lead?          Team?             Issue?            Item?

39         1             3             Sec.3.4.4 Pg 3-15       CA              Is a near field adjustment made to the ARS curves?            No                                                        Chris Unanwa                                                                Include statement that no near field adjustments are made to JQ 02-26-07: Modified as proposed.                              Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   the ARS curves. Such statement can be placed at the end of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   the last statement for Art. 3.4.1.
40         1             3             Pg 3-18                 CA              Response spectra for construction sites that are “close” to   See Modified Guidelines                                   Chris Unanwa             Can't find where phrase occurred in document.                                                                   Phrase probably used in an earlier version of the Guidelines;   Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                               active faults … “Close” needs to be defined.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Not used in current Guidelines; Close case
41         1             3             3-21,3-22.3-23          MO              Are there plans to provide guidance with detail for “SDC      Commentary Effort..                                       Brandenberger / Tobias   Discuss response with M. Keever, then MO                                                                        MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Added                        Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                               B, C & D level of detailing other than the information                                                                                                                                                                                                           explanation/comments should help lead to resolution with
                                                                               currently shown in the guidelines?                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Shirley/MO as follows: There probably won't be much more
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                guidance provided on this subject. There are many places in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                the Guide Specs which have guidance, although not as
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                specific as it could be, on how to detail bridge components
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                for the various categories. Note that the Commentary to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Section 8, though, does have some good detailing guidance.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                So, the Guide Specs. definitely have some ideas where it can
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                improve for its first revision.
42         1             3             Sec. 3.5 Pg 1-2 Task 3 CA             Performing a displacement ductility capacity check        Pushover analysis is recommended for SDC D where                Chris Unanwa             Check adequacy of response with M. Keever                                                                       JQ 02-26-07: SDC A, B, C are willing to do limited              Yes             Yes               No             No
                                       No. 2 and Pg. 3-16                    provides minimal value without performing capacity design capacity design is required.                                                                                                                                                                             analysis.
                                                                             to ensure the plastic hinge occurs in the well detailed
                                                                             region.
43         1             3             Sec. 3.5 Table 3.5.1    FHWA/ Derrell add SD1=FvS1 following the table                          See Modified Guidelines                                         Derrell Manceaux         Modified per comment. Check buy-off with Derrell   02-05-07-OK                                                   02-05-07-OK                                                    Yes             Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
44         1             3             Sec. 3.6 Pg 2-3         FHWA/ Derrell "those bridges…" should be on previous line. (Word wrap         See Modified Guidelines                                   Derrell Manceaux         Modified per comment. Check buy-off with Derrell   02-05-07-OK                                                   02-05-07-OK                                                    Yes             Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                       paragraph                             problem)
46         1             4             Section 4.1.1 Pg 4-1    WA/ Jugesh    states that the ratio of effective stiffness, as shown in       See Modified Guidelines. Recommendation for SDC D only. Chyuan-Shen Lee            Comment to be looked at more clsely. Check                                                                       Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article 4.1.1 are recommendations for           Yes            Yes               No             No
                                                               Kapur         Figure 4.1, between any two bents within a frame or                                                                                                adequacy of response with J. Kapur                                                                               SDC D for balanced stiffnesses, not requirements. What is
                                                                             between any two columns within a bent shall satisfy                                                                                                                                                                                                                 now Table 4.2.1 are considerations for if a bridge is
                                                                             Equation 4.1. This equation limits the ratio to 0.5.                                                                                                                                                                                                                "regular" and have been in the Code for quite some time.
                                                                             However, Table 4.2 on page 4-6 allows the maximum                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Articles 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 are really apples and oranges. So,
                                                                             stiffness ratio from span to span to vary from 2 to 4                                                                                                                                                                                                               while not optimal as it is presented in the Gude Specs, it will
                                                                             depending on the number of spans. This table contradicts                                                                                                                                                                                                            be left as is. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 See modified guide spec.
                                                                             section 4.1.1 that limits the value between any two bents to
                                                                             0.5. Please clarify.
47         1             4             4.1.1 1st Para          BERGER/ Lee How are the abutments included in the adjacent bent               To be considered for commentary.                          Tobias / Chris Unanwa    Abutments are not collapse-critical elements and   02-09-07: OK, but state that abutments are not included.      Dan/IL 2/19/07: Added following sentence to Article,           Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                               Marsh         stiffness and mass considerations? The language is also                                                                                            therefore will not be included with the adjacent                                                                 "These recommendations exclude the consideration of
                                                                             non-mandatory; thus should this go into commentary?                                                                                                bents.                                                                                                           abutments."
48         1             4             4.1.4 1st Para          BERGER/ Lee Why does this section only apply to single-column bents? Is       See Modified Guidelines. Text added, further commentary   Tobias / Chris Unanwa    Check adequacy of response with L. Marsh.          02-09-07: OK, LM                                              Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done                                       Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                               Marsh         the intent to focus on superstructure torsional rigidity?       can be considered.
                                                                             Which shear demands are referred to here? Some
                                                                             commentary would be useful, particularly with the
                                                                             mandatory language of the section.
49         1             4             4.2 Table 4.2           BERGER/ Lee The limits in this table are somewhat more liberal than           See Modified Guidelines. Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2         Tobias / Chris Unanwa    Same as comment No. 46. Check adequacy of          02-09-07: OK if item no 46 is answered.                       Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article 4.1.1 are recommendations for           Yes            Yes               No             No
                                                               Marsh         those in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. This seems to be             applicable on for SDC D.                                                           response with L. Marsh                                                                                           SDC D for balanced stiffnesses, not requirements. What is
                                                                             inconsistent.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       now Table 4.2.1 are considerations for if a bridge is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 "regular" and have been in the Code for quite some time.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Articles 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 are really apples and oranges. So,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 while not optimal as it is presented in the Gude Specs, it will
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 be left as is.
50         1             4             Sec. 4.2 Table 41       FHWA/ Derrell Table does not require time history analysis, but through       See Modified Guidelines.                                  Derrell Manceaux         Statement added at end of Art. 4.2: "Procedure 3 is 02-05-07-OK                                                  02-05-07-OK……Dan/IL 2/19/07 Say Done                            Yes            Yes               No             No
                                                                             the entire document time history is required a multiple                                                                                            generally not repaired required unless requested by
                                                                             number of times. This requirement should be captured                                                                                               the owner under Section 4.2.2." Check adequacy of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                response with Derrell
51         1             4             Sec. 4.2.2 Entire       FHWA/ Derrell AASHTO indicated that one category of bridges is desired        No change recommended.                                    Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-Discuss with T3 Panel to get opinions on 02-12-07-Still unresolved                                      Dan/IL 2/19/07: It is OK to just "touch on" this subject at    Yes             No                No             No
                                       section                               in the specification. This section references Critical,                                                                                            this topic                                                                                                       times in the Guide Specs. Will make sure referenced
                                                                             Essential in addition to Normal bridges                                                                                                                                                                                                                             sections and verbiage consistent by 3/9/07.
52         1             4             Sec. 4.2.2 4th          FHWA/ Derrell Clarify "Safety Evaluation Design Earthquake" has not           See Modified Guidelines                                   Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-OK                                                                                                      02-05-07-OK…….Dan/IL 2/19/07 the words "saftey                 Yes             Yes 03-01-07      No             No
                                       paragraph                             been defined                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        evaluation" deleted from this article…..
53         1             4             Chap 4 General          BERGER/ Lee There is nothing in Chapter 4 about the abutments and             No change recommended.                                    Tobias                                                                      02-09-07: OK, LM                                              Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done                                       Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                               Marsh         whether to include them in the ERS. It seems that the
                                                                             material in Section 5.2.1 that relates to design choices (as
                                                                             opposed to modeling) should go into Chapter 4.
54         1             4                                     AR            There is an inconsistency in terms between Art. 4.2 and         See Modified Guidelines.                                  Tobias / Brandenberger   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Should be OK                                                                  Dan/IL 2/19/07: Done                                           Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                             Art. 5.4.3. Procedure No. 2 is named “Multimodal                                                                                                   now. Procedure 2 renamed Elastic Dynamic
                                                                             Spectral” in Art. 4.2 and “Elastic Dynamic Analysis” in                                                                                            Analysis (EDA) consistent with article 5.4.3 and
                                                                             Art. 5.4.3.                                                                                                                                        others.
55         1             4             4.2.2 1st Para.         BERGER/ Lee Active faults are referred to again, see comment for Section      See Modified Guidelines                                   Tobias                                                                      3-2-07: Active fault maps need to be easily available for the Dan/IL 2/19/07: Some ambiguity is OK here. 3-6-07 SB            Yes            Yes               Yes            Yes
                                                               Marsh         3.4.3.                                                                                                                                                                                                application of this section.                                  Article 4.7.2 edited to clarify when effects of vertical ground
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 motion considered. This article referenced from C4.2.2.

56         1             4             4.2.2 1st Para.         BERGER/ Lee Antecedent of 'these' in 3rd sentence is ambiguous, leading No, unless required by owner.                                   Tobias                                                                      02-09-07: Replace word "these" with "critical and             Dan/IL 2/19/07: "these" replaced with "critical and            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                               Marsh       to the implication that bridges closer than 6 miles to an                                                                                                                                               essential".                                                   essential"….Say Done.
                                                                           active fault must be analyzed with time history techniques.
                                                                           Is this the intent?
57         1             4             4.2.2 4th & 5th Para.   BERGER/ Lee SEE is not defined. Change to design seismic event?         See Modified Guidelines                                         Tobias                                                                      02-09-07: OK, LM                                              Dan/IL 2/19/07 the words "saftey evaluation" deleted from      Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                               Marsh                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             this article…..
58         1             4             4th Para.               BERGER/ Lee Should add a caution that the modified response spectra                                                                     Tobias                                                                      02-09-07: This question applies to section 4.3.3 4th para.    Dan/IL 2/19/07: Commentary language deleted beginning          Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                               Marsh       should still transition to the original PGA. Additionally,                                                                                                                                              Check with RAI                                                with "Equivalent viscouse damping may be considered…"
                                                                           30% damping seems quite high.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         and ending with "…is the damping ratio, capped at 30%."




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Page 3 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                   11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section           Article             State/                         Initial Comment                                              Initial Response                               Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                                Originator's Follow-Up Comment                             Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                         Resolved By    Resolved By       Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                              Name                            (by Originator)                                             (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Lead?          Team?             Issue?            Item?

59         1             4             4.3.3                  AR               Art. 4.3.3: The “force reduction factor (R) is obtained by Values of 2 and 3 for SDC B and C are conservative. More Tobias / Brandenberger        MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07:                                                                                 MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Response for AR:            Yes             Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             Yes
                                                                               dividing the elastic spectral force by the plastic yield   detailed analysis as shown in your example can be used.                                Notes/thoughts: This is a tricky Article to apply and                                                              "Design example was for a very short 3-span bridge.
                                                                               capacity”. The plastic yield capacity is of the “bridge                                                                                           understand. The provisons seem very "abstract".                                                                    Behavior of structure under seismic load appears to be
                                                                               component where plastic hinging is expected”. Hinging                                                                                             The concepts in this section are important and need                                                                much like that of a single span bridge. The equation is
                                                                               typically occurs in columns or beams due to high moment.                                                                                          to remain in the Guide Specs., but they need some                                                                  intended for more flexible structures. Example calcs may
                                                                               Thus the “spectral force” is actually a moment. During a                                                                                          improvement. It may be prudent to use Dr. Buckle's                                                                 be outside the typical range of applicability for a multi-span
                                                                               trial design using this method, an R value was found to be                                                                                        suggested method in the LRFD code since it is much                                                                 bridge in a SDC D. This Article has also undergone revision
                                                                               0.9, much lower than the value of 3 required for SDC C.                                                                                           more straightforward and easier to understand. If                                                                  such that it is more straightforward in
                                                                               Should not the R value be greater in SDC D than in SDC                                                                                            this is not accpetable, some thoughtful                                                                            application.".......MT/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude
                                                                               C? More information on calculating R in SDC D would be                                                                                            rewrites/revisions/clairifications to this Article                                                                 Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
                                                                               appreciated.                                                                                                                                      should be proposed. Stephanie's comment: If Mw                                                                     substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 maps are not included in the guidelines, suggest                                                                   Ballot.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 using Buckle's proposed method thus maintaining
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 some consistency between the two proposed
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 documents, and placing Imbsen's method and issue
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 of Mw determination in the parking lot.



60         1             4                                    AR               For Table 4.3, please include a USGS moment magnitude       T-3 Commitment.                                              Tobias / Brandenberger   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07:                                                                                 .......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude                  Yes              Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             Yes
                                                                               map in the guidelines. Also, see comment in Appendix D.                                                                                           Notes/Thoughts: It is our understanding this is not a                                                              Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 T-3 commitment. If this Article essentially stays as                                                               substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 formulated, the designer will have to refer to the                                                                 Ballot.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 USGS web site. The address may be provided in the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Commentary.
61         1             4             4.3.3 2nd Para.        BERGER/ Lee Is the maximum R selected bent-by-bent, bottom to top,           A maximum R is recommended. A varying R may be too           Tobias                                                                           02-09-07: Add "from any element" after "R"                  ......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude                  Yes              Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             Yes
                                                              Marsh       and from each direction?                                         cumbersome for practical purpose.                                                                                                                                                                         Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Ballot.
62         1             4             4.3.3 2nd Para.        BERGER/ Lee Define 'spectral force'. Note that only displacement is          See Modified Guidelines                                      Tobias                                                                           02-09-07: OK, but still not clear; for a displacement-based .......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude                 Yes              Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             Yes
                                                              Marsh       determined in Section 4.4, not forces as this section                                                                                                                                                          approach finding the 'spectral force' seems like a lot of   Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
                                                                          implies.                                                                                                                                                                                                       work.                                                       substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Ballot.
63         1             4             4.3.3 2nd Para.        BERGER/ Lee Should the passage read that R 'may be taken' equal to 2         See Modified Guidelines                                      Tobias                                                                           02-09-07: OK, LM                                            .......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude                 Yes              Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             Yes
                                                              Marsh       and 3 for SDC B and C, rather than 'is'?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Ballot.
64         1             4             4.3.3 Table 4.3        BERGER/ Lee This table is OK for CA, but is this data available for the No change recommended.                                            Tobias                                                                           02-09-07: Related comment to consideration of Ian Buckle's .......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude                  Yes              Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             Yes
                                                              Marsh       rest of the US? Is it readily available for the 1000-yr                                                                                                                                                        (12-49) method. I still suggest changing the provision to   Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
                                                                          hazard? Is interpolation required? This seems complicated,                                                                                                                                                     simplify it. LM                                             substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
                                                                          particularly for an empirical approximation such as Rd.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ballot.
                                                                          Why not use the corner of the response spectrum where the
                                                                          transition from constant acceleration to constant velocity
                                                                          occurs? Both ATC 32 and ATC 49 permitted that,
                                                                          although ATC 49 added a small margin.


65         1             4             Sec. 4.3.3 Entire      FHWA/ Derrell "R" is defined as an elastic force reduction factor, but it is R is elastic force over capacity (i.e. R>1), the magnification Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                          .......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment Magnitude                  Yes              Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             Yes
                                       section                              also being used in an unknown means in the formulas.           is for short period structure and implies an emphasis on                                                                                                                                                 Consideration Deleted from Guide Specs.........T*=1.25Ts
                                                                            What is "R"? It is defined as 2 or 3 for SDC B,C, but a        displacement ductility requirement.                                                                                                                                                                      substituted....is consistent with proposed LRFD Code
                                                                            calculated value is required for SDC D. Since elastic                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Ballot.
                                                                            moments are typically larger than plastic values, this will
                                                                            make R <1. The spec is not clear which forces should be
                                                                            used to calculate the "R" value for SDC D. If this "R" is a
                                                                            true ductility factor, then a note should be added require
                                                                            seismic detailing. How do these ductility factors tie into the
                                                                            true ductility factors in the remaining part of the document?
                                                                            Is the primary period for each direction used or one
                                                                            primary period used for calculating both Rd? AT what
                                                                            location is the deflection taken? Several different locations
                                                                            are required through specification.


66         1             4             Sec. 4.3.3 Last        FHWA/ Derrell Word wrap problem for "…in Article 4.4.."                      See Modified Guidelines                                      Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07- OK                                            02-05-07- OK                                               02-05-07- OK….........Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment             Yes              Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             Yes
                                       paragraph                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Magnitude Consideration Deleted from Guide
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Specs.........T*=1.25Ts substituted....is consistent with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    proposed LRFD Code Ballot.
67         1             4             Sec. 4.3.3 table 4.3   FHWA/ Derrell Clarify:” Commentary should be provided indicating that        No change recommended.                                       Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-See Attached sheet                             02-12-07-Roy and panel accepted                            02-12-07-OK…........Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment               Yes              Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             Yes
                                                                            Mean Magnitude can be obtained from the USGS website                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Magnitude Consideration Deleted from Guide
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Specs.........T*=1.25Ts substituted....is consistent with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    proposed LRFD Code Ballot.
68         1             4             Sec. 4.3.3 table 4.3   FHWA/ Derrell The values for 6.75-7.0 and 7.5-7.75 are not included in       See Modified Guidelines                                      Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-Resolved if item #67 is accepted               02-12-07-Panel accepted #67                                02-12-07-OK…........Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment               Yes              Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             Yes
                                                                            the table                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Magnitude Consideration Deleted from Guide
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Specs.........T*=1.25Ts substituted....is consistent with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    proposed LRFD Code Ballot.
69         1             4             Sec. 4.4 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Add a statement that Displacement Magnification should         It is in the second paragraph.                               Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-OK                                             02-05-07-OK                                                02-05-07-OK…..........Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean Moment             Yes              Yes               No             Yes
                                                                            be performed prior to combination of displacements                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Magnitude Consideration Deleted from Guide
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Specs.........T*=1.25Ts substituted....is consistent with
70         1             4             Sec. 4.5 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Dead load reaction should read "contributory mass".            Not intended as such.                                        Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-"deadload reaction force" should read                                                                     proposed LRFD Code Ballot.and 4.6 edited and revised to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5                                  Yes              Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 "tributary permanent load"                                                                                         be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
71         1             4             Sec. 4.5 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell The value 0.2 conflicts with 0.25 in section 4.13.2            See Modified Guidelines                                      Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-Ian Buckle uses 0.25 which differs from                                                                   Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to    Yes              Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 0.2 shown                                                                                                          be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
72         1             4             4.5                    AR               Article 4.5 incorrectly references 4.13.2 or at least its   See Modified Guidelines.                                     Tobias / Brandenberger   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Is improved.                                                                    Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to    Yes              Yes               No             Yes
                                                                               unclear how 0.2 DL relates to the statements made in Art.                                                                                         Reference to art 4.13.2 deleted. This should resolve                                                               be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
                                                                               4.13.2.                                                                                                                                           the issue for AR.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Page 4 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                      LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                          11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section           Article               State/                        Initial Comment                                                Initial Response                                 Lead Person                   Lead Person's Comments                                  Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                  Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                         Resolved By    Resolved By       Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                                Name                           (by Originator)                                               (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Lead?          Team?             Issue?            Item?

73         1             4                                      AR              For Equation 4.15, Should N be >=12 like SDC B, C, or         See Modified Guidelines.                                      Tobias / Brandenberger     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07:                                                                                        MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards Yes                      Yes               No             Yes
                                                                                D?                                                                                                                                                     Notes/Thoughts: Belive it is mostly "fixed". Since                                                                        consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       resutls are unconservative, however, it may be                                                                            2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       prudent to propose Dr. Buckle's method in LRFD                                                                            consistent with LRFD Code Ballot .....3-6-07 SB Seat width
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       code ballot or use "whichever is greater" instead of >                                                                    calculation for SDC D using rigorous analysis is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       or = to 12 " from the two methods. Steph's                                                                                maintained.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       comment: Many on T-3 committee felt comfortable
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       with more conservative LRFD seat width calcs.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Again for consistancy, may want to continue with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       those methods and place Imbsen's in the commentary
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       or in the parking lot.
74         1             4             4.5 1st Para.          BERGER/ Lee Reference to Section 4.13.2 mis-states what that article            See Modified Guidelines                                       Tobias                                                                              02-09-07: OK, LM                                                 Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to     Yes             Yes               No             Yes
                                                              Marsh         says, which is 0.25 g.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
75         1             4             Sec. 4.6 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell "dead load" should read "contributory mass"                       Not intended as such.                                         Derrell Manceaux           02-05-07-"deadload reaction force" should read                                                                            Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to     Yes             Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       "tributary permanent load"                                                                                                be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
76         1             4             Sec. 4.6 1st paragraph FHWA/ Derrell Add "The minimum support length shall be as specified in          See Modified Guidelines                                       Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                     Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to     Yes             Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                                                            4.12" to the last sentence. Also add "the force shall be                                                                                                   02-05-07-Proposed entire paragraph be changed as                                                                          be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
                                                                            carried through substructure"                                                                                                                              shown in attachment with commentary
77         1             4             4.7.1b Pg 4-11         CA            Typically there would be limited value in restricting the         No change is recommended. Due to the limited hazard              Chris Unanwa            Check with CA Team                                       02-26-07: Accept status quo                                      Dan/IL 2/19/07: Phrase "designed for life saftey criteria"   Yes               Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             No
                                                                            ductility demands as required for Limited Ductility               associated with SDC B and C, ductility demands are                                                                                                                                                                 deleted. I mostly agree with Roy on this one. It makes a lot
                                                                            Response for SDC B or C. This will result in stronger             typically moderate, (i.e., limited); thus, a limited response is                                                                                                                                                   of sense to Illinois, our seismicity and design philsophy.
                                                                            columns that will require stronger foundations according to       anticipated as mentioned.
                                                                            Capacity Design principles, increasing the foundation cost.
                                                                            Typically Limited Ductility Response requirements are
                                                                            used to provide enhanced performance, despite the
                                                                            increased costs, to provide increased post-earthquake
                                                                            serviceability for an important bridge. Recommend
                                                                            deleting the last sentence of the last paragraph stating
                                                                            Limited Ductility Response is typical for SDC B or C.


78         1             4             4.7.1 1st Para.          BERGER/ Lee The ductility demand, md, is key to the whole process, but See Modified Guidelines                                              Tobias                                                                              3-2-07 See comments for Item No 82.                              Dan/IL 2/19/07: Added "as defined by Eq. 4.9-1."               Yes             Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             No
                                                                Marsh       the definition is ambiguous. Is md the worst 'local' demand?

79         1             4             4.7.1(b)                 BERGER/ Lee Are limited-ductility structures related to ERE where             As stated the response of SDC B and C bridges is expected Tobias                                                                                3-2-07:It is generally felt that SDC B and C will produce          Dan/IL 2/19/07: Phrase "designed for life saftey criteria"   Yes               Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             No
                                                                Marsh       owner's approval is required? Or are limited-ductility            to be of limited ductility demand.                                                                                                              designs that only require limited ductility capacity to resist     deleted. I mostly agree with Roy on this one. It makes a lot
                                                                            structures SDC B&C bridges by definition?                                                                                                                                                                         the design earthquake. No explicit recognition of this needs       of sense to Illinois, our seismicity and design philsophy.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              to be taken in the designation of EREs.
80         1             4             4.7.2                    AR              In Art. 4.7.2, there is a new requirement that at least 25%   See Modified Guidelines.                                      Tobias / Brandenberger     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07:                     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: The article states:             3-6-07 SB The article has been revised significantly by         Yes            Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             No
                                                                                of the longitudinal top and bottom rebar shall be                                                                                                      Notes/Thoughts: Article now reads 15%. The             "reinforced prestressed and precast prestresed girders shall       deleting the prescriptive requirements and adding the
                                                                                continuous for SDC D bridges, and spliced with couplers.                                                                                               language of this section should be clarified. We       have a minimum of 15% of the total equivalent mild and             statement: "The effects of vertical ground motions for
                                                                                Is this a requirement for concrete beams or for the slab?                                                                                              think it means the slabs for concrete girder and steel prestressing steel in the form of continuous mild                  bridges in Seismic Design Category D located within six (6)
                                                                                Prestressed girders are included in this. It seems that RC                                                                                             girder bridges and concrete girders, but not steel     reinforcement." I interpret that to mean the girder itself.        miles of an active fault as described in Article C3.4, shall be
                                                                                Slab, RCDG, and Precast Units would have to meet this                                                                                                  girders. The Article also only applies to bridges      Agree that it might be primarily a CA issue. Suggest use           considered."
                                                                                requirement. Is this the intent?                                                                                                                       near a fault (6 miles). So this is not that many       current CA provisions for this section......Dan/IL 2/18/07:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       bridges outside of CA, for example. Critical bridge Suggested editing/modification from WA used to revise this
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       verbiage may need to be deleted.                       Article
81         1             4             Sec.4.7.2 Pg 4-11        CA              This provision does not ensure a minimum level of           A similar prescriptive approach is considered.                  Chris Unanwa               Prescribed approach to be discussed further by the                                                                        ......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Suggested editing/modification from      Yes             Yes JQ 02/28/07   No             No
                                                                                continuous mild reinforcement for cast-in-place prestressed                                                                                            Team.                                                                                                                     WA used to revise this Article … JQ 02/27/07: Retained
                                                                                concrete bridges for vertical acceleration. There may be                                                                                                                                                                                                                         first sentence and moved remainder of paragraph to
                                                                                only a nominal amount of mild reinforcement provided in a                                                                                                                                                                                                                        commentary.
                                                                                CIP P/s bridge. Caltrans SDC requires that additional mild
                                                                                reinforcement capable of resisting +0.25g be provided
                                                                                continuous over the length of the superstructure. This
                                                                                ensures a consistent level of mild reinforcement regardless
                                                                                of the amount or type of reinforcement used for service
                                                                                loads. I would recommend a similar minimum amount of
                                                                                continuous mild reinforcement be required.


82         1             4             4.8 1st Para.            BERGER/ Lee Need a clear definition of the displacement demand. Is this See Modified Guidelines                                             Tobias                                                                              3-2-07: The definition and use of 'local' ductility capacities   Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                  Yes             Yes               Yes            Yes
                                                                Marsh       a local demand? What constitutes 'local'? It seems logical                                                                                                                                                          is roughly consistent with the Caltrans Seismic Design           proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                            that both principal axes should be checked, but this is not                                                                                                                                                         Criteria (SDC). Thus, the SDC can be used as a reference         anticipated for resolution. 3-6-07 SB Revised language in
                                                                            stated directly. It should be. Also it would be logical to                                                                                                                                                          source for engineers in applying these provisions. Future        article 4.8 should clarify.
                                                                            check the principal local axes of a bent or pier and not the                                                                                                                                                        revisions should evaluate the success of lack thereof of the
                                                                            principal axes of the bridge as a whole. For many bridges,                                                                                                                                                          use of the local definitions. If engineers are having
                                                                            this will require transformation of displacement data, since                                                                                                                                                        problems, then tightening of the requirements to be more
                                                                            most programs only report global displacements. Should                                                                                                                                                              specific may be warranted at a future date.
                                                                            any account of additional uncertainty of displacements be
                                                                            accounted for due to the transformation?

83         1             4             Sec. 4.8 all             FHWA/ Derrell At what location on the column are deflections being            Relative displacement is considered.                          Derrell Manceaux           02-05-07-Lee Marsh suggested figures be added                                                                             Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                  Yes             Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                                                              compared?                                                                                                                                                from SDC to clarify                                                                                                       proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 anticipated for resolution. DM 02-20-07- Need to see
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 proposed sketches
84         1             4             Sec. 4.8 all             FHWA/ Derrell Clarify if the displacement demand is modified with             See Modified Guidelines                                       Derrell Manceaux           02-05-07 Last paragraph, correct spelling for "are1"                                                                      Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                  Yes             Yes               No             Yes
                                                                              displacement magnification                                                                                                                               to "are".                                                                                                                 proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 anticipated for resolution.
85         1             4             Sec.4.8.1 Pg 4-12        CA            Is a reference available for equations 4-7a and 4-7b? I had Provide examples or specific case. Many have used the             Chris Unanwa               Equations need correction. Mark Mahan to present         OK as amended                                                    Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                  Yes             Yes               No             Yes
                                                                              problems when performing a quick calculation, getting a       equation appropriately and correctly.                                                      ammendments.                                                                                                              proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                              negative value for the displacement capacity. Is it possible                                                                                                                                                                                                                       anticipated for resolution.
                                                                              there are missing or incorrectly placed parentheses? More
                                                                              information is needed to apply this to the many different
                                                                              applications that may occur in SDC B and C. Provide
                                                                              definitions, limitations and assumptions for the use of these
                                                                              equations.
86         1             4             Sec. 4.8.1 definitions   FHWA/ Derrell Is Bo taken as core or gross diameter?                        See Modified Guidelines                                         Derrell Manceaux           02-05-07 OK                                              02-12-07-Need to see figures that were proposed … JQ 03- Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                          Yes             Yes               No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                08-07: Figures to be included in future revision.        proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         anticipated for resolution.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Page 5 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                           LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                             11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section          Article        State/                          Initial Comment                                               Initial Response                              Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                              Originator's Follow-Up Comment                              Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                       Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                        Name                             (by Originator)                                              (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

87         1             4             Sec. 4.8.1 Last   FHWA/ Derrell If H is taken as distance from max moment to contra            See Modified Guidelines                                       Derrell Manceaux        02-05-07-Lee Marsh suggested figures be added        02-12-07-Need to see figures that were proposed … JQ 03- Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                    Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                       paragraph                       flexure, then if the corresponding deflection is used, then                                                                                          from SDC to clarify                                  08-07: Figures to be included in future revision.        proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                       only 1/2 the true deflection is taken into account                                                                                                                                                                                                                 anticipated for resolution.
88         1             4             4.8.1 1st Para.   BERGER/ Lee Provide a reference for the empirical capacity equations.        See Modified Guidelines                                       Tobias                                                                       3-2-07: Descriptions of the limits of the development of Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                    Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                         Marsh         Also it might be useful to clarify that 'Ln' is the natural                                                                                                                                               these equations have been added to the commentary.       proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                       logarithm. Perhaps use lowercase for the log function,                                                                                                                                                                                                             anticipated for resolution. 3-6-07 SB Revised language in
                                                                       because that is the most common way it is written.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 article 4.8 should clarify.
89         1             4             4.8.1 1st Para.   BERGER/ Lee Have these expressions been calibrated against actual            See Modified Guidelines                                       Tobias                                                                       3-2-07: The range of use and predictions from these      Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                    Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                         Marsh         bridge designs? Are there any limits to their applicability,                                                                                                                                              equations are apparenlty consistent with the Caltrans'   proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                       and if so, do those limits play into the procedure selection                                                                                                                                              experience.                                              anticipated for resolution. 3-6-07 SB Revised language in
                                                                       (i.e. send you to SDC D). For instance, I presume                                                                                                                                                                                                                  article 4.8 should clarify.
                                                                       configurations such as bents with struts at mid-height
                                                                       should not be assessed directly with these equations?

90         1             4             4.8.1 3rd Para.   BERGER/ Lee I don't see where the second bullet option is addressed     See Modified Guidelines                                     Tobias                                                                              3-2-07: The only place this shows up directly is for a design Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA               Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                         Marsh       anywhere in the Guidelines (e.g. where the displacement                                                                                                                                                     executed using SDC D. Consequently, the second bullet was proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                     capacity is a function of either longitudinal or transverse                                                                                                                                                 removed from the list.                                        anticipated for resolution. 3-6-07 SB Revised language in
                                                                     reinforcement for a concrete section.). See also comments                                                                                                                                                                                                                 article 4.8 should clarify.
                                                                     for Section 4.9.
91         1             4             Sec. 4.8.1        CA          Equations 4.7a and 4.7b do not show how detailing for       Code performance requirements are included in task 6 report Chris Unanwa                   Discuss with CA Team.                                02-26-07: Accept status quo                                  Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                     SDC “B” and “C” will produce the desired ductility values.                                                                                                                                                                                                               proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              anticipated for resolution.
92         1             4             4.8.2 1st Para.   BERGER/ Lee Why develop a new terminology, IQPA? Why not use                 Agree the text has been changed to Nonlinear Static           Tobias                                                                       3-2-07: This change was not incorporated. That is            Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                         Marsh       Nonlinear Static Procedure, NSP, as other seismic specs          Procedure, NSP, which is more consistant with other                                                                                        acceptable. The nomenclature could be revisited for future   proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                     are using?                                                       specifications..                                                                                                                           revisions.                                                   anticipated for resolution.
93         1             3             Figure 3.3.1a     CA          Permissible Earthquake Resisting Systems (ERS) allows            For SBC B, shear capacity protection is still required even   Chris Unanwa            Discuss with CA Team.                                                                                             JQ 02-26-07: Accept status quo.                              Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                     elastic design of columns as an alternative to plastic hinges    though displacement demand is relatively small.
                                                                     in inspectable locations. Regardless of the analysis method,
                                                                     bridges may form plastic hinges, which should be properly
                                                                     located and inspectable.
94         1             3             Figure 3.3.2      CA          ERS requiring owner’s approval: Ductile diaphragms in            See Modified Guidelines                                       Chris Unanwa            Modification deleted: "Yielding restricted to        OK                                                           JQ 02-26-07: Modifed by R. Imbsen.                           Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                     superstructure, yet yielding restricted to substructure! Why                                                                                           substructure."
                                                                     is the need for ductile diaphragms?
95         1             3             Figure 3.3.2      CA          ERS requiring owner’s approval: In-ground hinges in              Acceptable if properly designed.                              Chris Unanwa            Discuss with CA Team.                                                                                             JQ 02-26-07: Accept status quo.                              Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                     battered piles are not a good combination. The plastic
                                                                     hinge will most likely be not successful under the very large
                                                                     axial load of a battered pile while the vertical piles have
                                                                     very little participation!
96         1             4             Sec. 4.8.2        CA          “Local Displacement Capacity” is a different concept than        Local displacement ductility can be measured from             Chris Unanwa            Discuss with CA Team.                                02-26-07: Accept status quo                                  Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                     the push over analysis of a sub-system. The two cannot be        pushover analysis.                                                                                                                                                                                      proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                     mixed. The push over analysis is generally done on the                                                                                                                                                                                                                   anticipated for resolution.
                                                                     most global level possible, say a bridge frame in the
                                                                     longitudinal direction. Local ductility requirement is
                                                                     appropriate for a single column of that frame.
97         1             4             Sec. 4.9          CA          The local displacement ductility demand (allowance) of 6         Caltrans definition of target ductility is different.         Chris Unanwa            Need to change ductility limits to Target values (per Recommend changing proposed ductility limits to 5, 6, 5     Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                     for single column bents and 8 for multi-column bents is                                                                                                caltrans SDC)                                                                                                     proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                     approximately 50% higher than Caltrans practice in certain                                                                                                                                                                                                               anticipated for resolution. Chris U/CA: Amended by Team
                                                                     cases.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   as proposed.
98         1             4             4.9 Overall       BERGER/ Lee This section needs to be tightened with respect to the           See section 4.8 for displacement check.                       Tobias                                                                       3-1-07: OK LM Such a check is only required for SDC D.       Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                         Marsh       checks that are required. Literally as I read it, only the                                                                                                                                                                                                               proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                     ductility demand needs to be checked and shown to be less                                                                                                                                                                                                                anticipated for resolution.
                                                                     than the listed values. A moment-curvature analysis is
                                                                     required to calculate the yield and plastic displacement
                                                                     capacity, but the latter is never used. Thus, I don't see why
                                                                     it is calculated. A literal reading seems to obviate the need
                                                                     to perform the pushover analysis at all, since the yield
                                                                     displacement could be approximated using EIeff.


99         1             4             4.9 1st Para.     BERGER/ Lee The dispensation of the foundation and superstructure            Superstructure and substructure flexibilities are accounted   Tobias                                                                       3-1-07: The clarity of how designers are handling               Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA             Yes             Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                         Marsh       flexibilities in the calculation of the yield and total          for in the analytical model used to obtain the displacement                                                                                foundation flexibility should be reviewed for future            proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                     displacements must be clear. If such flexibility is included     demand. Local member ductility is calculated based on                                                                                      revisions. If necessary, tighter language for the specification anticipated for resolution.
                                                                     in the yield displacement, the resulting ductility demand        column yield.                                                                                                                              would be added at that time.
                                                                     will be unconservative relative to the limits prescribed.

100        1             4             4.9 1st Para.     BERGER/ Lee As stated elsewhere, the definition of 'local' must be           Yes.                                                          Tobias                                                                       3-2-07: See comment for Item No. 82.                         Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                         Marsh       clarified. It appears that equivalent cantilever local                                                                                                                                                                                                                   proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                     elements are to be derived. If this is so, clarifying figures,                                                                                                                                                                                                           anticipated for resolution.
                                                                     such as those included in Caltrans' SDC would be most
                                                                     helpful. These could perhaps be included in the
                                                                     commentary.
101        1             4             4.9 1st Para.     BERGER/ Lee What limits are intended to be used to calculate the plastic The displacement capacity calculated based on strain limits. Tobias / Chris Unanwa        Ductility limits proposed in Art. 4.9 were modified 3-1-07: OK, LM                                                Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                         Marsh       displacement capacity? Are the strain limits, for example Maximum ductibility demands are capped for different                                         to the values used by Caltrans. These are considered                                                              proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                     those given in Chapter 8, intended to be used here? Are       members.                                                                                 maximum values and depending on the demand vs                                                                     anticipated for resolution.
                                                                     they meant to define an 'either/or' limit with respect to the                                                                                          capacity checks a lower effective value may limit the
                                                                     ductility limits prescribed in Section 4.9.                                                                                                            design. This is handled purely in the demand vs
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            capacity check.
102        1             4             4.9 1st Para.     BERGER/ Lee Is any conservatism built into the limits provided in Section Design earthquake is 5% in 50 years. Numerical methods Tobias / Chris Unanwa             The target ductility values per Caltrans SDC are                                                                  Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                         Marsh       4.9, including strain limits if they are also to be used?     used for pushover analysis are conservative when compared                                now used; thus there is conservatism ( a factor of                                                                proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                     (Caltrans' SDC provides 'reduced' strains that are less than to laboratory results.                                                                    safety of about 2, as proven by experimental results.                                                             anticipated for resolution.
                                                                     the ultimates for each material.) Can a bridge as designed
                                                                     by these Guidelines be expected to endure larger seismic
                                                                     displacements, i.e. those caused by ground motions that are
                                                                     in the 5% exceedence category (in 50 yrs)?

103        1             4             4.9 1st Para.     BERGER/ Lee Should multi-column bents have a higher permissible              Reserve capacity of multi-column bent is higher than single Tobias / Chris Unanwa     Response is reasonable. Check buy-off with L.        02-09-07: OK, LM                                             Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                         Marsh       ductility demand than single-column bents? I thought             column bent for new modern structure.                                                 Marsh                                                                                                             proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                     current thinking was 'no'?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               anticipated for resolution.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Page 6 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article            State/                        Initial Comment                                               Initial Response                                Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                               Originator's Follow-Up Comment                             Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                         Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                              Name                           (by Originator)                                              (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

104        1             4             Sec. 4.9 Pg 4-14       CA              Equation 4.8: Is Dy the first rebar yield or the idealized   See Modified Guidelines                                       Chris Unanwa             Modified per comment.                                  OK                                                         Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                 Yes              Yes            No             Yes
                                                                              yield. This can be significantly different, especially for                                                                                                                                                                                                            proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                              circular rebar configurations commonly used in columns.                                                                                                                                                                                                               anticipated for resolution.
105        1             4             Sec. 4.9 Pg 4-14       CA              The ductility demands specified are much higher than the     Note true, see outcome of CT example.                         Chris Unanwa             See also comments 101 & 102. Need to change            Recommend changing proposed ductility limits to 5, 6, 5    Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                 Yes              Yes            No             Yes
                                                                              target values used by Caltrans.                                                                                                                     ductility limits to Target values (per caltrans SDC)                                                              proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    anticipated for resolution. Chris U./CA: Amended as
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    proposed, at Sacramento Team Meeting 02/27-28/07
106        1             4             Sec. 4.10 Last         FHWA/ Derrell Last sentence is incomplete                                    See Modified Guidelines                                       Derrell Manceaux         Statement deleted. Check buy-off with Derrell          02-05-07- OK                                               02-05-07- OK                                                  Yes              Yes            No             No
                                       paragraph
107        1             4             4.11                   TN/ Huff    The paragraph directly under Section 4.11 on page 4-15 is                                                                      Brandenberger / Tobias   Same comment as Nos. 108 & 109. Incomplete                                                                        MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Partial sentence           Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                          incomplete.                                                                                                                                             sentence deleted. Check buy-off with Huff (TN)                                                                    deleted from modified guidelines. Should be okay now.
108        1             4             4.11 1st Para.         BERGER/ Lee Sentence is not complete.                                 See Modified Guidelines                                              Tobias / Chris Unanwa    As in # 107. Check buy-off with L. Marsh               02-09-07: OK, LM                                           Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done                                      Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh
109        1             4             Sec. 4.11 page 4-15    WA/ Jugesh  The paragraph is incomplete                               See Modified Guidelines                                              Chyuan-Shen Lee          As in # 107 & 108. Check buy-off with Kapur                                                                       Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done                                      Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                              Kapur                                                                                                                                                               (WA)
110        1             4             Pg 4-6                 CA          Are the terms “important”, “critical”, and “normal”       See Modified Guidelines.                                             Chris Unanwa             Terms defined. Check again with M. Mahan               OK                                                         Dan/IL 2/19/07: It is OK to just "touch on" this subject at   Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                          defined?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  times in the Guide Specs. Will make sure referenced
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    sections and verbiage consistent by 3/9/07.
111        1             4             Pg 4-6                 CA              The maximum bent/pier stiffness ratio in Table 4.2 appears See Modified Guidelines.                                        Chris Unanwa             Same comment as Nos. 46 & 49. "Table 4.2.1-1"          OK                                                         Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article 4.1.1 are recommendations for         Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                              to be inconsistent with the requirements in 4.1.1                                                                                                   should read "Table 4.2-3" and repositioned                                                                        SDC D for balanced stiffnesses, not requirements. What is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  accordingly                                                                                                       now Table 4.2.1 are considerations for if a bridge is
112        1             4             Page 4-9               WA/ Jugesh      Table 4.3. The range for the Moment Magnitude is not         See Modified Guidelines.                                      Chyuan-Shen Lee          See modification in footnote below Table 4.3.                                                                     02-12-07-OK…........Dan/IL 2/18/07: Mean some time.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    "regular" and have been in the Code for quiteMoment           Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                              Kapur           continuous. For example, there are no values for Mw                                                                                                 Check adequacy of response with Kapur                                                                             Magnitude Consideration Deleted from Guide
                                                                              between 6.75 and 7.0, and between 7.5 and 7.75.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Specs.........T*=1.25Ts substituted....is consistent with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    proposed LRFD Code Ballot. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 See
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    modified guide spec.
113        1             4             4.11                   AR              The sentence in Art. 4.11 is incomplete                      Which sentence?                                               Tobias / Brandenberger   Same as comment Nos. 107, 108, 109. Deleted in         OK                                                         Dan/IL 2/19/07: Done                                          Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  mod. Guidelines. Check adequacy of response with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  AR
114        1             4             Sec. 4.11 all          FHWA/ Derrell Last sentence is incomplete                                    See Modified Guidelines                                       Derrell Manceaux         May be same as 107, 108, 109. Already taken care       02-05-07- OK                                               02-05-07- OK…..Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done                       Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  of. Discuss with Derrell
115        1             4             4.11.1 1st Para.       BERGER/ Lee     Superstructures should be added to the list of elements that See Modified Guidelines                                       Tobias / Chris Unanwa    Modified per comment. Check buy-off with Marsh         02-09-07: OK, LM                                           Dan/IL 2/19/07: Superstructure Added, Say Done.               Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh           are to be capacity protected.
116        1             4             4.11.1 Item c.         BERGER/ Lee     I believe the intent is that deep foundations that may       No consensus yet on the subject. Guidelines include           Tobias                                                                          02-09-07: OK, but clarify that this permits in-ground      Dan/IL 2/19/07: Modified to read "c. A foundation situated Yes                 Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh           experience lateral forces from collateral hazards may be     necessary provisions to satisfy the "No Collapse" criteria.                                                                                   hinging.                                                   in soft or potentially liquefiable soils where plastic hinging
                                                                              permitted to be ductile or limited-ductility elements.                                                                                                                                                                                                                is permitted below ground."
                                                                              Because lateral spreading forces due to liquefaction may
                                                                              likely occur after the peak vibration-induced displacements
                                                                              are developed, it seems that such deep foundations should
                                                                              be capacity protected for vibration-based loading and only
                                                                              permitted to yield for lateral spread displacements, and
                                                                              these would be considered as a separate load case.

117        1             4             Sec. 4.11.1            CA              Not all foundation elements are capacity protected. Shafts See Modified Guidelines                                         Chris Unanwa             Modified per comment                                   OK                                                         Dan/IL 2/19/07: Modified to read "(typically flexural          Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                              are allowed to “plastic hinge” under certain conditions.                                                                                                                                                                                                              hinging in columns above ground; or in some cases, flexural
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    hinging of drilled shafts, solid wall encased pile bents, etc.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    below ground)…..Note that this concept is quite important
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    for IL design as well.
118        1             4             Sec.4.11.1 5 all       FHWA/ Derrell ∆D is not defined                                              see section 2.                                                Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07 OK                                                                                                       Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done                                       Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
119        1             4             Sec. 4.11.2 all        FHWA/ Derrell Over strength factors are used to account for material         Expected values are used. In comparison to NCHRT 12-49, Derrell Manceaux               02-05-07 OK, but need to confirm with CA                                                                          Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done                                      Yes              Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                            uncertainties. However, the spec requires actual material      the guidelines are not over conservative and line up with
                                                                            properties when calculating Moment curvature. To do both       Caltrans practice.
                                                                            appears to be over conservative.
120        1             4             4.11.2                 AK            Art. 4.11.2 mentions Table 3.3.2, where is this table          See Modified Guidelines.                                      Elmer Marx               MOST OF THE COMMENTS PRESENTED IN                                                                                 2-28-7: RESOLVED                                              Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                            located?                                                                                                                                              THIS SPREADSHEET WERE MADE ON AN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  EARLIER GENERATION OF THE GUIDE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  SPECIFICATIONS. TWO ITERATIONS HAVE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  OCCURRED SINCE THESE COMMENTS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  WERE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  CONSEQUENTLY, SOME OF THIS ISSUES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED. THIS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  COMMENT (ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  FROM AR NOT AK) APPEARS TO HAVE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE NEWEST
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  VERSION OF THE GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (date 2-1-7)

121        1             4             Sec. 4.11.3M Pg 4-18 CA                Recommendations needed for the calculation of shear          To be included in commentary.                                 Chris Unanwa                                                                                                                               Dan/IL 2/19/07: Believe this is OK….Say Done                  Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                              below ground in pile shafts.

122        1             4             4.11.5 2nd Para.       BERGER/ Lee I don't understand how a modal analysis will show out-of-        Examining predominant mode shapes reveals the presence of Tobias                                                                              02-09-07: LM to review Task 6, but so far I have not found Dan/IL 2/19/07: UCB study not all that relevant here.         Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh       phase motions between the top and bottom of a column,            out of phase response. See Task 6 report for UCB                                                                                              a specific UCB method.                                     Some ambiguity in these provisions is OK…Say Done.
                                                                          because the signs are stripped when the modes are                Methodology on out-of phase modal response
                                                                          combined. Perhaps the comparison should be based on the
                                                                          response of a single mode where the signs are preserved.

123        1             4             4.11.5 Eqn 4.11       BERGER/ Lee                                                                   See Modified Guidelines                                       Tobias                                                                          02-09-07: OK, LM Use of subscript was revised.             Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done                                      Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh         ductility is confusing.
124        1             4             Sec. 4.11.5 all       FHWA/ Derrell Non linear is required, but table 4.1 has no provisions for     No change recommended.                                        Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07 Get opinion of the Panel                                                                                 Dan/IL 2/19/07: This is OK….Say Done                          Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                           non linear analysis
125        1             4             Sec 4.11.6 Eq 4.12    FHWA/ Derrell "L" is not defined                                              see section 2.                                                Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07 OK                                            02-05-07 OK                                                02-05-07 OK……Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed..Say Done                  Yes              Yes            No             No
126        1             4             Sec. 4.11.7 2cd       FHWA/ Derrell Clarify if core or gross cross section is used. "…where the     See Modified Guidelines                                       Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07 OK                                            02-05-07 OK                                                02-05-07 OK……Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done.                        Yes              Yes            No             No
                                       paragraph & second to               moment exceeds…" Which moment is referenced? Plastic,
                                       last paragraph                      elastic, over strength?
127        1             4             4.12 all              FHWA/ Derrell Seat width requirements should not include the gap              No change recommended.                                        Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07 Proposed change is attached, similar to       02-12-07-Still unresolved                                  Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD Yes                 Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                           opening. If a gap larger than required is provided, then the                                                                                           #487                                                                                                              Code Ballot provisions.
                                                                           minimum seat length is unconservative




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Page 7 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                 LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                           11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section           Article             State/                          Initial Comment                                                  Initial Response                            Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                              Originator's Follow-Up Comment          Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                        Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                              Name                             (by Originator)                                                 (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

128        1             4             4.12 Figure 4.3         FHWA/ Derrell N should be dimensioned to not include the gap. Upper             No change recommended.                                     Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07 Proposed change is attached.                                                          Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD Yes               Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                             right figure (pier) only provides 1/2 seat length the way it is                                                                                                                                                                                      Code Ballot provisions.
                                                                             dimensioned. N1 and N2 are not defined on this same
                                                                             figure. IF gap provided is large, then minimum seat length
                                                                             is not conservative
129        1             4             Sec. 4.12.1             CA            The background info on equation 4.15 is limited. Why do           See Modified Guidelines. See Task 6 report; extensive      Chris Unanwa             Discuss with the CA Team                                                                       Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD Yes               Yes            No             Yes
                                                                             they use 0.2 factor for H. Also equation 4.15 needs               coverage.                                                                                                                                                                          Code Ballot provisions.
                                                                             correction with the term (1+Sk^2)/4000 should be
                                                                             (1+Sk^2/4000)!!
130        1             4             Sec. 4.12.2             CA            Correction in equation 4.16 similar to 4.15.                      See Modified Guidelines                                    Chris Unanwa             Discuss with the CA Team                                                                       Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD   Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Code Ballot provisions.
131        1             4             4.12.2 definitions      FHWA/ Derrell Are displacement multipliers required for ∆eq?                    Yes, see Task 6 Report and see mofified guidelines.        Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07 OK                                           02-05-07 OK                              02-05-07 OK…...Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be         Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  consistent with LRFD Code Ballot provisions.
132        1             4             4.12.2 all              FHWA/ Derrell Define how to measure "N" with respect to skew                    To be included in commentary.                              Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-Parking Lot??                                                                         Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD   Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Code Ballot provisions.
133        1             4             4.12.2 Eqn 4.16         BERGER/ Lee The use of three significant figures (1.65) seems rather            See Task 6 report. Extensive coverage.                     Tobias                                                                         3-1-07: OK, LM                           Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD   Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                               Marsh       precise for this empirical expression. Why not use 2?                                                                                                                                                                                                  Code Ballot provisions. 3-6-07 SB For SDC D rigorous
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  analysis method maintained.
134        1             4             4.12.2 Eqn 4.16         BERGER/ Lee Have the expressions for seat width been calibrated against         See Task 6 report.                                         Tobias                                                                         3-1-07: OK, LM                           Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article revised to be consistent with LRFD   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                               Marsh         those used in the current provisions? Are Eqns 4.15 and                                                                                                                                                                                              Code Ballot provisions.
                                                                             4.16 more or less conservative? It should also be made
                                                                             clear that Deq must include the effects of foundation
                                                                             flexibility; otherwise this approach is unconservative. The
                                                                             Div I-A and ATC 49 approaches used approximate
                                                                             methods that allowed for some foundation rigid body
                                                                             movements and asynchronous ground and frame
                                                                             movements. The expressions given in Eqns 4.15 and 4.16
                                                                             appear to rely on accurate predictions of the structure
                                                                             movements.
135        1             4             4.13 Pg 4-13            MO            4-13       Give guidance for “Where foundation and                See Modified Guidelines.                                   Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This could be                                               MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Response to MO: In Yes                    Yes            No             No
                                                                             superstructure flexibility can be ignored, the two                                                                                                    OK now.                                                                                        first revision, this may be clarified further. The
                                                                             dimensional plane frame “pushover” analysis of a bent or a                                                                                                                                                                                           simplification suggested in the Guide Specs is at the
                                                                             frame can be simplified to a column model (fixed-fixed or                                                                                                                                                                                            discretion and judgement of the engineer. It can be difficult
                                                                             fixed-pinned) if it does not cause a significant loss in                                                                                                                                                                                             to impossible to be exacting in all provisions in an
                                                                             accuracy in estimating the displacement capacities”                                                                                                                                                                                                  earthquake spec.
136        1             4             4.13.1 all              FHWA/ Derrell Commentary is required to explain how the cable                                                                              Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07- Replace all of 4.13.1 with the text on      02-12-07 Still unresolved                Dan/IL 2/19/07: Buckle's provisions adapted to this Article. Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                             restrainers are determined in the event a case occurs where                                                                                           attached file
                                                                             5 restrainers are not appropriate. Specifications for the
                                                                             materials and details required are also needed. Define how
                                                                             restrainers are placed with respect to skew and substructure
                                                                             stiffness
137        1             4             4.13.2 all              FHWA/ Derrell .25g is unconservative if a structure is in high seismic.         Refer to section 4.13 ahead of 4.13.1 for requirements.    Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Still unresolved                                                                      Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article modified to use design forces from Yes               Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                             Need to add comment that the larger of elastic analysis or        Need to clarify the unconservative aspect of design                                                                                                                                modified Article 4.5.
                                                                             .25 g is required. Also, add .25g times contributory mass.-       mentioned in reference to 0.25g.
                                                                             This section conflicts with4.13.1 which specifies how many
                                                                             restrainers are required and 4.13.2 now requires the design
                                                                             of them. Conflict should be resolved.

138        1             4             4.14 2nd Para.          BERGER/ Lee Are there any limits on the steel type used in shear keys           No, A706 can be recommended but not yet covered in any     Tobias                                                                         02-09-07: OK, LM                         Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                               Marsh         covered by this section? Should A706                              specifications.
                                                                             recommended/required?
139        1             4             4.14 all                FHWA/ Derrell Non linear is required, but table 4.1 has no provisions for       No change recommended.                                     Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07-Panel needs to make descision on time                                                 Dan/IL 2/19/07: This is OK….Say Done                         Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                             non linear analysis                                                                                                                                   history
140        1             4             4.15                    MO            See Article 7.4.9” Article 7.4.9 does not exist. Numerous         See Modified Guidelines.                                   Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for                                               Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say Done                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                             references to Article X.X                                                                                                                             CA to administer.
141        1             4             Pg 4-21                 MO            4-21         What is the background for the development of        Equations are based on state of the practice and culled    Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Dr. Imbsen's                                                Dan/IL 2/19/07: Section has been improved with               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                             the Plastic Hinge Length? It appears the diameter of the          background references of Task 6 Report.                                             response is just "OK". No further input suggested.                                             reformatting effort.
                                                                             column would influence this length and should be included                                                                                             Considered resolved.
                                                                             in the calculation. Is the accuracy of the equation justified
                                                                             or could 31 or 36 inches or column diameter be assumed
                                                                             for design?
142        1             4             Pg 4-23                 MO            Seat or support width: If one is doing a pushover analysis,       See Modified Guidelines. Commentary out of scope at this   Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Skew factor                                                 MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards        Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                             what method is suggested to obtain the delta eq value?            point.                                                                              error was corrected. Results using this Article are                                            consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                             Could additional commentary be added for this                                                                                                         unconservative, though. May propose using Dr.                                                  2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                             requirement? It appears that we are getting erroneous                                                                                                 Buckle's formulation as suggested elsewhere.                                                   consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
                                                                             results using the equation and the “skew factor” for long
                                                                             spans comparing skewed bridges and bridges without
                                                                             skews.
144        1             5             5.2.1 3rd & 4th Para.   BERGER/ Lee Consider moving these paragraphs to Chapter 4. See the              No change recommended.                                     Tobias                                                                         3-1-07: OK, LM                           Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say OK…..Say Done.                           Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                               Marsh         'general' comment regarding Chapter 4, above.
145        1             5             5.2.3.2 Figure 5.2      BERGER/ Lee In the text that references Figure 5.2, state that an               See Modified Guidelines.                                   Tobias                                                                         02-09-07: OK, LM                         Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                                    Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                               Marsh         approach slab in not required.
146        1             5             5.2.3                   TN/ Huff      Section 5.2.3.3 regarding abutment stiffness calculation is       See Modified Guidelines. Need to modify the calculations   Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: This requires                                              Dan/IL 2/21/07: IL's geotechnical engineer helped me take a Yes              Yes            No             Yes
                                                                             difficult to interpret and apply. There may be a unit             shown in the "Comment" column.                                                      further investigation. We do not really understand                                             look at this Article. These computed stiffnesses were judged
                                                                             problem or a typographical error. For example, consider an                                                                                            Dr. Imbsen's respons. TN indicated this was a                                                  "reasonable". However, the 0.04 factor in the denominator
                                                                             abutment wall 10 feet high and 60 feet long. Applying the                                                                                             matter of importance over telephone.                                                           was removed and 0.02 was replaced with the variable Fw.
                                                                             equations as stated gives a stiffness of :                                                                                                                                                                                                           Commentary was added which reads: "Guidance on the
                                                                             K eff1 =P p /0.02H w =2/3H w L/0.02H w L =100L/3=100x60/                                                                                                                                                                                             value of Fw to use for a particular bridge may be found in
                                                                             3=2,000k/ft=167k/in                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Table C3.11.1-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
                                                                             which is a very low number. Perhaps the intent is for the                                                                                                                                                                                            Specifications. The table presents values of Fw for dense
                                                                             capital “Pp” to be a lowercase “pp” so that the equation                                                                                                                                                                                             sand, medium dense sand, loose sand, compacted silt,
                                                                             becomes:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             compacted lean clay, and compacted fat clay. If the
                                                                             K eff1 =p p /0.02H w =2/3H 2 w L/0.02H w L= 100HwL/3=100                                                                                                                                                                                             influence of passive pressure extends beyond one particular
                                                                             x10x60/3=20,000k/ft=1667k/in                                                                                                                                                                                                                         soil type at an abutment, averaged or weighted average
                                                                             This still seems a bit low compare to previous values which                                                                                                                                                                                          values for Fw may be used at the engineer’s discretion." 3-6-
                                                                             would be on the order of 40 kips/inch/ft x 60 feet x 10/8 =                                                                                                                                                                                          07 SB See Revised Article, Equations and commentary to
                                                                             3,000 kips/inch.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     address this issue.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Page 8 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                  LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                         11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section           Article              State/                         Initial Comment                                                   Initial Response                           Lead Person                   Lead Person's Comments                             Originator's Follow-Up Comment                         Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                        Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                               Name                            (by Originator)                                                  (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

147        1             5             5.2.3.1 1st paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell Paragraph should be as commentary since it gives no               Consider for commentary.                                   Derrell Manceaux          02-06-07-Make 1st paragraph into commentary                                                                 Dan/IL 2/20/07: Moved to commentary.                         Yes              Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                             requirements                                                                                                                                           C5.2.3.1
148        1             5             5.2.3.1 1st paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell The word active should be "passive" pressure                      See Modified Guidelines                                    Derrell Manceaux          02-06-07-OK                                          02-06-07-OK                                            02-06-07-OK…..Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                      Yes              Yes            No             No
149        1             5             5.2.3.3 1st Para.       BERGER/ Lee Delete the word 'pressure' in the first sentence, and in the        See Modified Guidelines                                    Tobias                                                                         02-09-07: OK, but change new units of "ksi" to "ksf"   Dan/IL 2/20/07: Believe OK now….Say Done.                    Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                               Marsh         sentence that begins with 'Thus'. In the definition of
                                                                             lowercase pp, delete 'per lineal foot of wall unit length along
                                                                             the wall'.
150        1             5             5.2.3.3 a Heading &     BERGER/ Lee Delete the word 'pressure' in the heading. Change the               See Modified Guidelines                                    Tobias                                                                         02-09-07: OK, LM                                       Dan/IL 2/20/07: Believe OK now….Say Done.                    Yes              Yes            No             No
                                       Bullets                 Marsh         uppercase Pp to lowercase pp. In the second bullet, delete
                                                                             the words 'per foot of wall length'. (Throughout this section
                                                                             uppercase denotes the total passive force on the wall and
                                                                             lowercase denotes the passive pressure, assumed to be
                                                                             uniformly distributed. The definitions in Section 2.1 are
                                                                             correct.)
151        1             5             5.2.4                   AR            Art. 5.2.4 mentions “Fusing”. More information on this            See Modified Guidelines.                                   Tobias / Brandenberger    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Guideline                                                                MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Response to AR:            Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                             concept would be beneficial.                                                                                                                           modifiied, but still seems unclear. Editorial                                                               Fusing and shear keys, etc. are mentioned several times in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    suggestion forthcoming.                                                                                     the Guide Spec. Much more elaboration is probably not
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                that practical for the first publication of the Guide Specs.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                These concepts will also become more familiar through
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                time. They are also much more heavily emphasized in the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                the T-2 LRFD Code Ballot for 2007.....Dan/IL 2/20/07:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Provisions for shear keys and fusing have also been clarified
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                and improved.
152        1             5             5.2.4.1 1st & 2cd       FHWA/ Derrell Replace "dead load reaction" with contributory mass               No change recommended; simple application is proposed in Derrell Manceaux            02/02/07 - "deadload reaction force" should read                                                            Dan/IL 2/20/07: First paragraph of Article now reads:         Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                       paragraph                                                                                               the guidelines.                                                                      "tributary permanent load"                                                                                  "Shear keys shall be designed to resist a horizontal seismic
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                force not less than the product of the effective peak ground
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                spectral acceleration coefficient, 0.4SDS, as specified in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Article 3.4, times the tributary permanent load.".....and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Commentary now reads: "For bridges in these categories,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                elastic resistance may be achievable."
153        1             5             5.2.4.1 1st paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell Minimum lateral force = 0.2DL, but section 4.13.2                 See Modified Guidelines                                    Derrell Manceaux          02-06-07"deadload reaction force" should read                                                               Dan/IL 2/20/07: First paragraph of Article now reads:         Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                             requires 0.25g                                                                                                                                         "tributary permanent load" in 2 separate locations                                                          "Shear keys shall be designed to resist a horizontal seismic
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                force not less than the product of the effective peak ground
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                spectral acceleration coefficient, 0.4SDS, as specified in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Article 3.4, times the tributary permanent load.".....and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Commentary now reads: "For bridges in these categories,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                elastic resistance may be achievable."
154        1             5             5.2.4.2 all             FHWA/ Derrell need commentary                                             Consider for commentary.                                         Derrell Manceaux          02-06-07-Parking Lot                                                                                                                                                      Yes             Yes            Yes            No
155        1             5             5.2.4.1                 AR            Art. 5.2.4.1 states the design force for Shear Keys: “Shear See Modified Guidelines.                                         Tobias / Brandenberger    02-06-07-Parking Lot                                                                                        Dan/IL 2/20/07: First paragraph of Article now reads:         Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                             keys shall be designed for, a lateral force, equal to the                                                                                                                                                                                                          "Shear keys shall be designed to resist a horizontal seismic
                                                                             difference between the lateral force demand and 0.4DL”.                                                                                                                                                                                                            force not less than the product of the effective peak ground
                                                                             Does this mean that as the earthquake force becomes                                                                                                                                                                                                                spectral acceleration coefficient, 0.4SDS, as specified in
                                                                             larger, the shear key design force decreases? Needs                                                                                                                                                                                                                Article 3.4, times the tributary permanent load.".....and
                                                                             clarification.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Commentary now reads: "For bridges in these categories,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                elastic resistance may be achievable."
156        1             5             Table5.1                AR          Table 5.1: The estimated depth to fixity is a possible              These graphs/equations are available and can be included in Tobias / Brandenberger   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Some info                                                                MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest Parking            Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                                           foundation modeling method and can be determined with               the commentary or separate appendix.                                                 provided in the appendix. This might be a good                                                              Lot…..Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.
                                                                           simple equations. Should these equations be included in the                                                                                              parking lot issue.
                                                                           guidelines?
157        1             5             5.3.1 1st paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell For spread footings, the mass should be EXCLUDED since              See Modified Guidelines                                    Derrell Manceaux          02-06-07-OK                                          02-06-07-OK                                            02-06-07-OK……Dan/IL 2/20/07: "may" edited to "should" Yes                     Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                           it is extremely stiff and obtaining 90% participation will                                                                                                                                                                                                           and ", which may be important in achieving a total
                                                                           require numerous modes                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               contributory mass of 90%" deleted.
158        1             5             5.3.1 1st Para.       BERGER/ Lee If a foundation is modeled as rigid, including the mass of            See Modified Guidelines                                    Tobias                                                                         02-09-07: OK, LM                                       Dan/IL 2/20/07: "may" edited to "should" and ", which may Yes                 Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh         the foundation seems unnecessary, because the                                                                                                                                                                                                                        be important in achieving a total contributory mass of 90%"
                                                                           displacement degrees of freedom for the foundation would                                                                                                                                                                                                             deleted.
                                                                           be eliminated from the stiffness matrix. If foundation
                                                                           flexibility is included, the foundation mass may cause
                                                                           problems getting to 90% mass participation. Suggest
                                                                           deleting the 3rd sentence of the paragraph.
159        1             5             Sec. 5.3.1 Pg. 5-10   CA            Foundation Modeling Method I should be the minimum                  Yes, it is as such.                                        Chris Unanwa              Check with Team                                                                                             Dan/IL 2/20/07: Looks OK…Say Done.                           Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                           required for SDC B&C. The designer should always have
                                                                           the latitude to more accurately model the foundations using
                                                                           FMM II.
160        1             5             Sec. 5.3.1 M Pg. 5-10 CA            Recommend using FMM II for soft soils in SDC B and C.               Yes, it is as such.                                        Chris Unanwa              Check with Team                                                                                             Dan/IL 2/20/07: Looks OK…Say Done.                           Yes              Yes            No             No

161        1             5             Sec. 5.3.2 Pg. 5-11     CA               Caltrans does not allow rocking of new bridges pending         It is by owner's approval. Based on the proposed procedure, Chris Unanwa             For Team discussion                                                                                         Dan/IL 2/20/07: Rocking moved to commentary and             Yes               Yes            No             Yes
                                                                                results of ongoing research. Reasons include: Rocking          shear and hinging requirements need to be satisfied. (See                                                                                                                                        referred to in Appendix A. Commentary Reads: "Uplift or
                                                                                response is less predictable than other traditional types of last paragraph of section 6.3.4)                                                                                                                                                                   rocking analysis for spread footings may be considered with
                                                                                response, effects of soil “rounding” under the footing -                                                                                                                                                                                                        the owner’s approval. See Appendix A."
                                                                                changing the rocking response under multiple cycles is not
                                                                                well understood, effects of paving, sidewalks and other
                                                                                surface features are not well understood, distribution of
                                                                                nonlinear response between column and foundation rocking
                                                                                can be difficult to determine due to sensitivity to variables
                                                                                with dispersed values that are difficult to precisely predict.
                                                                                If nothing else, Owner’s Permission should be required.

162        1             5             Sec. 5.3.4M Pg. 5-12    CA               The use of Group Reduction Factors for a single row of       No change is recommended at this time, an update may be      Chris Unanwa              For Team discussion                                                                                         Dan/IL 2/20/07: GRF moved to commentary to read as          Yes               Yes            No             No
                                                                                pile shafts or pile extensions is the subject of ongoing     warranted In the future.                                                                                                                                                                           follows: "A group reduction factor established in the
                                                                                debate in the bridge engineering community. The GRF can                                                                                                                                                                                                         geotechnical report should be considered in the analysis.
                                                                                have a significant effect on the flexibility and thus the                                                                                                                                                                                                       Analyzing the structure with and without consideration of a
                                                                                overall response of the structure. While practices vary,                                                                                                                                                                                                        group reduction factor should also be considered since the
                                                                                many engineers are now analyzing the structure with and                                                                                                                                                                                                         overall response of the structure for these two cases may
                                                                                without the GRF’s, similar to what is done for liquefaction.                                                                                                                                                                                                    vary significantly."

163        1             5             5.4.1 second            FHWA/ Derrell critical and essential bridges is not defined-Table 4.1 does      See Modified Guidelines                                    Derrell Manceaux          02-06-07-OK                                          02-06-07-OK                                            02-06-07-OK…..Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                      Yes              Yes            No             No
                                       paragraph                             not require non linear time history




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Page 9 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                            LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                     11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article           State/                          Initial Comment                                             Initial Response                             Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                                Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                         Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                             Name                             (by Originator)                                            (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

164        1             5             5.4.2 2nd Para.       BERGER/ Lee The Single-Mode Spectral Method is no longer defined. If No change recommended.                                             Tobias                                                                          02-09-07: Suggest deleting the last sentence of 2nd para of     Dan/IL 2/20/07: Section was poorly written. ULM and        Yes                Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh       it is permitted, then it should be defined. It is not clear from                                                                                                                                            section 5.4.2. Then at the end of the 1st para of C5.4.2 add:   SMS written in as options with cleaned up language in Code
                                                                         the paragraph whether the ESA is an alternate to the ULM                                                                                                                                                    "Alternate permissible methods to that described in 5.4.2 are   and Commentary.
                                                                         and SMSM or envelopes the two.                                                                                                                                                                              the Uniform Load Method (C5.4.2) or the Single Mode
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Spectral Method as outlined in Divisions 1A, Section 4.4 of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Edition."
165        1             5             5.4.2 2nd Para.       BERGER/ Lee The 3rd sentence states that the load is applied in              Commentary is incomplete.                                  Tobias                                                                          02-09-07: See comment above for item no 164.                    Dan/IL 2/20/07: Section was poorly written. ULM and        Yes                Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh         proportion to the mass distribution. That is not consistent                                                                                                                                                                                                               SMS written in as options with cleaned up language in Code
                                                                           with the steps outlined for the uniform load method in                                                                                                                                                                                                                    and Commentary.
                                                                           C5.4.2.
166        1             5             5.4.3 1st Para.       BERGER/ Lee The mandatory language requiring specific numbers of             See Modified Guidelines                                    Tobias                                                                          02-09-07: OK, LM                                                Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh         elements in the last sentence conflicts with the non-
                                                                           mandatory language to the same effect in Section 5.5.3.
167        1             5             5.4.3 2cd paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell Delete the words "on the other hand"                           See Modified Guidelines                                    Derrell Manceaux         02-06-07-OK                                            02-06-07-OK                                                     02-06-07-OK….Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                        Yes             Yes            No             No
168        1             5             5.4.4 all             FHWA/ Derrell Time History analysis is not required in table 4.1             See Modified Guidelines                                    Derrell Manceaux         02-06-07-OK                                            02-06-07-OK                                                     02-06-07-OK…..Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                       Yes             Yes            No             No
169        1             5             Pg 5-6                MO            Clarify “In this case a check of the abutment displacement     See Modified Guidelines                                    Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: The context                                                                        Dan/IL 2/20/07: Code edited to read: "In this case, an        Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                           demand and overturning should be made.”                                                                                                            surrounding this text seems non-sensical. Further                                                                      evaluation of the abutment which considers the implications
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              investigation required.                                                                                                of significant displacements from seismic accelerations
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     should be conducted. As appropriate, this evaluation should
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     include overturning for abutments on spread footings or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     other structural configurations where overturning may be a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     concern."
170        1             5             5.6.1 Heading         BERGER/ Lee     Suggest adding the words 'reinforced concrete' between       See Modified Guidelines                                    ?                                                                               02-09-07: OK, LM                                                Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh           effective and section.
171        1             5             5.6.1 1st Para.       BERGER/ Lee     Delete the words 'in reality'.                               See Modified Guidelines                                    ?                                                                               02-09-07: OK, LM                                                Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh
172        1             5             5.6.2 Heading         BERGER/ Lee     Add either 'R.C.' or reinforced concrete before 'ductile'.   See Modified Guidelines                                    ?                                                                               02-09-07: OK, LM                                                Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh
173        1             5             5.6.2 1st Para.       BERGER/ Lee     Delete the word 'initial'.                                   See Modified Guidelines                                    ?                                                                               02-09-07: OK, LM                                                Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh
174        1             5             5.6.2                 BERGER/ Lee     Consider adding a note permitting/suggesting that the       See Modified Guidelines                                     ?                                                                               02-09-07: OK, LM                                                Dan/IL 2/20/07: Say Done.                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh           unfactored axial gravity load be used when determining the
                                                                             effective properties.
175        1             5             Pg 5-9                MO              5-9        What are sacrificial concrete shear keys used to See Modified Guidelines                                     Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggested                                                                           Dan/IL 2/20/07: Provisions for shear keys and fusing have Yes                 Yes            No             No
                                                                             protect the piles?                                                                                                                               Response to MO: Fusing and shear keys, etc. are                                                                        also been clarified and improved...Say Done.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              mentioned several times in the Guide Spec. Much
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              more elaboration is probably not that practical for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              the first publication of the Guide Specs. These
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              concepts will also become more familiar through
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              time. They are also much more heavily emphasized
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              in the the T-2 LRFD Code Ballot for 2007.
176        1             5             Pg 5-14               MO          We are interpreting the recommendation of the 100 year           The guidelines are tailored for a structure designed for   Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: We think that                                                                      Dan/IL 2/20/07: Old verbiage edited out…..Say Done.           Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                         event to be the seismic loading for the elastic design.          LRFD loads other than seismic.                                                      Dr. Imbsen's response does not make sense in the
                                                                         Although a separate issue from these proposed Guideline, it                                                                                          context of the question. The commenter may be
                                                                         does not appear that the 100 year event acceleration data is                                                                                         confused about some verbiage from an old version
                                                                         available. Using the 100 year for elastic design and                                                                                                 of the Guide Specs which had two design level
                                                                         reviewing displacement capacity for the 1000 year event                                                                                              language. This should be explained/clarified for the
                                                                         seems very logical approach.                                                                                                                         commenter.
178        1             6             6.3.3 & 4 Overall     BERGER/ Lee The mandatory requirement to base spread footing design          1) Stability is not an issue as P-Delta is checked.        ?                                                                               02-09-07: Discuss with RAI. I still think this one should     3-1-07: LM Item moved to an appendix and various                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh       on the rocking analysis, outlined in 6.3.4, seems to             2) Maximum drift is comparable with ductility based design                                                                                 tabled for now and a more conventional method for             cautions given to the designer regarding use of this on a
                                                                         introduce a performance objective that is somewhat               as shown in flow chart Fig 6.2 (maximum ductility of 8)                                                                                    establishing the footing size used. I don't like the          bridge system
                                                                         inconsistent with what has been required by the Guidelines       3)The mandatory language of spread footing is removed.                                                                                     introduction of revised dynamics in the footing section. We
                                                                         in earlier chapters. This rocking approach also is less          See modified guidelines.                                                                                                                   are basically recalculating overall response using the
                                                                         conservative than the approach that has traditionally been                                                                                                                                                  capacity-spectrum method via the iterative steps in the spec,
                                                                         used, 'half uplift' under the plastic forces. The rocking                                                                                                                                                   which implies different behavior from that of the demand
                                                                         analysis represents a fundamentally different behavior than                                                                                                                                                 analysis. This is not consistent and confusing and perhaps
                                                                         that otherwise included in the analysis of the bridge.                                                                                                                                                      misleading for the designer. Additionally, the approach as
                                                                         Basically, the system is being reanalyzed bent-by-bent. To                                                                                                                                                  written could lead to problems if the seismic mass is not
                                                                         exploit such behavior should be a choice the designer                                                                                                                                                       correctly assigned to the bent in question. Furthermore, the
                                                                         makes intentionally. Additionally, the apparent allowance                                                                                                                                                   geotech should be aware of the likely high bearing pressures
                                                                         of behavior right at the edge of stability seems                                                                                                                                                            and would need to evaluate incremental settlement and
                                                                         unconservative, and would potentially place some                                                                                                                                                            potential local failures, both of which could alter the
                                                                         structures at the threshold of toppling, because stability is                                                                                                                                               prescribed resistance formula. The structural engr would
                                                                         likely not solely a function of the elastic response spectra.                                                                                                                                               need to capacity protect the footing to accomodate rocking
                                                                         This approach could be included, but it should be done so                                                                                                                                                   onto its leading edge and thus suppress internal shear,
                                                                         as an option, not as a mandatory feature of spread footing                                                                                                                                                  flexural and anchorage failures.
                                                                         design in SDC C or D. Consider retaining half uplift for the
                                                                         basic approach.


179        1             6             6.3.3 3rd Bullet      BERGER/ Lee For calculation of the inertial forces, the superstructure       No change recommended                                      ?                                                                               02-09-07: Note that the article should be 6.3.4, not 6.3.3.     3-1-07: LM See response to Item 178                           Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh       weight should be the effective seismic weight, which                                                                                                                                                        See comment above for item no 178.
                                                                         depending on articulation of the bridge may include more
                                                                         than the gravity weight tributary to the bent.
180        1             6             6.3.3 5th Para        BERGER/ Lee The calculation of ductility in this section is effectively      6.3.3 does not have a 5th paragraph??                      ?                                                                               02-09-07: Note that the article should be 6.3.4, not 6.3.3.     3-1-07: LM See response to Item 178                           Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh       based on a Rd of 1.0. Is this the intent?
181        1             6             6.3.3 Overall         BERGER/ Lee The definition of D in the equations appears to require a 'T'    See Modified Guidelines                                    ?                                                                               02-09-07: Note that the article should be 6.3.4, not 6.3.3.     3-1-07: LM See response to Item 178                           Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh       subscript to be consistent with Figure 6.1.
182        1             6             6.3.3 5th Para        BERGER/ Lee It is not clear what the ductility calculation is for. Is the    Yes.                                                       ?                                                                               02-09-07: Note that the article should be 6.3.4, not 6.3.3.     3-1-07: LM See response to Item 178                           Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh       intent of this requirement to calculate the ductility demand
                                                                         assuming no rocking?
183        1             6             6.3.3 Figure 6.1      BERGER/ Lee The weights provided must also consider potential                No change is recommended. It is not clear what is          ?                                                                               02-09-07: Note that the article should be 6.3.4, not 6.3.3. I 3-1-07: LM Say OK because its in an appendix with general Yes                   Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh       buoyancy effects. Omission of these would be                     unconservative for the end-design.                                                                                                         still think that buoyancy must be included, because it        cautions on use.
                                                                         unconservative, because the weights at the base help resist                                                                                                                                                 reduces the available overturning resistance, and to neglect
                                                                         overturning.                                                                                                                                                                                                it is clearly unconservative.
184        1             6                                   MO          Does “mu” or “ductility parameter of a rocking                   Yes.                                                       Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Recommend                                                                         3-6-07 SB Rocking Analysis has been moved to Appendix. Yes                      Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                                         column/footing system” intended to be the same for all                                                                                               Rocking Analysis be put in Parking Lot.
                                                                         three pages.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Page 10 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                    LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                       11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article            State/                         Initial Comment                                                Initial Response                                Lead Person                   Lead Person's Comments                               Originator's Follow-Up Comment                               Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                            Resolved By    Resolved By      Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                              Name                            (by Originator)                                               (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Lead?          Team?            Issue?            Item?

185        1             6             6.3.2                  FHWA/ Derrell add Forces corresponding to over strength moment"                Not required.                                                Derrell Manceaux           02-06-07-Add "Forces based on column plastic                                                                        JQ 03-08-07: See modified Article 6.3 Spread Footings             Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     hinging as specified in Article 8.5"
186        1             6             6.3.3                  FHWA/ Derrell add Forces corresponding to over strength moment"                Not required.                                                Derrell Manceaux           02-06-07-Add "Forces based on column plastic                                                                        JQ 03-08-07: See modified Article 6.3 Spread Footings             Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     hinging as specified in Article 8.5"
187        1             6             6.3.4                  FHWA/ Derrell Figure 6.1 has ∆T but the formulas have ∆               See Modified Guidelines.                                              Derrell Manceaux           02-06-07-OK                                            02-06-07-OK                                                  02-06-07-OK                                                       Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             No
188        1             6             6.3.4                  FHWA/ Derrell "Recalculate ∆ considering 10% damping…" Commentary Incomplete Commentary                                                     Derrell Manceaux           02-06-07-Parkinglot                                                                                                                                                                   Yes             Yes              Yes            Yes
                                                                            should provide method of changing the response spectrum

189        1             6             6.3.4 Below equation   FHWA/ Derrell "…soil passive resistance.." should be "…soil weight             No change is recommended.                                    Derrell Manceaux           02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this     02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note           02-12-07 OK                                                       Yes             Yes              No             Yes
                                       6.5                                  (mass).."                                                                                                                                                comment is not pertinant                               requiring Owner approval
190        1             6             6.3.4 Last paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell P-Delta analysis is required, but this conflicts with P-Delta    Not clear about the question.                                Derrell Manceaux           02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this     02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note           02-12-07 OK                                                       Yes             Yes              No             Yes
                                                                            requirements in 4.11.5                                                                                                                                   comment is not pertinant                               requiring Owner approval
191        1             6             6.3.4 Last paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell column plastic hinging is now required as a design force,        Elaborate what the issue is.                                 Derrell Manceaux           02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this     02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note           02-12-07 OK                                                       Yes             Yes              No             Yes
                                       last sentence                        but section 6.3.2 & 6.3.3 only require rocking analysis                                                                                                  comment is not pertinant                               requiring Owner approval
                                                                            forces
192        1             6             6.3.4 Figure 6.1       FHWA/ Derrell Figure 6.1 has ∆T but the formulas have ∆                        See Modified Guidelines                                      Derrell Manceaux           02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this     02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note           02-12-07 OK                                                       Yes             Yes              No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     comment is not pertinant                               requiring Owner approval
193        1             6             6.3.4 Figure 6.1       FHWA/ Derrell Locate "F" arrow at the CG of the structure                      See Modified Guidelines                                      Derrell Manceaux           02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this     02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note           02-12-07 OK                                                       Yes             Yes              No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     comment is not pertinant                               requiring Owner approval
194        1             6             6.3.4 Figure 6.2       FHWA/ Derrell Clarify ∆T or ∆. Ductility factor of 8 has no consideration See Modified Guidelines                                           Derrell Manceaux           02-08-07 If Rocking analysis is deleted, then this     02-12-07 Panel eliminated Rocking and added a note           02-12-07 OK                                                       Yes             Yes              No             Yes
                                                                            for structure types. Ductility factor, beta factor and                                                                                                   comment is not pertinant                               requiring Owner approval
                                                                            minimum footing size are specified in the figure, but not
                                                                            placed in the actual specification
195        1             6             Sec. 6.3.4 Pg 6-4 Eqn. CA            Should specify that m should be determined based on local See Modified Guidelines                                             Chris Unanwa               Discuss with the CA Team.                                                                                           See Comment #161. Maintain status quo wrt ductility               Yes             Yes              No             No
                                       6.5M                                 ductility, not global, due to the significant effect rocking                                                                                                                                                                                                                 definition.
                                                                            will have on the curvature demands on the column. In
                                                                            addition D should be defined as Df and the yield
                                                                            displacement defined locally.
196        1             6             Sec. 6.3.4 M Pg. 6-3 CA              The same as Sec. 5.3.2, Pg. 5-11                               It is by owner's approval. Based on the proposed procedure,    Chris Unanwa               As in Comments 161 and 195                                                                                          As in Comment #161                                                Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                                                                                           shear and hinging requirements need to be satisfied. (See
                                                                                                                                           last paragraph of section 6.3.4)
197        1             6             6.4.4 1st Para.        BERGER/ Lee In the last sentence, insert 'geotechnical' between ultimate See Modified Guidelines                                            ?                                                                                 02-09-07: OK, LM                                             2-15-07 SB Edited                                                 Yes             Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
                                                              Marsh         and capacity.
198        1             6             6.4.4 2nd Para.        BERGER/ Lee The first sentence seems to be the only place that potential Further discussion is commentary material.                         ?                                                                                 3-2-07: Some additional language should be considered for                                                                      Yes             Yes              Yes            No
                                                              Marsh         tension in piles is discussed. It would seem appropriate to                                                                                                                                                     the specification in a future revision.
                                                                            have an entry in the concrete section alerting the designer to
                                                                            consider appropriate anchorage of the piles into the cap and
                                                                            to consider these effects on shear in the cap.

199        1             6             Pg. 6-6, Fig. 6.2      CA               Unclear how widening the footing will reduced the m           The objective of the criteria is not to allow rocking to result Chris Unanwa            As in Comment # 161                                    With rocking moved to Appendix, accept status quo.           As in Comment #161                                                Yes             Yes              No             No
                                       Logic box µ ≤8                          demand. As the footing size increases, rocking is reduced,    in a drift that is larger than drift generated by a hinging
                                       M                                       footing stiffness increases, and the local ductility demand   mechanism.
                                                                               on the column will increase.
200        1             6             Pg. 6-7 Third para.    CA               Where is “the simplified foundation model” defined?           The simplified model is defined in the 4th paragraph of      Chris Unanwa               Simplified foundation model defined as cited in        Erroneous use of Mp instead of Mpo carried over from         Sacramento Team meeting of 02/28/07 to decide on this.            Yes             Yes              Yes            No
                                       from the bottom M                       Unclear why that affects the use of Mp or Mpo to design       section 6.4.2. The use of Mp Vs Mpo is consistent with                                  response.                                              Caltrans SDC. Allow use of Mp for the simplified
                                                                               the foundation. Seems as though Mpo should be used to be      Caltrans practice and is a reasonable way to take extra                                                                                        foundation model for now, pending a future revision of the
                                                                               consistent with the rest of the specifications for capacity   conservatism out of the foundation design.                                                                                                     Guidelines.
                                                                               protected members.
201        1             6             Pg 6-8                 MO               Standard size piles are considered to have a nominal          Need to include in commentary                                Brandenberger / Tobias     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggested                                                                        SB 02-15-07 Suggest compromise: 18" pipe piles.                   Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                               dimension less than or equal to 16 inches.” Could you                                                                                                 response to MO: Will have to leave Article as is for
                                                                               provide commentary for the use of larger piles (20 and 24”                                                                                            now. Larger pile sizes can be expanded upon for the
                                                                               diameter concrete filled steel shell piles)?                                                                                                          first revision (2nd Edition).

202        1             6             Pg 6-9                 MO               6-9        “For conforming to capacity design principles, See Modified Guidelines.                                         Brandenberger / Tobias     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Modified                                                                        3-6-07-SB Language revised in Art. 6.4.2 to clarify intent.       Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                               the distribution of forces on these piles shall be examined                                                                                           Guide Specs do not seem to address the question.                                                                    Directional effects on capacity protection design should be
                                                                               about the X and Y axis in addition to the diagonal direction                                                                                          Greater clarity of language should be proposed.                                                                     considered when column axis and pile footing axis are not
                                                                               of the foundation cap. (Should the loading be 100% &                                                                                                                                                                                                                      coincident. When elastic forces control, the provisions of
                                                                               30% or 100% and 100% OR 70% in both directions and                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Art. 4.4 are sufficient.
                                                                               what loading is associated with the “diagonal direction”?)

203        1             6             Pg. 6-10 2nd para.     CA               Why use 50% of the ultimate capacity of the pile which is See Modified Guidelines.                                         Chris Unanwa               Comment not addressed by modification.                                                                              Sacramento Team meeting of 02/28/07 to decide on this.            Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                               comprised of both skin friction and end bearing? Why not                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Team decided to use "50 % of ultimate axial capacity" and
                                                                               just use the skin friction?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               "the skin friction" as alternatives for preliminary estimate of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         pile tension resistance.
204        1             6             Pg 6-10                MO            6-10      Clarify “In no case shall the uplift exceed the        Geotechnical consideration as specified in NCHRP12-49,       Brandenberger / Tobias     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Will consult                                                                    3-6-07-SB Information moved to C6.4.4 and reworded to             Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                            weight of material surrounding the embedded portion of the       see commentary of NCHRP12-49.                                                           with IL Geotechnical Engineer for an opinion.                                                                       say "uplift capacity need not be taken less than the weight of
                                                                            pile?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        the pile (buoyancy considered)".
205        1             6             Page 6-14              FHWA/ Derrell Page 6-14 either mis-numbered or is missing                      See Modified Guidelines                                      Derrell Manceaux           02-08-07- OK                                           02-08-07- OK                                                 2-15-07 SB Edited                                                 Yes             Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
206        1             6             Sec. 6.5 Pg. 6-12 Last CA            Using the 1.5 multiplier to determine the tip elevation of the   See Modified Guidelines                                      Chris Unanwa               Modified. Check adequacy with the CA Team.             Unresolved. To be decided at Sacto Team meeting of           Sacto Team meeting of 02-28-07 modification: "A stable            Yes             Yes              No             Yes
                                       para. M                              drilled shaft is adequate for homogenous soil conditions,                                                                                                                                                       02/28/07.                                                    length shall be ensured for a single column/shaft. The stable
                                                                            but can be extremely conservative and costly if the tip                                                                                                                                                                                                                      length shall be determined in accordance with Article
                                                                            elevation was controlled by a rock layer at the bottom of                                                                                                                                                                                                                    10.7.3.12 of the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, except
                                                                            the pile. Recommend using the elevation that has a depth                                                                                                                                                                                                                     that a load factor of 1.0 should be applied to the calculated
                                                                            that is the lesser of 1.5 the stable length for Vo, or the                                                                                                                                                                                                                   lateral loads for the foundation." ...Also portions of the code
                                                                            stable length for 2.0Vo.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     moved to commentary.
207        1             6             Sec. 6.7.1 M Pg. 6-13 CA             Use of the Monobe-Okabe method is much too conservative          A reduction is permitted for flexible components. See last   Chris Unanwa               Discuss with the CA Team.                              Keep status quo.                                             OK as is.                                                         Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                            for areas of high seismicity. Caltrans does not design for       sentence of section 6.7.1.
                                                                            seismic earth pressures pending the results of the ongoing
                                                                            NCHRP project on this subject.
208        1             6             6.7.1 2cd paragraph    FHWA/ Derrell "0.4 times dead load reaction" should read 0.4 times             No change is recommended.                                    Derrell Manceaux           02/02/07 - "deadload reaction force" should read                                                                                                                                      Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             No
                                                                            contributory mass times g or force from analysis"                                                                                                        "tributary permanent load"
209        1             6             6.8 Item b.            BERGER/ Lee Is the mean magnitude information (i.e. deaggregation data)        No.                                                          ?                                                                                 3-2-07:The dependence on mean magnitude for the                                                                                Yes             Yes              Yes            Yes
                                                              Marsh         available for the entire U.S. for the 1000-yr event?                                                                                                                                                            liquefaction assessment cut-off has been removed from the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            document. Future consideration of where (what accel or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            magnitude cut-off) and how liquefaction assessment is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            required should be undertaken by a group of geotechnical
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            engineers.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Page 11 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                   11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article           State/                         Initial Comment                                              Initial Response                                 Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                               Originator's Follow-Up Comment                              Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                        Resolved By    Resolved By      Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                             Name                            (by Originator)                                             (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Lead?          Team?            Issue?            Item?

210        1             6             6.8 3rd paragraph     FHWA/ Derrell Define California DMG. This should also be provided in          See Modified Guidelines                                       Derrell Manceaux         02-08-07-DMG has been defined, but still need to       02-12-07-Appendix D has been removed by panel-Need to       2-15-07 SB All appendices deleted per committee decision.    Yes              Yes              No             Yes
                                                                           the Appendix                                                                                                                                           attach appendix D                                      delete the words "given in Appendix D and"
211        1             6             6.8 Item 2            FHWA/ Derrell Do not mention proprietary software "DESRA"                     This will be removed.                                         Derrell Manceaux         02-08-07-Delete the propriatary software name                                                                                                                                   Yes              Yes 03-01-07     No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  "DESRA"
212        1             6             Page 6-17             CA               a)    Second paragraph item1 should read passive pressure See Modified Guidelines                                          Chris Unanwa             Modified as proposed                                   OK                                                          2-15-07 SB This change was made by author.                   Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                              instead of “active pressure” b)     Second paragraph item
                                                                              2 should read active pressure instead of “passive pressure”

213        1             6             Page 6-19             CA               Detailing of Splicing for liquefaction should cover the case See section 8.8.3                                             Chris Unanwa             Art. 8.8.3 addresses comment                           OK                                                          OK by Sac Team meeting 02/28/07                              Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                              where mechanical or lap splicing can not be avoided due to
                                                                              the extent of zone comprising the location of hinging in the
                                                                              liquefied and non-liquefied cases
214        1             6                                   MO               Page 6-14 is missing                                         See Modified Guidelines                                       Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for                                                                   2-15-07 SB Edited                                            Yes              Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  CA to administer.
216        1             7             Section 7             CA          Design provisions for shear connectors between the end                                                                          Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                          REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                      2-28-7: ADDED SECTION                                      Yes                 Yes              No             Yes
                                                                         diaphragms and concrete deck shall be provided to ensure                                                                                                                                                        LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                         the critical load path during seismic events.                                                                                                                                                                   REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
217        1             7             7.1 Figure 7.1        BERGER/ Lee The figure seems to imply that inelastic action in both the                                                                     Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   3-1-07: OK, LM. New language clarifies                 02-09-07: Revise figure when these are moved to Section 3. 2-28-7: tried to clarify that not all inelastic mechanisms Yes                 Yes              No             No
                                                             Marsh       superstructure and substructure is acceptable. Section 7.2                                                                                               application.                                                                                                      form at one time. Perhaps improved figures can be added in
                                                                         states otherwise. Add a clarifying note the drawing.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       future update.
218        1             7             7.2.2 1st Para.       BERGER/ Lee This is one of the few places where R factors are used.                                                                         Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   3-1-07: OK, LM Added language to calc elastic          REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                      2-28-7: ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE SOMEWHAT BUT Yes                                  Yes              Yes            Yes
                                                             Marsh       However, there is no guidance regarding how to use them.                                                                                                 forces. Future revision issue, otherwise.              LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE                        NOT FORCE-BASED PROCEDURES NOT
                                                                         Designers understand R factors today, but without the                                                                                                                                                           REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX                         EXPLICTLEY ADDRESS - ELMER
                                                                         knowledge from using Div I-A, mention of a R factor alone
                                                                         is not clear.
219        1             7             Pg 7-3 7th Para.      CA          “LRFD Design Specification for Single Angle Members” is                                                                         Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                          REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                       2-28-7: finalized                                            Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                         superseded by ANSI/AISC 360-05, Specification for                                                                                                                                                               LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                         Structural Steel Buildings , March 9, 2005, American                                                                                                                                                            REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                         Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
220        1             7             Pg. 7-5 3rd & 4th     CA          AWS/AASHTO D1.5-96 Structural Bridge Welding Code                                                                               Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                          REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                       2-28-7: finalized                                            Yes              Yes              No             No
                                       Para.                             is superseded by AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:2002                                                                                                                                                                     LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                         Bridge Welding Code                                                                                                                                                                                             REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
221        1             7             Pg. 7-5 5th Para.     CA          Statement “An effective length factor K of 0.85 shall be                                                                        Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                          REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                       2-28-7: finalized                                            Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                         used unless a lower value can be justified by an appropriate                                                                                                                                                    LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                         analysis” is incorrect. It is only valid for compression                                                                                                                                                        REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                         members in braced frames. It shall be revised to read as
                                                                         ““An effective length factor of compression members in
                                                                         braded frames, K of 0.85 shall be used unless a lower value
                                                                         can be justified by an appropriate analysis”

222        1             7             Pg 7-7                CA               Table 7.1. Column 1- Row 2 “Ductility” shall read as                                                                       Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                          REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                       2-28-7: finalized                                            Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                              “Ductile” Row 3 - “Mn” shall read as “Mns ”                                                                                                                                                                LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
223        1             7             Pg. 7-7 Pg. 7-12      CA               Both Table 7.2 and 7.3 have same title “Limiting Width-to-                                                                 Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                          REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                       2-28-7: finalized                                            Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                              Thickness Ratios”. For ductile components, there are two                                                                                                                                                   LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                              different requirements. Which one shall be followed?                                                                                                                                                       REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX


224        1             7             Pg 7-8                CA            AISC-LRFD (1993) and AISC-Seismic Provisions (1997)                                                                           Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                          REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                       2-28-7: finalized                                            Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                           are superseded by ANSI/AISC 360-05, Specification for                                                                                                                                                         LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                           Structural Steel Buildings , March 9, 2005, and                                                                                                                                                               REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                           ANSI/AISC 341, “Seismic Provision for Structural Steel
                                                                           Buildings ” March 9, 2005, American Institute of Steel
                                                                           Construction, Chicago, IL., respectively. Table 6.2 shall
                                                                           be updated.
225        1             7             Pg 7-10 Line 19       CA            There is no publication titled as “LRFD AISC Seismic                                                                          Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                          REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                       2-28-7: finalized                                            Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                           Provisions for Structural Buildings 1997”. The correct                                                                                                                                                        LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                           title shall be “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel                                                                                                                                                       REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                           Buildings”.
227        1             8             8.1 3rd Para.         BERGER/ Lee If different permissible ductilities are retained for single      No change is recommended. Permissible ductility is            ?                        3-1-07: OK for now. LM                                 02-09-07: Add a statement that a multi-column bent in its                                                                Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                             Marsh         and multi-column bents, add clarifying language regarding       increased for redundancy in the bent.                                                                                                         weak direction may still be evaluated using the multi-
                                                                           the treatment of multi-column bents in their strong and                                                                                                                                                       column limits.
                                                                           weak directions.
228        1             8             8.2                   AR            Es in Figure 8.2 reads 28,5000 ksi instead of 28,500 ksi.       See Modified Guidelines                                       Tobias / Brandenberger   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: corrected.                                                                      3-6-07-SB Edited                                             Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                           There is an extra zero.
229        1             8             8.2 1st Para.         FHWA/ Derrell Add"….and the connection force shall be carried through         No change is recommended for the sake of simplifying          Derrell Manceaux         Delete entire paragraph and add the attached                                                                                                                                    Yes              No               No             Yes
                                                                           the substructure.."                                             design for SDC A.                                                                      wording with commentary. The attached reads like
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Ian Buckle's specs for SDC A.
230        1             8             Sec. 8.3.1M Pg. 8-1   CA          Recommend that Dcol < Dsuperstructure                             Recommended addition to commentary.                           Chris Unanwa                                                                                                                                Addition included as commentary C8.3.1 by Sac Team Meeting 02/28/07.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Yes                   Yes              No             No
231        1             8             Sec. 8.3.2            CA          Design of columns for unreduced elastic forces is very            No change is recommended.                                     Chris Unanwa             Discuss with Team                                                                                                  Accept status quo                                       Yes                   Yes              No             No
                                                                         risky, particularly in shear.
232        1             8             Pg 8-3                MO          Should the size of the transverse hoops and ties shall be         See Modified Guidelines                                       Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Believe the                                                                     3-6-07 SB Article 8.4.1on reinforcing steel and 8.4.2 for     Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                         equivalent to or greater than #4 rather than #3 as shown?                                                                                                part about tie bar size is OK now. The statement for                                                               reinforcing steel modeling edited to provide further guidance
                                                                         Clarify “Ties shall be used to provide lateral restraint to                                                                                              which clarification is required seems fairly clear.                                                                and clarification.
                                                                         intermediate longitudinal bars within the reinforced                                                                                                     Considered resolved.
                                                                         concrete cross section.” 8-2
233        1             8             8.4 Heading & 1st     BERGER/ Lee The full development of displacement capacity, as referred        Need clarification for the statement in the comments.         Elmer Marx               It appears as though this issue has been addressedin                                                               3-1-07: OK, LM                                               Yes              Yes              No             No
                                       Para.                 Marsh       to in this section, is only used in SDC B & C as an option.                                                                                              the last sentence of the paragraph. 02-19-07
                                                                         This should be clarified.
234        1             8             8.4.2 Overall         BERGER/ Lee Consider building in some conservatism to the permissible         Please refer to Task 6 Report. The criteria is based on       Elmer Marx                                                                      02-09-07: Need to amplify the requirement that the          2-28-7: SEE UPDATED TABLE OF STRESS-STRAIN                   Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                             Marsh       ultimate strain limits. It seems that the expected ultimate       specific hazard for a "No Collapse" performance.                                                                                              maximum permissible longitudinal reinforcement strain in    VAUES.
                                                                         strain is permitted to be used. Both Caltrans and the CA          Conservatism for longitudinal bar strain is warranted. For                                                                                    ductile members is 0.06, or whatever is finally decided.
                                                                         Marine Oil Terminal (MOTEMS) criteria use reduced                 anti-buckling low cycle fatigue conservatism for transverse                                                                                   Currently, this limit is easy to miss in the spec.
                                                                         allowable strains.                                                steel is not warranted unless not covered by standard
                                                                                                                                           specifications of the DOT.
235        1             8             8.4.2 1st paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell The sentence requiring A706 steel should be located in          See Modified Guidelines                                       Derrell Manceaux         02-08-07-OK                                            02-08-07-OK                                                 02-08-07-OK                                                  Yes              Yes 03-01-07     No             No
                                                                           8.4.1 since 8.4.2 is how to model steel.
236        1             8             8.4.2 1st paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell is A706 steel required in the entire structure or only in the   See Modified Guidelines                                       Derrell Manceaux         02-08-07-OK                                            02-08-07-OK                                                 02-08-07-OK                                                  Yes              Yes 03-01-07     No             No
                                                                           hinging locations?




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Page 12 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                  LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                     11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section           Article             State/                          Initial Comment                                                  Initial Response                            Lead Person                   Lead Person's Comments                                Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                 Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                        Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                              Name                             (by Originator)                                                 (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

237        1             8             8.4.4 equation 8.7     FHWA/ Derrell The strength of 5000 psi is based on an assumed initial            What is recommended?? No change is considered so far.      Derrell Manceaux          02-08-07-Since many States use different concrete      02-19-07 (Elmer) - The expected concrete strength is based       JQ 03-08-07: Team addressed this issue during the Sacto     Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                            concrete strength. This needs to be spelled out since all                                                                                               strengths, change the 5000 psi to read "or actual      upon several issues. The most important are mix design           meeting. Paragraph is modified as "The expected concrete
                                                                            States do not use the same initial strength concrete for                                                                                                strength"                                              requirements and age. Regarding mix design, in order to          compressive strength, f'ce, shall be taken as the most
                                                                            substructures                                                                                                                                                                                                  satisfy ACI mix design requiremetns, the target concrete         probable long-term concrete strength based upon regional
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           strengh to insure a minimum f'c is either ~2.33*standard         experience and shall be taken as: f'ce > 1.3f'c"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           deviation less than design "mean" or the design f'c plus some
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           adjustment that is usually about 1200 psi. -- this is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           approximately 1.3f'c for most concretes used in CIP work.

238        1             8             8.4.4 4th Para.        BERGER/ Lee Include a reference citation for Mander's model.                     Yes.                                                       Elmer Marx                                                                       02-09-07: I don't see this citation yet. For convenience,  02-19-07 -- added by Elmer as part of reformatting.               Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh                                                                                                                                                                                                                        "Mander, J.B., M.J.N. Priestley, and R. Park, "Theoretical
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete", Journal of the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 8, August 1988.

239        1             8             8.4.4 last paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell Manders model needs to be referenced or commentary                 See Modified Guidelines                                    Derrell Manceaux          02-08-07-Parkinglot this issue                                                                                          02-19-07: see response to item 238 and proposed language    Yes              Yes 03-01-07   Yes            No
                                                                            provided                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        in commentary
240        1             8             8.5 last paragraph     FHWA/ Derrell The over strength factor of 1.2 is to account for material         No, this is the state of practice.                         Derrell Manceaux          02-08-07-Verify with the panel                                                                                          02-19-07: seesm okay to me - need to discuss with team/     Yes              Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                            uncertainties. Since the actual material properties are
                                                                            required in calculating capacities, isn’t applying the over
                                                                            strength factor in addition to actual properties too
                                                                            conservative?
241        1             8             8.5 Overall            BERGER/ Lee Add a requirement that appropriate (e.g. dead/permanent)             See Modified Guidelines                                    ?                                                                                02-09-07: OK, LM                                                                                                             Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh         unfactored axial forces must be included in the M-f
                                                                            analysis to obtain the correct capacities, and no resistance
                                                                            factors should be included with this.
242        1             8             Sec. 8.6.              TN/ Huff      The units seem to be off in Equation 8.13 of Section 8.6. P        See Modified Guidelines                                    Brandenberger / Tobias    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Equation does                                                                        MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under       Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                            is stated to be in kips, but I believe it should either be in                                                                                           not look fixed to us. There are other comments                                                                          review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
                                                                            pounds or the factor of 2000 in the denominator should be                                                                                               associated with problems with the shear strength                                                                        07 SB Equation modified.
                                                                            changed to 2:                        nc =                                                                                                               Article as well. Will take further investigation(s).
                                                                            a'(1+P/2000Ag)sqrt(f'ce)

243        1             8             Sec. 8.6 Page 8-8      Alaska/ Elmer    In all locations where the concrete member capacity is         No change is recommende. The notion of using expected         Elmer Marx              Disagree with initial response. All equations for       02-19-07: replaced f'ce with f'c which is consistant with       02-28-7: RESOLVED TO USE f'c BUT COMMENTARY Yes                              Yes            No             Yes
                                                                               calculated the expected concrete strength, f'ce, is specified. property is to be associated with possible values rather than                         member capacity/resistance should be based upon         Caltrans SDC and Priestley's text.                              TO ALLOW USE OF f'ce BASED ON REGIONAL
                                                                               It would seem appropriate to use f'c when calculating a        minimum values.                                                                       the design f'c and not f'ce. Note that the expected                                                                     PRACTICE AND DATA.
                                                                               member capacity and f'ce when calculating a member                                                                                                   concrete strength (f'ce) is partly due to strength gain
                                                                               demand. This comment is applicable to most of Section 8                                                                                              with age but is also related to concrete mix design
                                                                               and parts of Section 6                                                                                                                               requirements. That is, the average concrete strength
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    is required to be about 2.3 standard deviations or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1200 psi greater than the specificed design f'c. (date
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    2-1-7)

244        1             8             8.6.1 & 8.6.2 & 8.6.3 FHWA/ Derrell fonts not uniform                                             See Modified Guidelines                                          Derrell Manceaux          02-08-07-Fonts not uniform                             02-12-07-Elmer fixed the equations                               02-12-07 OK                                                 Yes              Yes            No             No
                                       most equations
245        1             8             Sec. 8.6.1            CA            The shear demand for column Vd SHOULD NOT be the              No change is recommended.                                        Chris Unanwa                                                                     Maintain status quo                                              02-19-07: tend to agree, see also comments by Derrell. Yes                   Yes            No             No
                                                                           force obtained from elastic analysis. It should always be                                                                                                                                                                                                                        DOES SDC B NEED THE SAME CONSIDERATION AS
                                                                           the force corresponding to plastic hinging.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      SDC C AND D?
246        1             8             8.6.3 Eqn 8.25        BERGER/ Lee Suggest using an alternate term to Av for spiral sections to See Modified Guidelines                                             ?                                                                                02-09-07: OK, LM                                                                                                        Yes                   Yes            No             No
                                                             Marsh         avoid confusion with the shear area for rectangular
                                                                           sections. Perhaps Ansp since this applies to both spirals and
                                                                           interlocking spirals?
247        1             8             8.6.8 1st Para.        BERGER/ Lee Are there any minimum overlap requirements for the             Non seismic LRFD specifications are satisfactory.                ?                                                                                3-1-07: Suggest adding the 0.75D max. The main LRFD                                                                          Yes              Yes            Yes            No
                                                              Marsh       interlocking spirals? (e.g. max center-to-center of spirals of Consider for commentary to cover further detailing issues.                                                                                        does not seem to cover this condition. In the future, consider
                                                                          0.75 dia of spiral)                                                                                                                                                                                              the provisions that WSDOT uses, which are based on tests
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           they had done in the early 1990s.
248        1             8             8.7.2 1st Para.        BERGER/ Lee Is the maximum axial load permitted with or without         See above comment and response.                                     ?                                                                                02-09-07: OK, LM                                                                                                             Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh       seismic overturning effects? Suggest without just for
                                                                          simplicity.
249        1             8             8.8.3                  AR          In Article 8.8.3, does Sentence 2 mean that Lap Splices and                                                                     Tobias / Brandenberger    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Imbsen's         MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest use current              3-6-07-SB Revised language for this article and              Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                          welded splices in rebar in SDC D are forbidden for use?                                                                                                   modification does not clarify the issue. Would like CA provisions for this subject.                                     commentary should clarify acceptable location and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    to know the state of the practice from CA.                                                                              configuration of splices.
250        1             8             8.8.4                  AR               Article 8.8.4 does not mention the 1.25 factor that             Section 8.8.4 represents the seismic state of the practice. Tobias / Brandenberger   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Imbsen                                                                              02-19-07: (by ELMER) The transverse joint reinforcing        Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               increases the development length of the column reinforcing      Section 8.8.4 mentions that the anchorage length shall not                           suggests that a minimum embedment length of 24db                                                                        requirements may be intended to confine and therby reduce
                                                                               into the footing or cap. This factor has been in the LRFD       be reduced by means of adding hooks or devices, it does not                          is required, cannot use hooks or mechanical devices                                                                     the developmet length of the longitudinal column bars in the
                                                                               and LFD Specifications for a long time. Do we want to be        say not to use them.                                                                 to reduce that length. LRFD development lengths                                                                         footings and cap beams. VERIFY WITH ROY IMBSEN
                                                                               less conservative in this area? Also, why is it not desirable                                                                                        will in many cases be larger than this value - may                                                                      3-6-07-SB Agree, this requirement should be considered
                                                                               to have hooks in SDC D?                                                                                                                              need to suggest some language to clarify intent.                                                                        along with joint shear requirements of Art 8.13.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ADDED COMMENTS 02-19-07: with the joint
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    shear transverse reinforcement requirements of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Article 8.13, the reduced development length may be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    appropriate
251        1             8             8.8.7 2nd Para.        BERGER/ Lee Does the second paragraph mean that if the ductility                 Yes.                                                       ?                                                                             02-09-07: OK, LM                                                                                                                Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh       demand is less than 4, then no special requirements are
                                                                          necessary?
252        1             8             8.8.7 3rd Para.        BERGER/ Lee Does the wording of this paragraph also permit the use of            Yes. For ductility less than 4. Check with R.A.I           ?                                                                             3-1-07: LM Agree with RAI and MM. MM to add language                                                                            Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh       spirals welded back onto themselves (with fillet welds) to                                                                                                                                                    permitting use of detail if proven by testing. 02-09-07: LM
                                                                          facilitate the placement of steel at joints?                                                                                                                                                                  to discuss with RAI and MM
253        1             8             8.8.8                  AR          Article 8.8.8 mentions ending a spiral with 1 turn as                The change is in the extra tail.                           Tobias / Brandenberger    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: It appears that MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest language          3-6-07-SB Revised language for this article and                     Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                          opposed to the historical 1 ½ turns. Is there evidence that                                                                                               standard practice of 1 1/2 turns can be substituted which allows either 1 1/2 turns or method presented in      commentary should clarify acceptable hoop/spiral
                                                                          indicates 1 ½ turns was too conservative?                                                                                                                 with 1 turn and an embedded tail. Maybe there is    Guide Spec. at the designer's discretion.                   termination design procedure.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    evidence to support that this method is more
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    effective. Advice from CA?
254        1             8             8.8.8 last paragraph   FHWA/ Derrell Two paragraphs in this section require different amounts of Reinforcement type is the same.                                   Derrell Manceaux          02-08-07-OK                                         02-08-07-OK                                                 02-08-07-OK                                                         Yes              Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                            steel outside the plastic hinge. The first says50% and the
                                                                            second states "same amount". This is conflicting




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 13 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                                                                   LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                              11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section          Article               State/                         Initial Comment                                                  Initial Response                              Lead Person                   Lead Person's Comments                             Originator's Follow-Up Comment           Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                         Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                               Name                            (by Originator)                                                 (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

255        1             8             8.8.9 all               FHWA/ Derrell Since plastic hinging can also occur with SDC B,                     No change is recommended.                                 Derrell Manceaux         02-08-07, Add "SDC B" to the requirements                                                      02-19-07: Derrerll brings up this issue several times.         No              No             Yes            Yes
                                                                             maximum spacing requirements should also apply                                                                                                                                                                                                         Essnetially, because SDC B is designed to form a hings, it
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    would seem reasonable to provide ductile details in SDC B
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    as well as those specified in SDC C and D. DR. IMNSEM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    AND THE TEAM WILL NEED TO DISCUSS THIS AT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    THE NEXT TELECONFERENCE.

256        1             8             8.8.10 all              FHWA/ Derrell Add to last sentence "…for SDC C & D, respectively"                  No change is recommended.                                 Derrell Manceaux         02-08-07Add to last sentence "…for SDC C & D,                                                  02-19-07: (from Elmer) the intent is that half of the column Yes               Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     respectively"                                                                                  bars be extended 2DC into the shaft and the other half
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    continue down to 3DC into shaft. This prevents all of the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    longitudinal steel from being terminated at one location
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    resulting in a abrupt stiffness/strength change.
257        1             8             Sec. 8.9 Page 8-17      Alaska/ Elmer   For members that are designed to remain essentially elastic,       No change is recommended. Average strain of 0.005 is        Elmer Marx             Subsequent changes and clarification have been                                                 02-28-07: Mne LIMITED TO CONCRETE STRAIN OF Yes                                Yes            No             No
                                                                               it does not appear to be appropriate to design for a concrete      recommended for seismic application, .003 is valid for non-                        made since the original response to this comment.                                              0.003
                                                                               strain of 0.005 (spalling strain limit) and esu (ultimate          seismic service load design application.                                           See also response to comment number 442. (date 2-1-
                                                                               tensile steel strain limit) as defined in Article 8.4 -- as both                                                                                      7)
                                                                               of these limits are beyond an elastic limit. Perhaps a
                                                                               concrete strain of 0.002 and a steel strain less than the
                                                                               tensile yield strain would be more appropriate.
258        1             8             8.10                    AR              Article 8.10 says “The column over strength moment....             See Modified Guidelines                                   Tobias / Brandenberger   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Modification                                               02-19-07: (by ELMER) suggest replacing "left and righjt"       Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               shall be distributed to the left and right spans of the                                                                                               still unclear. Editorial suggestion forthcoming.                                               with "spans framing into the joint"
                                                                               superstructure”. Are these left and right spans the spans to
                                                                               the left and right of the bent that is transferring seismic
                                                                               load or the end spans? Please explain further
259        1             8             8.12                    ?               Section 8.12. The second sentence states “The minimum              See Modified Guidelines                                   ?                                                                                                                       02-19-07: see revised article                                  Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               lateral transfer mechanism at the
                                                                               superstructure/substructure interface shall be established
                                                                               using an acceleration of 0.4g in addition to the over
                                                                               strength capacity of shear keys or the elastic seismic force
                                                                               whichever is smaller.” What is the intent here?
                                                                               (i) 0.4 times the reaction plus the minimum of (a) the key
                                                                               capacity and (b) the elastic force or
                                                                               (ii) the minimum of (a) 0.4 times the reaction plus the key
                                                                               capacity and (b) the elastic force.


260        1             8             8.13 Figure 8.7 & 8.8 FHWA/ Derrell Clarity of text is not sufficient, larger fonts needed on some                                                                   Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 I updated the figures and have them on the                                            02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.13 … Placing Yes                    No             No             No
                                       & 8.9, 8.11                         text                                                                                                                                                      attached file                                                                                  a REDUCED figure in commentary made Fonts far too
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    small-03-01-07
261        1             8             Sec. 8.13.4.2           CA              The joint shear reinforcement may be provided in the form See Modified Guidelines                                            Chris Unanwa                                                                                                            02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.13 … JQ 03- Yes                     Yes            No             No
                                                                               of column transverse steel or exterior transverse                                                                                                                                                                                                    02-07: See revised Article 8.13.3
                                                                               reinforcement. Need to add “exterior transverse
                                                                               reinforcement.
262        1             8             Sec. 8.13.4.2           CA              Need to make reference to the additional reinforcement not See Modified Guidelines                                           Chris Unanwa             Modified                                                                                       02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.13                  Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               required for SDC C
263        1             8             Sec. 8.13.4.2 Page 8-   Alaska/ Elmer   Recent publications [Sri Sritharan, J. Struct. Engrg.,          No change is recommended.                                    Elmer Marx               Disagree with initial response. Change the "3.5" in                                            02-28-7: LEAVE AS 3.5 BUT USE f'c INSTEAD OF f'ce. Yes                         Yes            No             No
                                       24                                      Volume 131, Issue 9, pp. 1334-1344 (September 2005)]                                                                                                  Article 8.13.4.2 to "3.0." Add the following the
                                                                               indicate that the principal tension stress, pt, should be limit                                                                                       commentary: "Research performed by Sri et. al.
                                                                               to 3.0*sqrt(f'c) as opposed to the 3.5*sqrt(f'ce) provided in                                                                                         (2005) indicates that the principal tension limit
                                                                               the proposed specifications.                                                                                                                          should be revised to 3.0*SQRT(f'c). Also note that
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     units for f'c should be in KSI so that the "3.0"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     should actually be "0.1" in the referenced equation.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     (date 2-1-7)

264        1             8             8.16.1 1st Para.        BERGER/ Lee It is not clear what 'not designed as capacity protected     See Modified Guidelines as shown between parenthesis.               ?                                                                               02-09-07: OK, LM                                                                                       Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                               Marsh       members' means. I think this means if plastic hinging is
                                                                           expected. Perhaps reword this as such. I presume that this
                                                                           section also covers pile bents (i.e. pile extensions) where
                                                                           plastic hinging would be expected at the top of the pile and
                                                                           potentially in-ground.
265        1             8             Figure 8.9              CA          There in no mention in the text where the extra 12” width is See Modified Guidelines                                             Chris Unanwa                                                                                                            02-19-07: (by ELMER) appears as though this issue has          Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                           required.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                been addressed in Article 8.13.4.2. Chris U./CA: Addressed
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    in Art. 8.13.4.1.
266        1             8             Page 8-26               CA              Paragraph D: J dowels are only required for integral caps.         See Modified Guidelines                                   Chris Unanwa                                                                                                            JQ 03-02-07: Article now located under "Integral Bent Cap      Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Joint Shear Design"; sentence modified to "For integral caps
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    of bents…."
267        1             General       General                 CA              There is no a list of “References”                         See Modified Guidelines                                           Chris Unanwa             Modified Guidelines contain a list of References OK                                            OK                                                             Yes             Yes            No             Yes
268        1             General       Appendix C              AR              Appendix C is called "Guidelines for Modeling of           See Modified Guidelines                                           Tobias / Brandenberger   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: The suggested                                               MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Appendices Removed          Yes             Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                                               Footings". A more appropriate name might be “Guidelines                                                                                               change has been made. What is our role in                                                      from Guide Spec. Guide Specs reference other documents
                                                                               for Modeling of Footings and Piles".                                                                                                                  reviewing the appendices?                                                                      as required.
269        1             General       Appendix C              AR              Appendix C has the same spring constant graphs for         Include in Commentary.                                            Tobias / Brandenberger   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Parking lot                                                 MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Appendices Removed          Yes             Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                                               translation of piles in the longitudinal and transverse                                                                                               issue?                                                                                         from Guide Spec. Guide Specs reference other documents
                                                                               directions that have been previously used. A discussion on                                                                                                                                                                                           as required.
                                                                               their use and/or an example would be beneficial.
270        1             General       Appendix D              AR              Appendix Art. D.2.3: The USGS web address for finding                                                                        Tobias / Brandenberger   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Similar to AR                                               MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Appendices Removed Yes                      Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                                               earthquake magnitude is outdated. It is not obvious what                                                                                              comment above. See what happens with Mw                                                        from Guide Spec. Guide Specs reference other documents
                                                                               distribution is being discussed, or what map to use for                                                                                               discussion. Could go into the parking lot.                                                     as required.
                                                                               earthquake magnitude.
301        2             1             1.2.1 Page 1-4          WA              Revise fifth bullet "Jerry Weigel" to "Jugesh Kapur"                                                                         Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/06/07 Revise. Jerry is retired.                                                             3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec.               Yes             Yes            No             No
302        2             1             1.2.2 Page 1-6          WA              First bullet under Ground Motion Tool seems incomplete.                                                                      Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/06/07 Delete the incomplete sentence." The peak                                             3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec.               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ground acceleration, PGA,"
303        2             1             Fig. 1.3A Page 1-8      WA              Article for Determine Seat Width should be 4.12 (Two                                                                         Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/06/07 Roy and Elmer will revise Flow Charts.                                                3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec.               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               places)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Page 14 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                         LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                         11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                           Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section             Article             State/                       Initial Comment                               Initial Response        Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                          Originator's Follow-Up Comment          Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                       Resolved By    Resolved By       Parking Lot        Major
 Number         Cycle                                                Name                          (by Originator)                              (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                       Lead?          Team?             Issue?           Item?

304        2             1             Fig. 1.3A to 1.3G        AK            The flow charts were very helpful up to the point where                              Elmer Marx             AGREE. AM WORKING ON REVISED FLOW                                                           2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              displacement demand and capacity are compared. After                                                        CHART THAT BETTER AGREES WITH THE
                                                                              that, they lose focus and are not very helpful at all. For                                                  GENERAL SDC FLOW CHART OF FIGURE
                                                                              example, no flow chart reference is given for capacity                                                      3.5.1. WILL PROVIDE TO TEAM ASPA
                                                                              design or detailing in SDC C.                                                                               PERHAPS BEFORE 2-8-7 MEETING (date 2-1-7)


305        2             1             Fig. 1.3A to 1.3G        AK            Please provide more descriptive flow chart titles.                                   Elmer Marx             SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS -                                                          2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                          TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
306        2             1             Fig. 1.3B                AK            In the flow chart cells for “Demand Analysis” and “Implicit                          Elmer Marx             SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS -                                                          2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              Capacity”, please provide reference to the relevant flow                                                    TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
                                                                              chart showing those processes.
307        2             1             Fig. 1.3B Page 1-9 & WA                These flowcharts do not provide the path to determine the                            Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Roy and Elmer will revise Flow Charts.                                             3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec.            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                       Figure 1.3C Page 1-10                  Displacement Capacity using Pushover Capacity Analysis
                                                                              as described in Article 4.8.1 2nd bullet, page 4-13. and
                                                                              Figure 1.3D.
308        2             1             Fig. 1.3C                AK            The bottom three flow chart cells in this figure don’t fit                           Elmer Marx             SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS -                                                          2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              with the subject matter of the rest of the flow chart. It                                                   TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
                                                                              looks like it would fit better in Figure 1.3F or G.

309        2             1             Fig. 1.3D                AK            Shouldn’t “Foundation Investigation” come earlier in the                             Elmer Marx             SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS -                                                          2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              process?                                                                                                    TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
310        2             1             Fig. 1.3D                AK            Recommend directing SDC C designs to proceed to Figures                              Elmer Marx             SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS -                                                          2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              1.3F and 1.3G for capacity design and detailing from this                                                   TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
                                                                              flow chart.
311        2             1             Fig. 1.3F                AK            No reference is made in this flow chart to the Column                                Elmer Marx             SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS -                                                          2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              Shear Requirements of Article 8.6.                                                                          TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
312        2             1             Fig. 1.3F and 1.3G       AK            The difference between structure Types 1 - 3 is only                                 Elmer Marx             SEE PROPOSED REVISED FLOW CHARTS -                                                          2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              described in Section 7. Please provide a description of the                                                 TO BE SUBMITTED ASAP. (date 2-1-7)
                                                                              structure types in the general requirements.
313        2             2             General                  WA            Include Article numbers that symbols and definitions cited.                          Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Will include article numbers after all                                             3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec.            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                          revision completed.
314        2             2             2.1 all                  AK            In the LRFD format, relevant notation is given at the                                Elmer Marx             Agreed. Suggest that each Section be order in                                               JQ 02-22-07: Per Dan's discussion with M&M, for this        Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              beginning of each section.                                                                                  manner similar to the AASHTO LRFD. For                                                      revision, OK to leave in current format. May be addressed
                                                                                                                                                                                          example: 8.1 Scope, 8.2 Definitions, 8.2 Notations,                                         in future revision.
                                                                                                                                                                                          8.3 Material Properties, 8.4 Seismic Design
                                                                                                                                                                                          Catagories, etc. PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF
                                                                                                                                                                                          WORK WILL BE ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date
                                                                                                                                                                                          2-1-7)
315        2             2             2.1 all                  AK            Reference is usually given to where notation appears in the                          Elmer Marx             Agreed. Indicate the applicable articles at the end of                                      2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              section.                                                                                                    each notation in the same manner as the AASHTO
                                                                                                                                                                                          LRFD specifications. PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF
                                                                                                                                                                                          WORK WILL BE ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date
                                                                                                                                                                                          2-1-7)
316        2             2             2.1                      AK            There is no definition for the term f yt used in Section 8.6.2,                      Elmer Marx             Agreed. Based upon Article 8.6.3, fyt should be                                             2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              or it has possibly been incorrectly labeled as f yh .                                                       changed to fyh. (date 2-1-7)
317        2             2             Page 2-3                 WA            Fa : Revise Table "3.3.3A" to "3.4.2.3-1".                                           Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree.                                                                             3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec.            Yes             Yes               No             No
318        2             2             Page 2-3                 WA            Fv : Revise Table "3.3.3B" to "3.4.2.3-2". Add "parameter                            Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree                                                                              3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec.            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              S1" at end of sentence.
319        2             2             Page 2-3                 WA            Ip.g. : Revise "Equation 6-8" to "Equation 6-8"                                      Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Revise "Equation 6-3" to "Equation 6-8"                                            3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec.            Yes             Yes               No             No
320        2             2             Page 2-5                 WA            S1: Revise "Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3" to "Articles 3.4.1                             Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree. Also change "Sections" to                                                   3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec.            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              and 3.4.2"                                                                                                  "Articles"
321        2             2             Page 2-5                 WA            Ss: Revise "Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3" to "Articles 3.4.1                             Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree. Also change "Sections" to                                                   3-1-07:(by Chyuan-Shen) See modified guide spec.            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              and 3.4.2"                                                                                                  "Articles"
322        2             3             C.3.2 Page 3-1           WA            3rd paragraph. "Table C3.2-1" is not exist.                                          Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Include Table C3.2-1 (ATC 49). See                                                 JQ 02-22-07: Include attached figure or delete paragraph    Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                          attached File: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc Table C3.2.1                                           compleletly as suggested in Item #605? … JQ 02-27-07:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Delete reference to this table.
323        2             3             3.3                      AK            The use of passive abutment resistance as a resisting                                Elmer Marx             Agreed. Add the 100% passive abutment soil                                                  JQ 02-26-07: Modified as proposed.                          Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              element appears to be reversed between Figures 3.3.1b and                                                   resistance to "Owner's Approval" and the 70%
                                                                              3.3.2. The Owner’s permission should be required to use                                                     resistance to "Permissible." (date 2-1-7)
                                                                              100% of the passive strength as indicated in Figure 3.3.1b,
                                                                              not 70% as indicated in Figure 3.3.2.

324        2             3             3.3, 5.2.3.1 and         AK            Except deep in the commentary for section C3.3, nowhere                              Elmer Marx             On page 3-10 of the commentary to Article 3.3,                                              JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                   Yes             Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                       5.2.3.2                                is it explicitly stated that counting on passive abutment                                                   change the sentence that reads "In the second
                                                                              resistance is only allowable in bridges designed to SDC D.                                                  alternative the abutments are an important part of
                                                                              The text of the specifications appear to infer that this is                                                 the ERS and, in this case, a higher level of analysis
                                                                              case, but the designer is left to guess the intent.                                                         is required (SDC)." to "In the second alternative the
                                                                                                                                                                                          abutments are an important part of the ERS and, in
                                                                                                                                                                                          this case, a higher level of analysis is required ." The
                                                                                                                                                                                          proposed change appears to support the text of
                                                                                                                                                                                          Articles 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2. THIS CHANGE
                                                                                                                                                                                          SHOULD BE VERIFIED WITH ROY IMBSEN
                                                                                                                                                                                          AND PERHAPS CALTRANS. BASED UPON
325        2             3             Figure 3.3, Page 3.3.3   WA            Delete extra horizontal lines.                                                       Chyuan-Shen Lee        THE COMMENTARY, IF THE ABUTMENT
                                                                                                                                                                                          02/06/07 Modified.                                                                                                                                      Yes             Yes               No             No
326        2             3             Figure C3.3-2 Page 3-    WA            Figure 3, Revise "Section 7.9.6" to "Article 7.4.6"                                  Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Revise Figure No. 3 as follow: "Ductile                                            JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                   Yes             Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                       7                                                                                                                                                  End-diaphragms in superstructure (Article 7.4.6)
327        2             3             Figure C3.3-2, Page 3-   WA            Delete extra verticle and horizontal lines.                                          Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Modified.                                                                                                                                      Yes             Yes               No             No
                                       4
328        2             3             C.3.3 Page 3-8           WA            Commentary 2nd paragraph "Part 1 Specifications"?                                    Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Revise the 2nd paragraph as "The other                                             JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation. Chyuan-Shen Yes                   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                              Revise "Article 4.7" to "Article 4.3.3"                                                                     key premise of the Part I Specifications provisions is                                      3/1/07: This article has been revised.
                                                                                                                                                                                          that ... " Near end of 2nd, revise "Article 4.7" to
                                                                                                                                                                                          "Article 4.3.3"
329        2             3             3.4.1 Page 3-11          WA            End of Number 1. Add" 0.4SDS is Peak Ground                                          Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/02/07 No. PGA Maps are inculded (Figure 3.4.1-                                                                                                       Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                              Acceleration (PGA) at the ground surface for the site."                                                     2a & Figure 3.4.1-2b).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Page 15 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                      LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                     11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                        Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article            State/                       Initial Comment                              Initial Response        Lead Person                 Lead Person's Comments                                  Originator's Follow-Up Comment                          Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                         Resolved By      Resolved By       Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                              Name                          (by Originator)                             (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                Lead?            Team?             Issue?            Item?

330        2             3             3.4.2                  WA/ Tony      Notes below Table 3.4.2-1, definition of NCH – “Average                             Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.            I recommend that the word "and" in this definition be    JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                      Yes               Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                              Allen         standard and penetration resistance” does not make sense.                                                                                                           deleted.
                                                                            Do you mean “average standard penetration resistance”?

331        2             3             3.4.2 all              AK            Please provide direction in this Article on making a Site                           Elmer Marx             At this time I would recommend to remove the last                                                                       JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                            Class determination when site conditions vary greatly                                                      paragraph of C3.4.2 on page 3-16 and add the
                                                                            between substructure units. For example, our trial design                                                  following text to Article 3.4.2. "If geological
                                                                            bridge is founded on steeply sloping bedrock, resulting on                                                 conditions at the abutments and intermediate piers
                                                                            one pier being on bedrock and the next pier on a dense soil                                                result in different soil classification, then the design
                                                                            layer ~20 feet thick over the bedrock. We assumed that the                                                 response spectra may be determined based upon the
                                                                            most severe Site Class would control, but would prefer                                                     site-specific procedures outlined in Article 3.4.3. In
                                                                            explicit direction.                                                                                        Lieu of the site-specific procedures and under
                                                                                                                                                                                       guidance from the geotechnical engineer, the design
                                                                                                                                                                                       response spectra may be determined as the envelope
332        2             3             C.3.4.2.2 Page 3-21    WA            2nd paragraph, Need "Appendix" ?                                                    Chyuan-Shen Lee        of the individual Appendixspectra at each“Guidelines
                                                                                                                                                                                       02/06/07 Adopt response C in ATC 49 support."                                                                           JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement       Yes               Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       for Conduction of Site-Specific Geotechnical
                                                                                                                                                                                       Investigations and Dynamic Site Response
                                                                                                                                                                                       Analyses”
333        2             3             3.4.2.3 Page 3-18      WA            Delete ":" at Table 3.4.2.3-1 and 3.4.2.3-1                                         Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree                                                                                                          JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
334        2             3             3.4.3                  WA/ Tony      Section 3.4.3, 3rd paragraph – This paragraph requires a                            Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.            This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this                                                               Yes               Yes               Yes            Yes
                                                              Allen         site specific nonlinear analysis if the bridge is located                                                                                                           issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input and
                                                                            within 6 miles of an active fault. First, what is defined as                                                                                                        supporting evidence can be obtained.
                                                                            active? Second, what if the active fault is not very big? Is
                                                                            there some minimum fault size required for this issue to
                                                                            really be a concern? The problem is the word “shall” here.

335        2             3             C.3.4.3 Page 3-21      WA            2nd paragraph, Need "Appendix" ?                                                    Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Include ATC 49 Appendix C "Guidelines                                                                    JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement             Yes               Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       for conduction site-specific geotechnical
                                                                                                                                                                                       investigtions and dynamic site response analyis".
336        2             3             C.3.4.5 Page 3-26      WA            Need to fill Tables X.X and X.X.                                                    Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                          JQ 02-22-07: Article C3.4.5 deleted.                           Yes 02-22-07 JQ   Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
337        2             3             C.3.5 Page 3-26        WA            2nd paragraph, Delete "are"                                                         Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/02/07 - The Seismic Design Category reflects the                                                               JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                      Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       variation in seismic risk across the country and are
                                                                                                                                                                                       is used to permit different requirements for methods
                                                                                                                                                                                       of analysis, minimum support lengths, column
                                                                                                                                                                                       design details, and foundation and abutment design
                                                                                                                                                                                       procedures.
338        2             3             3.5                    WA/ Jugesh    Seismic Design Category is based on the seismic hazard                              Chyuan-Shen Lee        Site Coefficients are determined from the ground                                                                  JQ 02-27-07: Washington exception                              Yes               Yes               No             Yes
                                                              Kapur         level and is determined by the 1.0 second period spectral                                                  motion records and adopted from NEHRP projects.
                                                                            response acceleration (Fig. 3.4.1-3) and Site Coefficient                                                  Guide specifications are minimum requirements.
                                                                            Table 3.4.2.3.2 (page 3-18). It appears that the Site                                                      Owner can adopt higher analysis method and
                                                                            Class carries too much weight for determining SDC. A                                                       detailing class.
                                                                            bridge situated in a low acceleration area with soft soil will
                                                                            be analyzed and detailed more stringently than a bridge
                                                                            with high acceleration and good soil. A bridge that was in
                                                                            seismic design category D in Washington per Division 1A
                                                                            of the Std. AASHTO specs is now resulting in category B
                                                                            with lower detailing requirements. This is change that we
                                                                            question.


339        2             3             3.5 Page 3-21          WA            Delete ":" at Table 3.5.1                                                           Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree                                                                                                    JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                      Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
340        2             3             3.7                    AK            The first sentence of this Article appears to be incomplete.                        Elmer Marx             Delete the text of this article and its commentary in                                                             JQ 02-22-07: Modified document per suggested solution.         Yes               Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                            Is it supposed to read “Use the Extreme Event…” or                                                         their entirety and replace it with the following: "Use
                                                                            something similar?                                                                                         the load factors associated with the Extreme Event I
                                                                                                                                                                                       load combination specified in the AASHTO LRFD
                                                                                                                                                                                       Bridge Design Specifications. When calculating
                                                                                                                                                                                       earthquake induced demands use unfactored dead
                                                                                                                                                                                       loads. " And add the following commentary: "The
                                                                                                                                                                                       load factors for dead load may be considered as an
                                                                                                                                                                                       approximate means of addressing possible vertical
                                                                                                                                                                                       ground acceleration as well as uncertainty in the
                                                                                                                                                                                       dead load predictions (Priestly et. al. 1996).
                                                                                                                                                                                       Historically the load factor for live load has been
341        2             3             3.7                    AK            The second and third sentences of this Article are a bit                            Elmer Marx             See response to comment number 340. (date 2-1-7)                                                                  JQ 02-22-07: Modified document per suggested solution.         Yes               Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                            confusing. Could the first three sentences of this Article be
                                                                            condensed into one, e.g.: “Calculate loads and displacement
                                                                            using the Extreme Event I load case of the AASHTO
                                                                            LRFD Specifications, with gp = 1”?


342        2             3             3.7                    AK            The wording of the last sentence on page 3-24, beginning                            Elmer Marx             See response to comment number 340. (date 2-1-7)                                                                  JQ 02-22-07: Modified document per suggested solution.         Yes               Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                            “Only the gravity effects of live load…” is a bit odd and
                                                                            confusing.
343        2             3             3.7                    AK            The solitary sentence on the specifications side of page 3-                         Elmer Marx             See response to comment number 340. (date 2-1-7)                                                                  JQ 02-22-07: Modified document per suggested solution.         Yes               Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                            25, beginning “The gp for the dead load…” contradicts the
                                                                            rest of the section (use gp = 1).
344        2             4             4.1.1 Eqns. 4.1b and   AK            It is unusual to specify a minimum and then recommend a                             Elmer Marx             No change required. The intent of the specification is                                                            EM 02-19-07: okay ... Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article 4.1.1 are        Yes               Yes               No             No
                                       4.2 b                                higher minimum. Perhaps Equation 2 belongs in the                                                          that the maximum variation between "any two"                                                                      recommendations for SDC D for balanced stiffnesses, not
                                                                            commentary.                                                                                                elements satisfy equations 4.1a and 4.1b and that the                                                             requirements. What is now Table 4.2.1 are considerations
                                                                                                                                                                                       maximum variation between "two adjacent" elemets                                                                  for if a bridge is "regular" and have been in the Code for
                                                                                                                                                                                       satisfy equations 4.2a and 4.2b. (date 2-1-7)                                                                     quite some time. Articles 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 are really apples
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         and oranges. So, while not optimal as it is presented in the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Gude Specs, it will be left as is.
345        2             4             C4.1.2                 AK            This commentary does not relate to the section.                                     Elmer Marx             There appear to be two C4.1.2 articles. The first                                                                 Dan/IL 2/19/07: Second commentary deleted.                     Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       appears to compliment Article 4.1.2 as intended but
                                                                                                                                                                                       the other is entitled "Minimum Seat Width." Rename
                                                                                                                                                                                       the "Minimum Seat Width" commentary to "C4.12
                                                                                                                                                                                       Minimum Seat Length" and move to page 4-22.
                                                                                                                                                                                       (date 2-1-7)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Page 16 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                  LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                         11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                    Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section           Article        State/                          Initial Comment                           Initial Response        Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                               Originator's Follow-Up Comment                      Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                         Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                         Name                             (by Originator)                          (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                          Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

346        2             4             4.2 Page 4-5      WA               Revise "The changes in these parameters should …" to                             Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/02/07 - Add "for SDC D " in Article 4.2 as                                                              Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed…..very good catch…..                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                          "The changes in these parameters for SDC D should ….."                                                   shown. The changes in these parameters for SDC D
                                                                                                                                                                                   should be within the tolerances given by Equations
                                                                                                                                                                                   4.1 and 4.2 from span-to-span or from support-to-
                                                                                                                                                                                   support (abutments excluded).
347        2             4             4.2 Page 4-5      WA               "repaired" at the last sentence should be "required".                            Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/02/07 - revise as shown. Procedure 3 is                                                                 Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed                                          Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                   generally not repaired required unless requested by
                                                                                                                                                                                   the Owner under Section 4.2.2.
348        2             4             C4.2 Page 4.5     WA               3rd paragraph "Article 6.3" should be "Article 4.6"                              Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/02/07 - In areas of low seismicity, only minimum                                                        Dan/IL 2/19/07: Comment now outdated.                          Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                   seat widths (Article 6.3 4.6),
349        2             4             C4.2 Page 4.6     WA               Article X.X                                                                      Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/06/07 Article 4.7.2.                                                                                    Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed                                          Yes             Yes            No             No
350        2             4             Figure 4.2        AK               There is no mention of the longitudinal response of non-                         Elmer Marx              Agree. Remove the "2" and replace it with "L" to the                                                       Dan/IL 2/19/07: Don't disagree with the "fix" except that it   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                          integral bridges. Perhaps Figure (a) could be generalized                                                Vpo equations shown in Figures 4.2a and 4.2b to be                                                         is inconsistent with the drawing BC's. Better to be
                                                                          by changing the equation for Vpo to (L*Mpo)/Lc.                                                          consistant with other parts of the guide                                                                   consistent with drawing in this case, so caption was
                                                                                                                                                                                   specifications such as equation 4.7. (date 2-1-7)                                                          qualified with "non-integral abutments".
351        2             4             Figure 4.2        AK               The figure titles should be generalized as the responses                         Elmer Marx              Agreed. Suggest that the word "bridge" be changed                                                          Dan/IL 2/19/07: Concrete verbaige deleted, pier added.      Yes                Yes            No             No
                                                                          shown apply to steel bridges as well as concrete bridges.                                                to "pier." Also suggest that the dimension Lc be                                                           These figures could be better. Will examine again 3/2/07 to
                                                                                                                                                                                   changed to dimension the distance between the                                                              3/9/07….May have to live with them.
                                                                                                                                                                                   center of the plastic hinge zones rather than the
352        2             4             Table 4.1         AK               When is Procedure 3 used? It doesn’t appear in the table.                        Elmer Marx              exterme dimension of the column. (date 2-1-7)
                                                                                                                                                                                   Although this issue appears to have been addressed                                                         Dan/IL 2/19/07: Yes, required is fixed…..Other than that,      Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                   in the most recent version of the guide specifications,                                                    Say Done….
                                                                                                                                                                                   the word "repaired" should probably be replaced
                                                                                                                                                                                   with the word "required" in the last sentence of
                                                                                                                                                                                   Article 4.2. (date 2-1-7)
353        2             4             4.3.3 Page 4-9    WA               The paragraph below Table 4.3. Revise "designer's" to                            Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/02/07 - The soil site class should be determined                                                        Dan/IL 2/19/07: Searched for verbiage…not found…I think Yes                    Yes            No             No
                                                                          "design"                                                                                                 by the final designer’s design geotechnical engineer                                                       this is in Section 3 and should be fixed there. Chyuan-Shen
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              3/1/07: Article 4.3.3 has been revised.
354        2             4             C 4.3 Page 4-7    WA               2nd paragraph, Articles X.X and X.X.                                             Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                    fixed.                                                      Yes                Yes            No             No
355        2             4             C 4.3 Page 4-8    WA               The last two paragraphs seems for other articles.                                Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/06/07 Articles 8.5 and 8.6.                                                                             Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes                   Yes            No             No

356        2             4             C.4.4 Page 4-9    WA               1st paragraph indicates there are "three" aspects. However,                      Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/06/07 Move these two paragraphs to the                                                                  Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes                   Yes            No             No
                                                                          only two are mentioned.                                                                                  beginning of C4.2.
357        2             4             C.4.4 Page 4-9    WA               The last sentence seems contradict the spec.                                     Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/06/07 This commentary is adopted from ATC 49                                                            Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes                   Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                   C3.6. Since guide spec. use 100%-30% combination
                                                                                                                                                                                   rule for the displacement demand. The second and
                                                                                                                                                                                   third aspects in ATC 49 C3.6 are mute.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Recommend change "three aspects" to "two aspects"
                                                                                                                                                                                   and delete the sentences after "The SRSS rule ....."
                                                                                                                                                                                   entirely.
358        2             4             4.6               FHWA/ Derrell What is the basis for .2DL? Existing LRFD derives this                              Derrell Manceaux        02-06-07- No resolution for this item                DM 02-20-07: Need commentary to explain basis of .2   Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to     Yes             No             Yes            No
                                                                       term by using the platueof the spectrum times max ground                                                                                                                                                               be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
                                                                       acc for Zone 1 If the pier is the only restraint in long
                                                                       direction, this equation gives force=600 k. However, since
                                                                       pier is carrying much more mass, the true force is 914k
                                                                       (with .2). If the structure is very stiff, this force could be
                                                                       1416k if the period is at the plateau of the response
                                                                       spectrum. THe design force must then be carried by the
                                                                       substructure since the connection can transfer this force.



359        2             4             4.6               FHWA/ Derrell If the connections can carry the design forces, plastic                             Derrell Manceaux        02-06-07-Resolved if the 2 level SDC A comments                                                            Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                       hinging can occur in a SDC A structure. No details are                                                      are accepted                                                                                               be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
                                                                       provided for this non linear behavior
360        2             4             4.6 & 8.7.1       FHWA/ Derrell Lateral design forces for SDC B is 0.1DL but it is 0.2DL                            Derrell Manceaux        02-06-07-Need to discuss this with panel                                                                   Dan/IL 2/19/07: Articles 4.5 and 4.6 edited and revised to     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                       for SDC A. I am not clear if this is an error orhow to                                                                                                                                                                 be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot.
                                                                       explain this discrepancy
361        2             4             4.7.2             WA/ Jugesh    Article 4.7.2 (page 4-11) states that bridges in Seismic                            Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/02/07 -Agree. There is no room in the bottom    Jugesh Kapur concurred. 2/7/07.                         ......Dan/IL 2/18/07: Suggested editing/modification from Yes                  Yes            No             Yes
                                                         Kapur         Design Category D located within 6 miles of a fault shall                                                   flange of prestressed girder for additional mild                                                           WA used to revise this Article. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 Team
                                                                       have at least 25% of the longitudinal top and bottom mild                                                   reinforcement. WSDOT Wide Flange Girders allow                                                             discussed in Sacramento. See modified guide spec.
                                                                       reinforcement continuous over the length of the bridge                                                      a total of 70 0.6" diameter prestress strands. 15%
                                                                       superstructure to account for the effects of vertical ground                                                of equivalent mild reinforcement will require #6 @
                                                                       motions. For precast prestressed girders, a min. of 25% of                                                  5". Recommend use CALTRANS SDC 7.2.2,
                                                                       the total equivalent mild and prestressing steel shall be in                                                designs for 25% dead applied uniformly applied
                                                                       the form of continuous mild reinforcement. Does this                                                        upward and downward. See File: Chyuan-02-09-
                                                                       include harped strands? For large girders that often have                                                   2007.doc Article 4.7.2
                                                                       more than 50, 0.6” dia. strands, this would be a hard
                                                                       requirement to satisfy as there is no room in the flange for
                                                                       additional mild reinforcement.




362        2             4             4.8 Page 4-12     WA               Last paragraph of this Article. Revise "are1" to "are".                          Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/02/07 - The formulas presented below are1 are                                                           Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed.                                         Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                   used to obtain for SDC B and C. These formulas
                                                                                                                                                                                   are not intended for use with configuration of bents
                                                                                                                                                                                   with struts at mid-height.
363        2             4             4.8.1             AK               The layout of the text describing variable Λ is disjointed                       Elmer Marx              Agree. Remove the "a." that procedes the definition                                                        Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                  Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                          and confusing.                                                                                           of "L = 2 for fixed top and bottom." (date 2-1-7)                                                          proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              anticipated for resolution.
364        2             4             C4.8              CA               There are two commentary sections labeled as C4.8.                               Chris Unanwa            Cleaned up.                                               OK                                               Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                  Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                          Typos in the 3rd paragraph "SDCAP", and "SPC". Delta                                                                                                                                                                proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                          symbol in 1st paragraph of second section is not visible.                                                                                                                                                           anticipated for resolution.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Page 17 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                      LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                            11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                        Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article           State/                         Initial Comment                            Initial Response        Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                               Originator's Follow-Up Comment           Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                       Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                             Name                            (by Originator)                           (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                             Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

365        2             4             C4.8 Page 4-12        WA              Revise "SDCAP B" to "SDC B"                                                       Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/02/07 - Full capacity protection of the                                                      Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       geotechnical features of the foundation in SDCAP B                                              proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                       is not required.                                                                                anticipated for resolution. Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Article
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       modified.
366        2             4             4.8.2 Page 4-14       WA              Top of page "for SDC C one span ", why one span?                                  Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/06/07 Delete "one span".                                                                     Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       anticipated for resolution.Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Fixed.
367        2             4             4.8                   CA              Typo in 5th paragraph - "1" after "are"                                           Chris Unanwa            Cleaned up.                                               OK                                    Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       anticipated for resolution.
368        2             4             4.8                   WA/ Jugesh      Article 4.8 (page 4-12): The end fixed conditions for                             Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07. Use the shortest distance between the   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Kapur           implicit capacity equations only considered two cases                                                                                                                                                     point of maximum moment and point of contra-flexure as
                                                                             (fixed-free and fixed-fixed) and mentioned that for a                                                                                                                                                     clear height of column and 1.0 for end restraint factor.
                                                                             partially fixed connection on one end, interpolation between
                                                                             1 and 2 is permitted. Some guidance needs to be given for
                                                                             other conditions especially for those users utilizing soil
                                                                             springs in seismic models

369        2             4             Pgs 4-13 to 4-17      CA              Code column and commentary column appears to be                                   Chris Unanwa            Cleaned up.                                               OK                                    Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed.                                       Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                             switched. Need to check the pages before and after this
                                                                             section for continuity and readablility.
370        2             4             4.9                   WA/ Jugesh      Article 4.9: (page 4-12). Our office uses soil springs to                         Chyuan-Shen Lee         Will discuss with other states.                                                                 JQ 03-07-07: WA will provide more guidance to designers      Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Kapur           take into account the effect of soil-structure interaction.                                                                                                                                               regarding this issue in their BDM.
                                                                             Computer programs such as GTSTRUDL and SAP2000
                                                                             are used to perform multi-mode spectral analysis.
                                                                             Guidance is needed to obtain the elastic displacement since
                                                                             the model node point may not coincidence with the point of
                                                                             contra flexure.
371        2             4             4.11.1 Page 4-15      WA              Bullet b. Revise "Article 7.4.9 " to "Article 7.4.6 "                             Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/06/07 Agree                                                                                  Dan/IL 2/19/07: Fixed. Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Article       Yes                 Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       modified.
372        2             4             C4.11 Page 4-16       WA              Article X.Xs                                                                      Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/06/07 Recommend Add "FOR SDC C AND D"                                                        Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes                 Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       to the title. Delete the paragraphs between C4.11
                                                                                                                                                                                       and C4.11.1. These paragraphs are included in
                                                                                                                                                                                       C4.11.1. Delete “Actions” in C4.11.1 Title. Fill the
                                                                                                                                                                                       X.X as follows: “Article 3.3; Article 7.8; Article
                                                                                                                                                                                       7.4.6”.
373        2             4             4.11.2                AK              Refer to the relevant sections of Sections 7 and 8 for the                        Elmer Marx              Agree. Remove the bulleted items. Replace the last                                              Dan/IL 2/19/07: Did not delete formulae and bullets. Added Yes               Yes            No             No
                                                                             definitions of Mpo instead of redefining them here.                                                       sentence of the second paragraph with "Except for                                               "or by using the applicable provisions of Sections 7 and 8."
                                                                                                                                                                                       the geotechnical aspects for the design of                                                      For Section 7, the provisions look very involved. This
                                                                                                                                                                                       foundations, the overstrength plastic moment                                                    article provides a simple option for steel to the designer, so
                                                                                                                                                                                       capacity (Mpo) of the column, pier, or pile members                                             it was left in.
                                                                                                                                                                                       shall be taken as that specified in Section 7 for steel
                                                                                                                                                                                       elements and of Section 8 for reinforced concrete
374        2             4             4.11.2 Page 4-16      WA              at top of page. Should "the moment overstrength capacity                          Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/06/07 Agree. Revise as follows: "Except for the                                              Dan/IL 2/19/07: This is splitting hairs. Chyuan-Shen:        Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                             (Mpo)" read as "the overstrength plastic moment capacity                                                  geotechnical aspects for design of foundations, the                                             3/1/07 OK.
                                                                             (Mpo)"?                                                                                                   moment overstrength plastic moment capacity (Mpo)
                                                                                                                                                                                       of column/pier/pile members that form part of the
                                                                                                                                                                                       primary mechanism resisting seismic loads shall be
                                                                                                                                                                                       assessed as follows:"
375        2             4             C4.11.2 Page 4-17     WA              Is this commentary contrdict with Article 8.5?                                    Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/06/07 No. This is an alternate method to obtain                                              Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes                 Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       the overstrength plastic moment capacity. However,
                                                                                                                                                                                       ATC-32 uses 1.7 fc' for concrete and 1.25 fy for
                                                                                                                                                                                       steel. Recommend adopting ATC-32, 1996.

376        2             4             4.11.5                AK              Define Mp, Mn and DD used in Equations 4.9 through 4.11.                          Elmer Marx              Agree. Although the notation is provided in Section                                             Dan/IL 2/19/07: I believe the reformatting addressed these   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       2, they should be listed under the "where" in the                                               concerns. It was pretty "messy" before.
                                                                                                                                                                                       same manner as the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
                                                                                                                                                                                       Specifications. PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF WORK
                                                                                                                                                                                       WILL BE ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date 2-1-7)

377        2             4             4.11.5                AK              As has been done for the values of Dr for single pile caps                        Elmer Marx                                                                                                              Dan/IL 2/19/07: I believe the reformatting addressed these   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                             and pile caps in Site Class E, describe the use of the first                                                                                                                                              concerns. It was pretty "messy" before.
                                                                             value of Dr after Equation 4.9, e.g.: “For the transverse
                                                                             response of multi-column bents:”
378        2             4             4.11.5 Page 4-20      WA              Equation 4-11, Recommend using lowercase "f" instead of                           Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/06/07 Agree.                                                                                 Dan/IL 2/19/07: I believe the reformatting addressed these   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                             uppercase"F" as defined in Section 2.                                                                                                                                                                     concerns. It was pretty "messy" before.
379        2             4             4.12.1                WA/ Jugesh      Error in Eqs. 4.15 a 4.16 (page 4-22 & 23). (1+SK2                                Chyuan-Shen Lee         02/02/07 - Ok. Modified.                                                                        MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards        Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                       4.12.2                Kapur           )/4000 should be 1+ (SK 2/4000)?                                                                                                                                                                          consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       consistent with LRFD Code Ballot. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Team discussed in Sacramento. See modified guide spec.

380        2             4             Figure 1.3.A          FHWA/ Derrell Reference for seat width for SDC A should be 4.12.1, not                            Derrell Manceaux        02-06-07-Reference for seat width for SDC A                                                     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards        Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                           4.8.1                                                                                                       should be 4.12.1, not 4.8.1                                                                     consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
381        2             5             5.1.2 3rd and 4th     AK              These paragraphs sound more like commentary than                                  Elmer Marx              Agree. Suggest moving the third and fourth                                                      Dan/IL 2/20/07: Whole section sort of reads like a           Yes             Yes            No             No
                                       Para.                                 specifications.                                                                                           paragraphs to the commentary. (date 2-1-7)                                                      commentary. A lot of "mays"….At this point, just let it
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       go……Also, two "shalls" changed to "shoulds" in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       commentary……..
382        2             5             5.2.2 last sentence   AK              This sentence sounds more like commentary than                                    Elmer Marx              Agree. Suggest moving the tlast sentence of the last                                            Dan/IL 2/20/07: Sentence moved to commentary.                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                             specification.                                                                                            paragraph to the commentary. (date 2-1-7)
383        2             5             5.2.3 1st Para.       AK              The text of this section sounds more like commentary than                         Elmer Marx              Agree. Suggest moving the first paragraph to the                                                Dan/IL 2/20/07: Yes it reads like commentary, but moving     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                             specifications                                                                                            commentary. (date 2-1-7)                                                                        it would be awkward and clunky…..May go back a revisit
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       given time.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Page 18 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                     LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                     11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                       Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section             Article           State/                       Initial Comment                             Initial Response        Lead Person                 Lead Person's Comments                                 Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                  Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                     Resolved By    Resolved By      Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                              Name                          (by Originator)                            (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Lead?          Team?            Issue?            Item?

384        2             5             5.2.3.1                AK            Please explicitly state whether or not the use of passive                          Elmer Marx             THIS COMMENT AND COMMENT NUMBER                                                                                         Dan/IL 2/20/07: Commentary added which reads: "The          Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                            abutment stiffness is allowed in SDC B and C, as this                                                     324 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY ROY                                                                                         provisions of Article 5.2.3.2 may be used for the design of
                                                                            section seems only to infer that it is not.                                                               IMBSEN. In lieu of formal response, suggest that                                                                        abutments for bridges in SDC B or C."…..there is no logical
                                                                                                                                                                                      passive soil resistance not be utilized when using the                                                                  reason a designer should not be allowed to do this.
                                                                                                                                                                                      implicit displacement capacity equations 4.7a and
                                                                                                                                                                                      4.7b. (date 2-1-7)
385        2             5             5.2.4.1 3rd Para.      AK            The commas in the first sentence of the paragraph are                              Elmer Marx             Agree. Remove all commas from the text in this                                                                          Dan/IL 2/20/07: This sentence moved to commentary and      Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                            unnecessary.                                                                                              article. (date 2-1-7)                                                                                                   now reads: "For bridges in these categories, elastic
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              resistance may be achievable."
386        2             5             Table 5.1 Page 5-1     WA            Please clarify Modeling Method II "50% of SDC B                                    Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Recommend revise as 12-49 Table 5.3.4-                                                                         Dan/IL 2/20/07: Replaced for spread footing and footings   Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                            allowable drift". Determined by equation. 4.7a, Article                                                   1: "For other soil types, foundation springs required                                                                   with piles as per suggestion. Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: fixed.
                                                                            4.8.1 or others?                                                                                          if footing flexibility contributes more than 20% to
                                                                                                                                                                                      pier displacement."
387        2             5             5.4.2 Page 5-14        WA            2nd paragraph. "The horizontal force …..in proportion to                           Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/02/07 - The horizontal force shall be applied at                                                                     Dan/IL 2/20/07: This was completely revised because the    Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                            the mass distributed." Should force distributed in                                                        the vertical center of mass of the superstructure and                                                                   writing was poor.
                                                                            proportion to the stiffness?                                                                              distributed horizontally in proportion to the mass
                                                                                                                                                                                      stiffness distribution.
388        2             5             5.6.2 last Para        AK            “Pier wall” in the first sentence of this paragraph should be                      Elmer Marx             Agree. Repalce "pier wall" with "pier walls." (date 2-                                                                  Dan/IL 2/20/07: Fixed.                                     Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                            pluralized.                                                                                               1-7)
389        2             5             Figure 5.5 Page 5-21   WA            Add [x] reference number                                                           Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 See item number 542.                                                                                 Dan/IL 2/20/07: [x] deleted. Will add reference if time              Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    permits.
390        2             6             6.2                    WA/ Tony      Section 6.2 – This section should refer to Articles 10.4.2                         Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.            See Comment Insert #3 (see WORD Document: Chyuan-02- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment. See                Yes              Yes              No             Yes
                                                              Allen         and 10.4.3 for the general considerations needed for                                                                                                               09-2007.doc Comment Insert #3).                      revised guide spec.
                                                                            subsurface investigation and laboratory testing to avoid
                                                                            potential conflicts with this section and Section 10. The
                                                                            geotechnical investigation requirements in Article 10.4 are
                                                                            sufficient for the seismic investigation, other than the
                                                                            specific requirements identified in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5
                                                                            of the subject report.
391        2             6             6.3.3 Page 6-3         WA            Revise "as specified b " to "as specified by "                                     Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/02/07 - The minimum design requirements of                                                                           2-15-07 SB Edited                                          Yes              Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                      spread footings for SDC C or D shall be based on
                                                                                                                                                                                      forces corresponding to rocking analysis, provided
                                                                                                                                                                                      footing is in Site Class A, B, C or D and as specified
                                                                                                                                                                                      by the Earthquake Resisting System (ERS)
                                                                                                                                                                                      requirements of SDC C and D.
392        2             6             6.3.4                  WA/ Tony      Section 6.3.4, Rocking Analysis – How does the stiffness                           Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.          This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this        Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: This comment addressed by Team in      Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                              Allen         of the bearing soil or rock come into play here? The rigid,                                                                                                      issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input and   Sacramento.The original rocking analysis has been moved
                                                                            perfectly plastic assumption may work for rock, provided                                                                                                         supporting evidence can be obtained.                             to Appendix A. The articles for spread footing were
                                                                            that it is not adversely jointed, but I am not sure how well                                                                                                                                                                      completely revised. See modified guide spec.
                                                                            this will work for soil.
393        2             6             6.3.4 Page 6-3         WA            The symbol for the displacement or drift is inconsistent                           Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree.                                                                                                         Editorial.                                                 Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                            with Figure 6.1.
394        2             6             Commentary, Page 6-4 WA              Top of page. Table C3.2-1 is not exist. C7.4.2.1 seems                             Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/02/07 - See item 322. C7.4.2.1 is copied from 12-                                                                    Fixed.                                                     Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                            incorrect.                                                                                                49 Article 7.4.2.1. Should we replaced the Article
                                                                                                                                                                                      6.3.4 Rocking Analysis by 12-49 Article 7.4.2.1?

395        2             6             Figure 6.1, Page 6-6   WA            The symbol for the total weight is inconsistent.                                   Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree.                                                                                                         Editorial.                                                 Yes              Yes              No             No
396        2             6             C6.4.1, Page 6-8       WA            Delete "or during ship impact". Fill Article X.X                                   Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/02/07 - To meet uplift loading requirements                                                                          2-15-07 SB Edited. Note all appendices deleted per         Yes              Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                      during a seismic event or during ship impact, the                                                                       committee decision.
                                                                                                                                                                                      depth of penetration may have to be greater than
                                                                                                                                                                                      minimum requirements for compressive loading to
                                                                                                                                                                                      mobilize sufficient uplift resistance. Revise "Article
                                                                                                                                                                                      X.X " to "Appendix C"
397        2             6             6.4.2                  WA/ Tony      Section 6.4.2, first paragraph – a pile diameter of 16 inches                      Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.          In the 1st paragraph of Article 6.4.2, suggest changing "16      SB 02-15-07 Suggest compromise: 18" pipe piles.            Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                              Allen         or less is pretty small for WSDOT. Our typical pile size is                                                                                                      inches" to "18 inches".
                                                                            18 to 24 inches. Why is the 16 inch diameter assumption
                                                                            necessary? How does the use of larger piles affect the
                                                                            design?
398        2             6             6.4.4                  WA/ Tony      Section 6.4.4, second paragraph – In this paragraph, it                            Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.            See Comment Insert #5 (see WORD Document : Chyuan-02- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in                 Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                              Allen         states “for seismic loads, the tension resistance may be                                                                                                           09-2007.doc Comment Insert #5 ).                      Sacramento. See modified guide spec.
                                                                            equivalent to 50 percent of the ultimate compressive axial
                                                                            load capacity.” I see no reason not to calculate the uplift
                                                                            resistance directly. The design tools and parameters will
                                                                            always be available to calculate the skin friction. This
                                                                            crude approximation may work for sites with a marginal
                                                                            bearing layer, but could be very unconservative for piles
                                                                            driven through soft soils to a very dense bearing layer such
                                                                            as glacial till or rock. Furthermore, this paragraph states
                                                                            that friction piles may be considered to resist an
                                                                            intermittent but not sustained uplift force. What does this
                                                                            mean? Wouldn’t the uplift caused by seismic loading
                                                                            always be intermittent? In Article 10.7, we have no such
                                                                            prohibition regarding uplift, nor do we see the need for one.



399        2             6             C6.4.4, Page 6-10      WA            Revise "C6.4.4" to "C6.5"                                                          Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/02/07 - C6.4.4 C6.5 Drilled Shafts. Also                                                                             Fixed.                                                     Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                      combine with C.6.5 Drilled Shafts on Page 6-14.
                                                                                                                                                                                      See item 405.
400        2             6             C 7.4.3.3, Page 6-8 & WA             It seems these do not belong this Article.                                         Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Commentary C 6.4, C6.4.1, C6.4.2, and                                                                          Fixed.                                                     Yes              Yes              No             No
                                       C7.4.3.4, Page 6-9                                                                                                                             C7.4.3.4 are adopted from ATC 49 Commentary
                                                                                                                                                                                      C7.4.3. Since ATC 49 specifications were not used
                                                                                                                                                                                      in the Guide Spec. recommend move these
                                                                                                                                                                                      commentaries to parking lot.

401        2             6             6.4.5, Page 6-12       WA            Should we use fc' instead of fce' in equations (6.10) and                          Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/02/07 - See item number 243.                                                                                         Fixed.                                                     Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                            (6.11)?




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Page 19 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                       LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                     11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                          Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section           Article            State/                        Initial Comment                               Initial Response        Lead Person                   Lead Person's Comments                                 Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                   Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                    Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                             Name                           (by Originator)                              (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

402        2             6             6.5                   WA/ Tony      Section 6.5 Drilled Shafts, 3rd paragraph – The effects of                            Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.           Move the following sentence from the 3rd paragraph in            Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 Sentence Added per comment. See       Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                             Allen         liquefaction on lateral soil strength must be taken into                                                                                                               Article 6.6 to the end of Article 6.4.4: "The effects of         modified guide spec.
                                                                           account for shafts, but no mention of this is made for pile                                                                                                            liquefaction on loss of P −y strength shall be considered in
                                                                           foundations. This should also be stated for pile                                                                                                                       SDC D."
                                                                           foundations.
403        2             6             6.5                   WA/ Tony      Section 6.5 Drilled Shafts, 4th paragraph – The second                                Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.           See Comment Insert #6 (see WORD Document: Chyuan-02- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment. See                 Yes              Yes            No             Yes
                                                             Allen         sentence states “the stable length can be determined by                                                                                                                09-2007.doc Comment Insert #6).                      revised guide spec.
                                                                           applying a 1.5 multiplier factor on the lateral forces
                                                                           considered in determining the tip of the shaft required for
                                                                           lateral stability.” First, this is in effect a load factor that
                                                                           probably belongs in Section 3 of the LRFD Specifications
                                                                           rather than being buried here. Secondly, is this multiplier
                                                                           only to be applied to the seismic forces or all forces
                                                                           contributing to lateral load for the extreme event limit
                                                                           state? Thirdly, most states would apply the unfactored
                                                                           seismic forces, at least I believe that is the case, and tip the
                                                                           shaft somewhere between the first and second inflection
                                                                           points. If a multiplier is applied to the lateral forces, to
                                                                           what inflection point should the shaft be taken?


404        2             6             6.5, Page 6-14        WA            3rd paragraph, use lower case "p" for p-y strength.                                   Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/06/07 Agree.                                                                                                          Editorial                                                 Yes              Yes            No             No
405        2             6             6.5, Page 6-14        WA            4th paragraph, Need additional criteria to define "stable                             Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/06/07 Add two paragraphs to C6.5. (File                                                                               See Revised guide spec.                                   Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                           length".                                                                                                       attached: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc C6-5)
406        2             6             6.6, Page 6-15        WA            3rd paragraph, use lower case "p" for p-y strength.                                   Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/06/07 Agree.                                                                                                          Editorial                                                 Yes              Yes            No             No
407        2             6             6.7.1                 WA/ Tony      Section 6.7.1 – The recommended design acceleration may                               Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.           I recommend that the contents of Article 6.7.1 be deleted        Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Will keep Article and Revise when the Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                             Allen         change as a result of the current NCHRP project on                                                                                                                     and that this article should simply refer to Section 11 of the   results of NCHRP 12-70 are available.
                                                                           seismic design of walls.                                                                                                                                               LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Much of this section
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  is likely to change once the results of NCHRP 12-70 are
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  available.
408        2             6             6.8                   WA/ Tony      Section 6.8, 2nd paragraph – Not designing for liquefaction                           Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.           See Comment Insert #7 (see WORD Document: Chyuan-02-             Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment. See     Yes              Yes            No             Yes
                                                             Allen         if the magnitude is less than 6.5 or 6.7 is a little too                                                                                                               09-2007.doc Comment Insert #7).                                  revised guide spec.
                                                                           unconservative. A shallow crustal earthquake of this
                                                                           magnitude can cause widespread damage and can therefore
                                                                           be unsafe. An earthquake less than magnitude 6.0 would
                                                                           be a more reasonable criterion. The recommended
                                                                           minimum magnitude required to cause liquefaction also
                                                                           conflicts with Appendix D of this report, which appears to
                                                                           indicate a magnitude 6.0 earthquake is a more appropriate
                                                                           cut off. What is the justification of this criterion? I
                                                                           understand that this criterion may have come from a report
                                                                           by Steve Dickenson of OSU performed for ODOT, and
                                                                           that his recommendation does not have national
                                                                           applicability, but is specific to the seismic conditions in
                                                                           Oregon. Appendix D provides criteria for when
                                                                           liquefaction need not be considered. Why not use those
                                                                           criteria?

409        2             7             General               WA            Needs to update articles refer to AASHTO LRFD                                         Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                          REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                             2-28-7: finalized                                         Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                           Provisions. They have been revised and moved.                                                                                                                         LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
410        2             7             7.2, Page 7-2 & 7-3   WA            delete underline for "Type 1, 2 and 3"                                                Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   02/06/07 Agree.                                        REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                             2-28-7: finalized                                         Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
411        2             7             C7.3, Page 7-4        WA            Article X.X.                                                                          Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   02/06/07 As a result, only Grade 50 steels are         REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                             2-28-7: finalized                                         Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                          allowed within the scope of Article X.X 7.3, with a LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                          Ry of 1.1.                                             REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
412        2             7             C7.3, Page 7-5        WA            Last paragraph, Revise "Article 4.8" to "Article 4.11"                                Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   02/06/07 Agree                                         REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                             2-28-7: finalized                                         Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
413        2             7             7, Pages 7-15 through AK            Many of the commentary articles on these pages are                                    Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   Agree. Correct misnumbered and misnamed                REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                             2-28-7: finalized                                         Yes              Yes            No             No
                                       7-17                                misnumbered. In fact, most of these commentary articles                                                        commentary articles in Section 7 from about page 7- LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                           don’t have matching specification articles.                                                                    13 to the end of the section. (date 2-1-7)             REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
414        2             8             8.1 Page 8-1          WA            1st paragraph, Add a "," after "superstructure"                                       Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/06/07 Design and construction of concrete                                                                             Fixed.                                                    Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                          components that include superstructures, columns,
                                                                                                                                                                                          piers, footings and their connections shall conform
                                                                                                                                                                                          to the requirements of this section.
415        2             8             8.1 Page 8-1          WA            4th paragraph, Delete "either".                                                       Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/06/07 Agree. Delete "either" and add a"," after                                                                       Fixed.                                                    Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                          "not used". as follows: "If architectural flares or
                                                                                                                                                                                          other treatments are provided to columns adjacent to
                                                                                                                                                                                          potential plastic hinge zones, they shall be either
                                                                                                                                                                                          “structurally isolated” in such a way that they do not
                                                                                                                                                                                          add to the flexural strength capacity of the columns.
                                                                                                                                                                                          If “structural isolation” is not used, the column and
                                                                                                                                                                                          adjacent structural elements shall be designed to
                                                                                                                                                                                          resist the forces generated by increased flexural
                                                                                                                                                                                          strength capacity according to Article 8.14."

416        2             8             C8.1, Page 8-2        WA            2nd paragraph, Revise "Article X.X " to "Article 8.14.2".                             Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/06/07 As a result, only Grade 50 steels are                                                                           Modified.                                                 Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                          allowed within the scope of Article X.X 7.3, with a
                                                                                                                                                                                          Ry of 1.1.
417        2             8             8.4.1 8th Para.       AK            In the second bullet point, beginning “No longitudinal bar                            Elmer Marx               Agree. Delete the second bulleted item and replace it                                                                    2-28-7: RESOLVED                                          Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                           shall be farther than 6 inches…”, the last part of this                                                        with the following: "The spacing of hoops and ties
                                                                           sentence makes no sense.                                                                                       shall not exceed six inches as measured along any
                                                                                                                                                                                          individual longitudinal bar." (date 2-1-7)
418        2             8             8.4.2                 WA/ Jugesh    Article 8.4.2: (page 8-4). The reinforcing steel model is                             Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                                   Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07. Table added to include the properties Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                             Kapur         good for A706 reinforcing steel only. Not all states use                                                                                                                                                                                for A 615.
                                                                           A706. Please provide guidance for other reinforcing steel
                                                                           such as ASTM A615.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Page 20 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                      LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                           11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                        Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section           Article             State/                       Initial Comment                              Initial Response        Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                               Originator's Follow-Up Comment           Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                     Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                              Name                          (by Originator)                             (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                           Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

419        2             8             8.4.2, Page 8-4       WA             last sentence. Should we use different reduced ultimate                             Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Recommend modified as "A reduced                                                        Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07. See Revised Spec.                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            tensile strain for "#10 bars or smaller" and "#11 bars and                                                 ultimate tensile strain equal to 2/3 of ultimate tensile
                                                                            larger" since the ultimate tensile strains are different?                                                  strain shall be used for column longitudinal
                                                                                                                                                                                       reinforcement."
420        2             8             8.4.3, Page 8.5       WA             Both the ultimate prestress steel strain and reduced ultimate                       Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Recommend change 0.04 to 0.03                                                           Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07. See Revised Spec.                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            prestress steel strain are 0.04. Is this correct?                                                          (CALTRANS SDC 3.2.4)
421        2             8             Fig. 8.2              AK             Remove the reference to MPa in the title for the vertical                           Elmer Marx             Agree. Remove the figure's vertical axis label and                                               2-28-7: RESOLVED                                           Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            axis.                                                                                                      replace it with "Stress fps (KSI)." (date 2-1-7)
422        2             8             8.4.4, Page 8-7       WA             2nd paragraph. Do we need additional criteria to define the                         Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                         02-19-07: (by ELMER) as recommended by team,               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            the confined compressive strain and the ultimate                                                                                                                                                            references to Mander's model have been inserted into the
                                                                            compressive strain in addition to the Mander's model?                                                                                                                                                       commentary.
423        2             8             Eqn. 8.7              AK             For LRFD consistency, write equation in terms of ksi units.                         Elmer Marx             Agree. Replace "5000 (psi)" with "5 KSI." (date 2-1-                                             2-28-7: RESOLVED                                           Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       7)

424        2             8             8.6, Page 8-9         WA             Should we use fc' instead of fce' in equations (8.13), (8.20),                      Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/02/07 - See item number 243.                                                                  Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: See Revised Spec.                      Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            (8.28), (8.30a), (8.30b), (8.38), (8.39) and Article
                                                                            8.13.4.2?

425        2             8             8.6.1 1st Para        AK             In the last sentence, beginning “The shear demand for a                             Elmer Marx             Agree. Replace "Vd" with "Vult" throughout the                                                   02-19-07: ok                                               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            column…” reference should also be made to Article 4.11                                                     article. Add the following to the end of the last
                                                                            for the calculation of shear demand.                                                                       sentence of the second paragraph: "and as outlined
426        2             8             8.6.2                 AK             Why not reference Article 5.8 of the LRFD for shear                                 Elmer Marx             in Article 4.11." (date 2-1-7)this time. Since the
                                                                                                                                                                                       No rchange recommended at                                                                        02-19-07: Cleaned up equations.                            Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            capacity? Why should shear capacity be calculated                                                          AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
                                                                            differently for seismic loading than for gravity loading?                                                  shear provisions are not intrended to address plastic
                                                                                                                                                                                       hinge regions, they may not be appropriate without
                                                                                                                                                                                       modification. Future consideration of the UCSD
                                                                                                                                                                                       shear design method may be more compatable with
427        2             8             8.6.2, Page 8.6.2     WA             Should we useD' instead of D in equations (8.23), (8.25),                           Chyuan-Shen Lee        the AASHTO LRFD specifications. . (date 2-1-7)
                                                                                                                                                                                       02/06/07 Agree. Concrete cover spalled at very low                                               02-19-07: (by ELMER) agreed - fix made                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            and (8.27)?                                                                                                strain.



428        2             8             Eqns. 8.13 and 8.20   AK             For LRFD consistency, write equation in terms of kips and                           Elmer Marx             Agree. In all equations containing the square root of                                            02-19-07: done                                             Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            ksi units.                                                                                                 f'c, divide the mulitplier by 31.6. For example, 3.5 *
                                                                                                                                                                                       (f'c)^0.5 would become 0.11 * (f'c) ^ 0.5. (date 2-1-
                                                                                                                                                                                       7)
429        2             8             Eqns. 8.25 and 8.27   AK             There is no definition of the term “D” in Section 2. The                            Elmer Marx             Agree. All equations should be presented in the same                                             02-19-07: OK                                               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            shear depth in these equations should be that described in                                                 format as the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
                                                                            Article 5.8.2.9 and Equation C5.8.2.9-2 of the LRFD.                                                       Specifications including numbering, font, and
                                                                                                                                                                                       variable definitions. The definition of "D" does not
                                                                                                                                                                                       appear to be the same "D" as that in the AASHTO
                                                                                                                                                                                       speciications. The "D" in the seismic guide
                                                                                                                                                                                       specifications appears to be the confined core
                                                                                                                                                                                       diameter taken at the centerline of the hoop or spiral.
                                                                                                                                                                                       (date 2-1-7)
430        2             8             8.6.5                 AK             The upper limit on Vs should stated in Equations 8.25 and                           Elmer Marx             No change recommended at this time. Although the                                                 02-19-07: OK                                               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            8.27, e.g. “Vs = … ≤ 8√(f’ce)*Ac”                                                                          proposed change would streamline the equations and
                                                                                                                                                                                       metter mimic the AASHTO LRFD specifications,
                                                                                                                                                                                       the current consequence would require a
                                                                                                                                                                                       renumbering of all subsequent sections (date 2-1-7)

431        2             8             C8.6.3 Page 8-11      WA             2nd paragraph. Revise "Equations 8.6.3-1 and 8.6.3-2" to                            Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree.                                                                                  02-19-07: OK                                               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            "Equations 8.25 and 8.26"
432        2             8             C8.6.3 Page 8-11      WA             3nd paragraph. Revise "Figure C8.8.2.4-3" to "Figure                                Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree.                                                                                  02-19-07: figures have been renumbered. Have not removed Yes               Yes            No             No
                                                                            C8.6.3.3" and "200 mm" to"8 inches"                                                                                                                                                                         metric units but probably ok as-is.
433        2             8             8.6.7 & 8.6.8. Page 8- WA            Recommed to switch these two Article numbers since                                  Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree. Also revise "Table of contents".                                                 Fixed.                                                   Yes               Yes            No             No
                                       12                                   Articles 8.6.9 and 8.6.10 are spec. for Pier Wall.
434        2             8             8.7                    AK            The wording of the title of this section is odd. Suggest                            Elmer Marx             no change needed                                           OK                                    02-19-07: okay as-is                                       Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            “Requirements for the Design of Ductile Members”
435        2             8             8.7.1 1st Para.       AK             Please define what minimum flexural capacity is to be                               Elmer Marx             Agree. Replace the first paragraph with the                                                      02-19-07: see revised language                             Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            compared to the load (Mn, Mcr, My…).                                                                       following: "The minimum lateral flexural capacity of
                                                                                                                                                                                       each column shall be such that: Mne > 0.1 * Pdl *
                                                                                                                                                                                       (Hh+ 0.5 * Ds) / L where: Mne = the nominal
                                                                                                                                                                                       moment capacity of the column based upon expected
                                                                                                                                                                                       material properties Pdl = the unfactored axial dead
                                                                                                                                                                                       load demand acting at the base of the column Hh =
                                                                                                                                                                                       the height from the top of the footing to the top of
                                                                                                                                                                                       the column or the equivalent column height for a pile
                                                                                                                                                                                       extension column Ds = superstructure depth L =
                                                                                                                                                                                       fixity factor for the column." THE REVISED
                                                                                                                                                                                       LANGUAGE SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY ROY
                                                                                                                                                                                       IMBSEN AND/OR CALTRANS. (dated 2-1-7)

436        2             8             8.7.1 1st Para.       AK             What LRFD load case should be used to calculate Pdl?                                Elmer Marx             See reponse to comment number 435. (date 2-1-7)                                                  02-19-07: have team review revised Article 8.7.1           Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                            Where is the lateral load to be applied?
437        2             8             8.7.1 1st Para.       AK             What is the purpose of specifying a minimum lateral load                            Elmer Marx             No action required at this time. Perhaps in the future OK                                        02-19-07: see revised Article 8.7.1                        Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            capacity? Shouldn’t the Strength, or other Extreme, load                                                   additional commentary can be added. (date 2-1-7)
                                                                            cases be sufficient? In which SDC’s does this provision
                                                                            apply?
438        2             8             Commentary, Page 8- WA               1st paragraph, "Equation 7.8.2.5-1 or 8.8.2.5-1". This                              Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Revise the paragraph as follows: "                                                      02-19-07: OK                                               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                       13                                   commentary is copied from NCHRP 12-49 commentary                                                           Condition (a) is prevented by using the maximum
                                                                            C8.8.2.5 needs to revised.                                                                                 vertical spacing of transverse reinforcement given by
                                                                                                                                                                                       Article 8.8.9.”
439        2             8             8.8.4                 AK             The term 24dbl doesn’t need to be units-specific.                                   Elmer Marx             Agree. Remove the reference to the units. (date 2-1- suggest adding equation rather than text    02-19-07: See proposed equation form rather than text      Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       7)
440        2             8             C8.6.7, Page 8-14     WA             Commentary for Wall-Type Pier should be C8.6.10.                                    Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree. Requirements for pier wall                                                       02-19-07: OK                                               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                       reinforcement is in Article 8.6.10 not 8.6.7.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Page 21 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                               LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                               11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                 Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section          Article        State/                       Initial Comment                             Initial Response        Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                           Originator's Follow-Up Comment                      Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                  Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                        Name                          (by Originator)                            (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                               Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

441        2             8             Eqn. 8.35        AK            Why is the expected steel yield strength (fye) used in this                        Elmer Marx             Agree. In all locations where the member resistance OK                                                  02-19-07: OK                                            Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                      equation, but not the expected concrete strength?                                                         is being provided (such as when calculating the
                                                                                                                                                                                strength of a capacity-protected member), the
                                                                                                                                                                                nominal strength (Fy, f'c) should be specified and
                                                                                                                                                                                not the expected strength (Fye, f'ce). This comment
                                                                                                                                                                                applies to Articles 8.6.2, 8.6.5, 8.6.9, 8.7.2, 8.8.6,
                                                                                                                                                                                8.13.2, 8.13.4.2, 6.4.5, and perhaps others that I
                                                                                                                                                                                have overlooked. (date 2-1-7)

442        2             8             8.9 1st Para.    AK            Why no mention of the required shear capacity of capacity                          Elmer Marx             Agree. Delete this article and replace it with the     OK                                               02-19-07: OK                                            Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                      protected members?                                                                                        following: "Design members such as footings, bent
                                                                                                                                                                                caps, oversized pile shafts, joints, and girders that
                                                                                                                                                                                are adjacent to plastic hinge location to remain
                                                                                                                                                                                essentially elastic when the plastic hinge reaches its
                                                                                                                                                                                overtrength capacity, Mpo and the correspond shear
                                                                                                                                                                                and axial demands." Also see response to comment
                                                                                                                                                                                number 441. (date 2-1-7)
443        2             8             8.11             WA/ Jugesh    Should MO in article 8.11 and MOCOL in article 8.13.4.1                            Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree. To be consistent, also revise Figure                                                    02-19-07: (by ELMER) fixed Article 8.11. Refer to new   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                        Kapur         be MPO ?                                                                                                  8.7.                                                                                                    Article 8.13
444        2             8             8.12 1st Para.   AK            Shouldn’t the lateral force transfer mechanism be stronger                         Elmer Marx             Agree. In SDC C and D, plastic hinging is                                                               2-28-7: LOADS BETTER DEFINED                            Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                      than the shear Vd from Article 8.6.1?                                                                     anticipated and the requirements should be similar to
                                                                                                                                                                                those previously stated in the guide specifications
                                                                                                                                                                                (e.g. 8.6.1). In SDC C and D, the use of the lower of
                                                                                                                                                                                the plastic hinging forces and the elastic EQ forces
                                                                                                                                                                                is unwarranted and the forces associtated with
                                                                                                                                                                                plastic hinging should be used. Remove the first
                                                                                                                                                                                paragraph and replace it with the following: "Satisfy
                                                                                                                                                                                the transverse design requirements for frames and
                                                                                                                                                                                bents with integral bent caps. Provide a lateral force
                                                                                                                                                                                transfer mechanism at the superstructure-to-
                                                                                                                                                                                substructure interface that is capable of transfering
                                                                                                                                                                                the maximum lateral force associated with plastic
                                                                                                                                                                                hinging of the ERS." (date 2-1-7)

445        2             8             8.13 all         AK            Why are there no provisions for joint design in non-integral                       Elmer Marx             Agree. Propose a new Article 8.13 that includes both OK                                                 02-19-07: currently working on new joint design         Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                      bent caps? Alaska DOT has developed a procedure for                                                       integral and non-integral cap beam joints. Will try to                                                  specifications.
                                                                      stress checking and detailing those joints which looks very                                               submit first draft ASAP perhaps before 2-8-7. (date
                                                                      similar to what is presented in Article 8.13.                                                             2-1-7)

446        2             8             C8.8.4.4         WA/ Jugesh    C8.8.4.4 (page 8-21) recommends making the footing                                 Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree. Recommend adopting effective                                                            02-19-07: refer to revised article and equation. NEED Yes               Yes            No             No
                                                        Kapur         effective width equal to footing effective depth, while                                                   width used by Priestley (p.408, “Seismic Design and                                                     INPUT FROM TEAM AND DR. IMBSEN. Chyuan-Shen
                                                                      LRFD 5.13.3.5 allows entire footing width to be used for                                                  Retrofit of Bridges.” Add “ The footing effective                                                       3/1/07: Team discuss this comment and accept Elmer's
                                                                      moment design in a two-way square footing. This                                                           width is defined as the column diameter or width of                                                     Proposal.
                                                                      requirement may result in a very deep and uneconomical                                                    column plus two times of the effective depth of the
                                                                      footing.                                                                                                  footing.” before “If a larger …” and Add “For
                                                                                                                                                                                footings exhibiting rigid response and satisfying
                                                                                                                                                                                joint shear criteria the entire width of the footing can
                                                                                                                                                                                be considered effective in resisting the column
                                                                                                                                                                                overstrength flexure and the associated shear
                                                                                                                                                                                (Article 6.4.6).” at end of paragraph.
447        2             Appendix      Appendix B       WA/ Tony      Appendix B, Provisions for Site Exploration – Much of                              Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. Agree                                                                                         JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.     Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                        Allen         this appendix is a repeat of what is already covered in                                                                                                                                                           Parking lot.
                                                                      Article 10.4 of the LRFD specifications. I recommend that
                                                                      only Sections B.2.2 and B.3.2, which describe special
                                                                      requirements for characterization and laboratory testing of
                                                                      soil for seismic analysis, be left in this appendix. The rest
                                                                      of this appendix should be deleted and instead Article 10.4
                                                                      be referred to.

448        2             Appendix      Appendix D       WA/ Tony       Appendix D, Liquefaction design – I was told at the T-3                           Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.       See Comment Insert #8 (see WORD Document: Chyuan-02- JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.    Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                        Allen         meeting at the AASHTO Subcommittee meeting in may in                                                      PGA Maps are included in the guide specification in 09-2007.doc Comment Insert #8).                      Parking lot.
                                                                      Utah that liquefaction would be estimated based on the                                                    December 06 version. (Figure 3.4.1-2a & 2b).
                                                                      spectral acceleration at 1 second rather than the peak
                                                                      ground acceleration. The provisions in the draft report
                                                                      indicate that liquefaction design is to be conducted in
                                                                      accordance with Appendix D, which appears to recommend
                                                                      using peak ground acceleration, though it recommends that
                                                                      the PGA be calculated as 0.4SDS, where SDS is the short
                                                                      period spectral acceleration. Peak ground acceleration is
                                                                      what we should be using for liquefaction design. It makes
                                                                      no sense to use a spectral acceleration, especially
                                                                      considering that liquefaction design is empirical in nature,
                                                                      and changing to a spectral acceleration will mess up the
                                                                      empirical design model.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Page 22 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                 LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                   11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                   Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment     Section         Article            State/                       Initial Comment                              Initial Response        Lead Person                 Lead Person's Comments                               Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                       Resolved By    Resolved By       Parking Lot        Major
 Number         Cycle                                         Name                          (by Originator)                             (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Lead?          Team?             Issue?           Item?

449        2             Appendix    Appendix D          WA/ Tony      Furthermore, a spectral acceleration is the acceleration on a                       Chyuan-Shen Lee        See Item 448.                                         See Item 448.                                                   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.         Yes             Yes               Yes            No
                                                         Allen         structure with 5% damping as it is currently defined and                                                                                                                                                                         Parking lot.
                                                                       has little to do with the forces needed to generate
                                                                       liquefaction in soils. If there is some future plan to require
                                                                       a spectral acceleration to be used to estimate liquefaction, I
                                                                       strongly recommend against doing that. Also, while
                                                                       approximating the PGA as 0.4SDS will yield an
                                                                       approximately correct value of PGA, it would be more
                                                                       accurate to get the PGA directly from a USGS developed
                                                                       acceleration map as we have done in the past. I strongly
                                                                       encourage the T-3 committee to request the USGS to also
                                                                       product a 1,000 yr PGA map, as we need the PGA not only
                                                                       for liquefaction assessment, but also for determining
                                                                       seismic earth pressure for retaining wall and abutment wall
                                                                       design.
450        2             Appendix    Appendix D          WA/ Tony      Appendix D – This appendix was written before the major                             Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.         I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.         Yes             Yes               Yes            No
                                                         Allen         rewrite of Section 10 (Foundations) of the LRFD design                                                                                                           more specific input can be developed.                           Parking lot?
                                                                       specifications. Furthermore, the appendix appears to refer
                                                                       to other appendices that are part of the report from which
                                                                       this appendix was originally published, but that are not part
                                                                       of the subject report. Therefore, this appendix needs some
                                                                       updating to be consistent with the recently rewritten Section
                                                                       10 of the LRFD specifications, especially for areas where
                                                                       there is significant overlap between this Appendix and
                                                                       Section 10 (e.g., lateral load analysis of deep foundations,
                                                                       designing for downdrag, etc.), and to be consistent with the
                                                                       subject report. This is especially important if it is intended
                                                                       to make Appendix D a special appendix to the AASHTO
                                                                       LRFD Design specifications. I expect that this will take a
                                                                       considerable cross-checking effort to compare Appendix D
                                                                       with the current LRFD specifications.




451        2             Figures     Figures             WA            Revise Figure 3.3.3. "Earthquake Resisting Elements that                            Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree. To be consistent with Article 3.3.                                                                    JQ 02-22-07: Modified to "…not Recommended".                Yes             Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                       are not Permitted for New Bridges" to "Earthquake
                                                                       Resisting Elements that are not Recommended for New
                                                                       Bridges"
452        2             Figures     Figures             WA            Revise Figure 5.4. Revise [x]                                                       Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Add Reference: Priestley, M.J.N., Seible,                                                                    Reference Will be added.                                    Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                  F., and Chai, Y.H., Design Guidelines for
                                                                                                                                                                                  Assessment Retrofit and Repair of Bridges for
                                                                                                                                                                                  Seismic Performance, Report No. SSRP-92/01,
                                                                                                                                                                                  Dept. Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences,
                                                                                                                                                                                  University of California, San Diego, 1992, 266 pp."

453        2             Figures     Figures             WA            Revise Figure 6.2. "Flowchart for Design of a New                                   Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree. Revise List of Figures.                                                                               Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: See revised guide spec.                 Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                       Column on Spread Footing" to "Flowchart for Design of a
                                                                       New Column on Spread Footing using Rocking Analysis"

454        2             General     General             WA            Guidelines are inconsistent throughout using "chapter",                             Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree.                                                                                                       Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: See revised guide spec.                 Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                       'Section", and "Article" interchangebly. Recommend
                                                                       use"Section" for chapter Title and "Article" for others
                                                                       (consistent with LRFD spec.).
455        2             General     General             WA            Commentary should be adjacent and alignmented with                                  Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree                                                                                                        Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: See revised guide spec.                 Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                       specification.
456        2             General     General             WA            Commentary should use the same title as specification                               Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/06/07 Agree                                                                                                        Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: See revised guide spec.                 Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                       (similar to Appendices ) or use Aritcle number w/o title
                                                                       (consistent with LRFD spec.)
457        2             General     General             WA/ Tony      15. In general, I saw no recommendations on load or                                 Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.         I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Load Factors are specified in Article   Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                         Allen         resistance factors (other than 9. Section 6.5 Drilled Shafts).                                                                                                   more specific input can be developed.                           3.7. See revised guide spec.
                                                                       Shouldn’t some recommendations be provided on this
                                                                       issue?
458        2             General     General             AK            Please align commentary so that is always next to the                               Elmer Marx             Agree. In addition, some of the commentary is                                                                         2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                       relevant Article. It is confusing to have commentary from                                                  inappropriate or unnecessary and should be
                                                                       one Article next to specifications from a different Article.                                               removed. Presumably, the needed changes will be
                                                                                                                                                                                  based upon a comment-y-comment basis.
                                                                                                                                                                                  PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE
                                                                                                                                                                                  ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date 2-1-7)
459        2             General     General             AK            Equation and Table numbering is inconsistent with LRFD                              Elmer Marx             Agree. PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL                                                                                 2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                       standards.                                                                                                 BE ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date 2-1-7)
460        2             General     General             AK            Please follow standard LRFD practice of consistently                                Elmer Marx             Agree. PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL                                                                                 2-28-7: RESOLVED                                            Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                       defining equation terms below the equation.                                                                BE ADDRESSED BY M&M. (date 2-1-7)
461        2             Table of    Table of Contents   WA            Recommend Delete "Section No."&"Page No.". (consistent                              Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                              Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                      with LRFD spec.).
462        2             Table of    Table of Contents   WA            Add Articles: 1.2.1 Project Direction from AASHTO T-3.                              Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                              Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                      1.2.2 Technical Assistance Agreement Between AASHTO
                                                                       and USGS
463        2             Table of    Table of Contents   WA            Add Article: 2.2 Definitions                                                        Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                              Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents
464        2             Table of    Table of Contents   WA            Add Articles:3.4.2.1 Site Class Definition. 3.4.2.2                                 Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                              Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                      Definitions of Site Class Parameters. 3.4.2.3 Site
                                                                       Coefficients.
465        2             Table of    Table of Contents   WA            Revise 4.1.1. "Balanced Stiffness" to "Balanced Stiffness                           Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                              Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                      SDC D"
466        2             Table of    Table of Contents   WA            Revise 4.1.2. "Balanced Frame Geometry" to "Balanced                                Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                              Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                      Frame Geometry SDC D"




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Page 23 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                    LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                              11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                      Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article           State/                       Initial Comment                            Initial Response         Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                           Originator's Follow-Up Comment                             Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                       Resolved By    Resolved By       Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                             Name                          (by Originator)                           (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                            Lead?          Team?             Issue?            Item?

467        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Revise 4.7. "Design Requirements for Seismic Design                               Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          Categories B, C, and D" to "Design Requirements for
                                                                           Seismic Design Categories (SDC) B, C, and D"
468        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Revise 4.8.2. "Local Displacement Capacity for SDC D" to                          Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          "Local Displacement Capacity for SDC D (i.e., Pushover
                                                                           Analysis)"
469        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Revise 4.13. "Support Restraints for SDC B, C AND D" to                           Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          "Support Restraints for SDC C AND D"
470        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Add Articles:5.2.3.1 Abutment Longitudinal Response for                           Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          SDC B and C 5.2.3.2 Abutment Longitudinal Response
                                                                           for SDC D 5.2.3.3 Abutment Stiffness and Passive
                                                                           Pressure Estimate
471        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Add Articles:5.2.4.1 Abutment Transverse Response for                             Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          SDC B and C 5.2.3.2 Abutment Transverse Response
                                                                           for SDC D
472        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Revise 5.6.1. "Effective Section Properties For Seismic                           Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          Analysis" to "Effective Reinforced Concrete Section
                                                                           Properties For Seismic Analysis"
473        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Revise 5.6.2. "Ec Ieff and GAeff For Ductile Members" to                          Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          "Ec Ieff and (GA)eff For Reinforced Concrete Ductile
                                                                           Members"
474        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Revise 7. "SUPERSTRUCTURE STEEL COMPONENT"                                        Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          to "STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPONENT"

475        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Recommend to switch Article 8.6.7 and Article 8.6.8. Since                        Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          Articles 8.6.9 and 8.6.10 are spec. for pier wall.
476        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Revise 8.7.2. "Maximum Axial Load in A Ductile                                    Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          Member" to "Maximum Axial Load in A Ductile Member
                                                                           in SDC C and D"
477        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            Add Articles:8.13.4.1 Principal Stress Definition                                 Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents                                          8.13.4.2 Minimum Joint Shear Reinforcement SDC C or D
                                                                           8.13.4.3 Joint Shear Reinforcement SDC D
478        2             Table of      Table of Contents     WA            ADD "REFERENCES" at End of each Section                                           Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No
                         Contents
479        2             Tables        Tables                WA            Delete ":" at Table 3.4.2-1, 3.4.2.3-1, 3.4.2.3-2 and 3.5.1                       Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         JQ 02-22-07: Removed ":" from Figures in Section 3          Yes             Yes               No             No

480        2             Tables        Tables                WA            Delete Table 7.3. It's not included in Spec.                                      Chyuan-Shen Lee                                                                                                                         Chyuan-Shen 3/1/07: Editorial will be addressed by M&M. Yes                 Yes               No             No

501        3             3             C3.2                  MO            Table C3.2-1 that is referenced in commentary should be                           Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest                                                                     JQ 02-22-07: Paragraph deleted.                             Yes             Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                           Fig C3.3-1?                                                                                                deleting paragraph with this referecne. Table not in
                                                                                                                                                                                      Guide Specs.
502        3             3             C3.3                  MO            "C3.3" is shown on page 3-2 & 3-11                                                Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for                                                               JQ 02-22-07: Will change pending discusion regarding        Yes             Yes               No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                      CA to administer.                                                                                              overall commentary content in this discussion
503        3             3             C3.3                  MO            "Figure X.X" on page 3-13 should be Fig. 3.5.1?                                   Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Do not think                                                                JQ 02-22-07: Paragraph deleted.                             Yes             Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                      proper reference is Fig. 3.5.1. Suggest deleting
                                                                                                                                                                                      paragraph.
504        3             3             C3.4.5                MO            Section 3.4.5 does not exist.                                                     Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest                                                                     JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                   Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                      delting or modifying any references to this Article.
                                                                                                                                                                                      Suggest CA take lead on this.
505        3             3             Following 3.7         MO            Paragraph at top of page 3-25 appears to be a misprint                            Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Agree with                                                                  JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                   Yes             Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                           (Not the commentary)                                                                                       commenter. Suggest deleting paragraph.
506        3             4             C4.1.2                MO            "C4.1.2" is used twice                                                            Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest                                                                     Dan/IL 2/19/07: Commentary Deleted                          Yes             Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                      deleting second instance of C4.1.2 Minimum Seat
                                                                                                                                                                                      Widths. Is out of place here.
507        3             4             C4.3                  MO            Articles X.X and X.X?                                                             Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Suggest                                                                     Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes                Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                      deleting this commentary Article. It appears out of
                                                                                                                                                                                      context. The topic is really Eq. Static Analysis,
                                                                                                                                                                                      which is in Section 5 with a decent commentary in
                                                                                                                                                                                      C5.4.2.
508        3             4             4.3.3, Table 4.3      FHWA          The term Ss should be SDS                                                         Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Table 4.3 has been deleted by panel         02-12-07 OK                                               02-12-07 OK                                                 Yes             Yes               No             Yes
509        3             4             SDC B                 FHWA          Section 4.8 provides a displacement check based on a                              Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                        Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA               Yes             No                No             Yes
                                                                           capacity with only geometrical properties. There is no                                                                                                                                                                    proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                           section in the provisions that provides a check for                                                                                                                                                                       anticipated for resolution. … Need to add to the
                                                                           longitudinal reinforcing steel requirements                                                                                                                                                                               commentary that these formulas are valid if minimum steel
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     requirements are met -03-01-07
510        3             4             4.12                  FHWA          Change title to read "MINIMUM SUPPORT LENGTH                                      Derrell Manceaux         02/02/07 - Change title to read "MINIMUM                                                                       MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards       Yes             Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                                                           REQUIREMENTS" to be same as proposed LRFD specs                                                            SUPPORT LENGTH REQUIREMENTS" to be                                                                             consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                      same as proposed LRFD specs                                                                                    2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
511        3             4             4.12.1                FHWA          Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 4.15 and the                                Derrell Manceaux         02/02/07 - Delete the variable ∆ot from equation   02-12-07- Elmer did not make this correction but did make   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards       Yes             Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                                                           definition for ∆ot.                                                                                        4.15 and the definition for ∆ot.                   same suggestion in his attachment                           consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
512        3             4             4.12.1, ∆ot           FHWA           The definition for ∆ot should not be 1 inch per 100 feet of                      Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Comment will go away if #511 is adopted                                                               MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards       Yes             Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                                                           length between joints, but rather 1 inch per 100 feet from                                                                                                                                                                consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                           the point of no movement                                                                                                                                                                                                  2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
513        3             4             4.12.1 & 4.12.2,      FHWA          The denominator of 4000 should only be under the "S"                              Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 OK                                        02-12-07 OK                                                 02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07:           Yes             Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                       Formula 4.15 & 4.16                 (skew) and not the denominator for the entire formula.                                                                                                                                                                    Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     agree…………Dan/IL 2/19/07: Support width provsions
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     edited revised to be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
514        3             4             4.12.2                FHWA          Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 4.15 and the                                Derrell Manceaux         02/02/07 - Delete the variable ∆ot from equation                                                               MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards       Yes             Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                                                           definition for ∆ot.                                                                                        4.15 and the definition for ∆ot.                                                                               consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     consistent with LRFD Code Ballot




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Page 24 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                      LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                  11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                        Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article            State/                       Initial Comment                             Initial Response         Lead Person                   Lead Person's Comments                                 Originator's Follow-Up Comment           Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                       Resolved By    Resolved By      Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                              Name                          (by Originator)                            (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                 Lead?          Team?            Issue?            Item?

515        3             4             4.12.2                 FHWA          Delete the variable ∆ot from the sentence "∆ot and Sk are                          Derrell Manceaux         02/02/07 - Delete the variable ∆ot from the sentence 02-12-07 Same as 511                          02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07:            Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             No
                                                                            defined in in Article 4.12.1"                                                                               "∆ot and Sk are defined in in Article 4.12.1"                                                      Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           agree…………Dan/IL 2/19/07: Support width provsions
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           edited revised to be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
516        3             4             4.12.2                 FHWA          First sentence, change the word "width" to "length" and                            Derrell Manceaux         02/02/07 - First sentence, change the word "width"                                                 MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards        Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             Yes
                                                                            delete the words "thermal movement, prestress shortening,                                                   to "length" and delete the words "thermal movement,                                                consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                            creep, shrinkage, and the"                                                                                  prestress shortening, creep, shrinkage, and the"                                                   2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
517        3             4             4.12                   FHWA          Correct Figure 4.3 to remove ∆ot from figure                                       Derrell Manceaux         02/02/07 - See attachment                                                                          MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards        Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
518        3             4             4.12                   FHWA          Add commentary similar to LRFD. C4.12 Support lengths                              Derrell Manceaux         02/02/07 - Add commentary similar to LRFD.                                                         MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards        Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             Yes
                                                                            are equal to the length of the overlap between the girder                                                   C4.12 Support lengths are equal to the length of the                                               consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                            and seat as shown in figure4.3. To satisfy the minimum                                                      overlap between the girder and seat as shown in                                                    2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                            values for N in this Article, the overall seat width will be                                                figure4.3. To satisfy the minimum values for N in                                                  consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
                                                                            larger than N by an amount equal to movments due to                                                         this Article, the overall seat width will be larger than
                                                                            prestress shortening, cree, shrinkage, and thermal                                                          N by an amount equal to movments due to prestress
                                                                            expansion/contraction. THe minimum values for N given in                                                    shortening, cree, shrinkage, and thermal
                                                                            equations 4.15 & 4.16 includes arbitrary allowance for                                                      expansion/contraction. THe minimum values for N
                                                                            cover concrete at the end of the girder face of the seat. If                                                given in equations 4.15 & 4.16 includes arbitrary
                                                                            above average cover is used at these locations, N should be                                                 allowance for cover concrete at the end of the girder
                                                                            increased accordingly                                                                                       face of the seat. If above average cover is used at
                                                                                                                                                                                        these locations, N should be increased accordingly

519        3             4             4.12.2, Formula4.16    FHWA          Is the term ∆eq increased with the multiplier in 4.3.3?                            Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 OK                                                02-12-07 OK                             02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07:            Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           agree…………Dan/IL 2/19/07: Support width provsions
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           edited revised to be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
520        3             4             4.14, 1st paragraph    FHWA          Two design levels are referenced. There is only one design                         Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Correct paragraph to read as shown in the                                                 Dan/IL 2/19/07: Actually, do not think Roy was technically   Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                            level                                                                                                       attachment                                                                                         wrong, but his language was cleaned up.
521        3             4             4.14, 1st paragraph    FHWA          Sections 7.1 & 7.2 are incorrect references                                        Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Section 7.1 & 7.2 are for steel only. Add                                                 Dan/IL 2/19/07: References deleted and verbaige cleaned      Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                        the words "for steel and concrete structures"                                                      up.
522        3             4             4.14, 2cd paragraph    FHWA          shear keys are often poured at a second pour. For this                             Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Correct paragraph to read as shown in the                                                 Dan/IL 2/19/07: Reformatting, I think, cleaned this up.      Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                            reason, the "monolithic" shear factor should be changed to                                                  attachment
                                                                            reflect the actual condition..ie…"roughened surface" when
                                                                            applicable
523        3             6             6.3.1                  MO            Appears to an error in equation 6.4?                                               Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest                                                         3-6-07 SB Rocking Analysis has been moved to Appendix.       Yes             Yes              Yes            Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                        moving to Parking Lot
524        3             6             C6.3.1                 MO            Table C3.2-1 that is referenced in commentary should be                            Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest                                                         2-15-07-SB Edited                                            Yes             Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
                                                                            Fig C3.3-1?                                                                                                 deleting "as suggested in Table C3.2.1".
525        3             6             6.3.2, Forces from     FHWA          After the longitudinal force and transverse for rocking are                        Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Rocking analysis has been removed by the 02-12-07 OK                                      02-12-07 OK                                                  Yes             Yes              No             Yes
                                       rocking analysis                     calculated, are they combined with the 2 different                                                          panel
                                                                            100%+30% cases?
526        3             6             6.3.2 & 6.3.4,         FHWA          6.3 is covered under spread footing, but near end of 6.3.4                         Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Rocking analysis has been removed by the 02-12-07 OK                                      02-12-07 OK                                                  Yes             Yes              No             No
                                       Rocking analysis                     column design is being covered by following flow chart.                                                     panel
                                                                            How does this fit in spread footing?-very confusing
527        3             6             6.3.4                  MO            Information for Mo>Mr is lacking.                                                  Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest                                                         3-6-07 SB Rocking Analysis has been moved to Appendix.       Yes             Yes              Yes            Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                        moving to Parking Lot
528        3             6             6.3.4, Rocking         FHWA          The formulas and procedures given are for a single colum                           Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Rocking analysis has been removed by the 02-12-07 OK                                      02-12-07 OK                                                  Yes             Yes              No             Yes
                                       analysis                             bent. How are multiple column bents analyzed in the                                                         panel
                                                                            transverse direction? I question if we should be doing a
                                                                            rocking analysis in the DESIGN phase. This should only be
                                                                            performed in a retrofit scheme
529        3             6             C6.4.2                 MO            Numbering error with "C7.4.3.3" in Commentary C6.4.2                               Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggest                                                         2-15-07 SB Edited                                            Yes             Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                        moving to Parking Lot
530        3             7             C7.5.3, wrong          FHWA          Wrong commentary numbers and sections starting on page                             Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   02-12-07 Stephanie is working on this item        REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY            2-28-7: finalized                                            Yes             Yes              No             No
                                       commentary                           7-14 through7-17                                                                                                                                              LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
531        3             8             8.3.2, 1st paragraph   FHWA          8.3.2 indictaes design column for minimum of plastic                               Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Rocking analysis has been removed by the 02-12-07 OK                                      02-12-07 OK                                                  Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             Yes
                                                                            hinge, elastic forces, but 6.3.4 indicates column can be                                                    panel
                                                                            design with rocking analysis-Conflicting
532        3             8             8.4.1                  MO            Clarify for circular columns: "Hoops and ties shall be                             Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Suggest to                                                     3-6-07 SB This material moved to Art. 8.6 and wording        Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                            arranged so that every corner and alternate longitudinal bar                                                clarify that this requirement is applicable only to                                                clarified.
                                                                            has lateral support provided by the corner of a tie having                                                  rectangular columns.
                                                                            an included angle of not more than 135 degrees."
533        3             8             8.4.1                  MO            Clarify “No longitudinal bar shall be farther than 6 inches                        Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Suggest to                                                     3-6-07 SB This material moved to Art. 8.6 and wording        Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                            clear on each side along the tie from such a laterally                                                      clarify that this requirement is applicable only to                                                clarified.
                                                                            supported bar.”                                                                                             rectangular columns.
534        3             8             8.4.2                  MO            Why does SDC D require A706 reinforcing steel? Is it                               Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggested                                                       3-6-07 SB More guidance on material properties provided in Yes               Yes              No             No
                                                                            welding requirements? If reinforcement not going to be                                                      response to MO: Our understanding is that A706                                                     Art 8.4.2
                                                                            welded, is A706 still required? Is it due to the greater                                                    has greater ductility in addtion to other good
                                                                            quality control as discussed in the commentary of the                                                       qualities.
                                                                            current LRFD AASHTO Section 5.4.3.1?
535        3             8             8.4.2, Last sentence   FHWA          Ultimate strain of .12 or .09 is given based on bar size, but                      Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Need the Panel to help resolve this item                                                  02-19-07: (by ELMER) this requirements is taken directly     Yes             Yes 03-01-07     No             Yes
                                                                            it is .06 for longitudinal bars. Why is there no reference to                                                                                                                                                  from Clatrans SDC. The limit on longitudinal reinforcing
                                                                            bar size as ultimate strain requires?                                                                                                                                                                          strain is due to several factures such as high stress/low-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           cycle fatigue. No revision is likely needed at this time.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Page 25 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                          LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                             11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                            Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article              State/                        Initial Comment                              Initial Response         Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                               Originator's Follow-Up Comment                           Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                       Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                                Name                           (by Originator)                             (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                              Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

536        3             8             Figure 8.2, Mod of       FHWA          Es should be 28500 ksi, not 285000. Units of Mpa should                              Derrell Manceaux         02-12-07 Figure corrected in attachment                                                                                                                                      Yes             Yes            No             No
                                       Elast/Units                            be removed
537        3             8             8.4.4                    MO            Equation 8.7 indicates to use the greater of the two values.                         Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: We think it is                                                               3-6-07 SB Art. 8.4.4 edited to say: " The expected concrete Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                              Is this correct or should it be the minimum?                                                                  the greater of the two. However, the requirement                                                                compressive strength, fce , shall be taken as the most
                                                                                                                                                                                            implies a minimum concrete strength, correct? And                                                               probable long-term concrete strength based upon regional
                                                                                                                                                                                            if so, this miminum should be specified somewhere?                                                              experience and shall be taken as: 1.3*fc"
                                                                                                                                                                                            We suggest 3.5 ksi.

538        3             8             8.5, All                 FHWA          This section assumes pier is a single column bent. In                                Derrell Manceaux         02-13-07-1st paragraph, 3rd sentence change the                                                                 02-19-07: OK                                                 Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                              reality, an iteration is required to calculate axial load based                                               sentence to read as "The axial forcesconsidered in
                                                                              on plastic hinging forming in a multiple column bent and                                                      the section shall be based on dead load modified
                                                                              iterate to find new plastic moment with cooresponding                                                         with axial forces that are derived based on capacity
                                                                              plastic shears. Once new axial load is found, then new                                                        design principles included in Section 4.11.
                                                                              moment curvature analysis is required...iterate until
                                                                              convergence
539        3             8             8.5, last paragraph      FHWA          Paragraph indicates that capacity protected elemnts shall                            Derrell Manceaux         02-13-07- Comment is void since the panel              02-13-07 OK                                              02-13-07 OK                                                  Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                              be designed for moments with overstrength factors, but 6.3                                                    eliminated Rocking Analysis
                                                                              indicates footings can be designed for lessor of rocking or
                                                                              elastic analysis-Conflicting
540        3             8             8.6.1, eq 8.9            FHWA          Vd is checked against Vn, but Vo is listed as demand on                              Derrell Manceaux         02-13-07-Problem was resolved, but the variable                                                                 02-19-07: (by ELMER) suggest that shear demand by called Yes                 Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                              structure                                                                                                     "vd" should be added to the list of variables in                                                                Vu as is done throughout the AASHTO LRFD
                                                                                                                                                                                            Chapter 1                                                                                                       specifications. The term Vd would seeem to mean the dead
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            load shear.
541        3             8             8.6.2                    MO            Units for equation 8.13 appear to be in error (P should be                           Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are                                                                    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under     Yes                Yes            No             Yes
                                                                              multiplied by 1000)                                                                                           other comments associated with problems with the                                                                review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
                                                                                                                                                                                            shear strength Article as well. Will take further                                                               07 SB Equation modified.
                                                                                                                                                                                            investigations and revsions.
542        3             8             8.6.2                    MO            “fyt” is used in Eq. 8.14, 8.15, and 8.16 but the symbol is                          Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are                                                                    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under        Yes             Yes            No             yes
                                                                              not defined in Section 2.                                                                                     other comments associated with problems with the                                                                review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
                                                                                                                                                                                            shear strength Article as well. Will take further                                                               07 SB definitions provided.
                                                                                                                                                                                            investigations and revsions.
543        3             8             8.6.2                    MO            Units for Eq. 8.20 appear to be in error (P should be                                Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are                                                                    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under        Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                              multiplied by 1000?)                                                                                          other comments associated with problems with the                                                                review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
                                                                                                                                                                                            shear strength Article as well. Will take further                                                               07 SB Equation modified.
                                                                                                                                                                                            investigations and revsions.
544        3             8             8.6.2                    MO            “fyt” in Eq. 8.21 & 8.22 is not defined in Section 2                                 Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are                                                                    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under        Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                            other comments associated with problems with the                                                                review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
                                                                                                                                                                                            shear strength Article as well. Will take further                                                               07 SB definitions provided.
                                                                                                                                                                                            investigations and revsions.
545        3             8             8.6.2                    MO            “D” is not defined in Section 2                                                      Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are                                                                    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under        Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                            other comments associated with problems with the                                                                review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
                                                                                                                                                                                            shear strength Article as well. Will take further                                                               07 SB definitions provided.
                                                                                                                                                                                            investigations and revsions.
546        3             8             8.6.2 & 8.6.3            MO            Appears that Eq. 8.23 & 8.25 should use D’ instead of D.                             Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are                                                                    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under        Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                            other comments associated with problems with the                                                                review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
                                                                                                                                                                                            shear strength Article as well. Will take further                                                               07 SB Equation modified.
                                                                                                                                                                                            investigations and revsions.
547        3             8             8.6.2, eq 8.14-16,17-    FHWA          fyt is not defined                                                                   Derrell Manceaux         02-13-07- Variable fixed with Elmers revision of       02-13-07 OK                                              02-13-07 OK                                                  Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                       19,21-22                                                                                                                                             equations
548        3             8             8.6.2, eq 8.23           FHWA          Ds is defined as superstructure depth on page 2-2. The                               Derrell Manceaux         02-13-07 Elmer fixed this in his equations             02-13-07 OK                                              02-13-07 OK                                                  Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                              denominator, Ds, should be (diam of core x spiral spacing)

549        3             8             8.6.2, eq 8.25,27        FHWA          D is not defined                                                                     Derrell Manceaux         02-13-07- Elmer revised equations                      02-13-07 OK                                              02-13-07 OK                                                  Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
550        3             8             C8.6.3                   MO            Uses “D” but not defined in Section 2                                                Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: There are                                                                    MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: This Article under        Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                            other comments associated with problems with the                                                                review, scrutiny and revision by other team members. 3-6-
                                                                                                                                                                                            shear strength Article as well. Will take further                                                               07 SB definitions provided.
                                                                                                                                                                                            investigations and revsions.
551        3             8             C8.6.3, ii ρs            FHWA          D` is not defined in the denominator                                                 Derrell Manceaux         02-13-07- Elmer revised equations                      02-13-07 OK                                                02-13-07 OK                                                Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
552        3             8             8.6.6, min steel ratio   FHWA          ps of .2% provides a maximum transverse spacing of 14"                               Derrell Manceaux         02-13-07- Need discussion with Panel-Ask CA            02-19-07: (by ELMER) I agree that 0.2% seems pretty        JQ 03-08-07: SDC B minimum spiral reinforcement ratio      Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                              for a 4' diam column. This appears excessive to contain a                                                     policy                                                 small but perhaps the thought is that shear requirements   increased to 0.003 per Caltrans' recommendation.
                                                                              plastic hinge zone.                                                                                                                                                  may govern -- need to verify with Roy Imbsen and team.
553        3             8             8.6.6, min steel ratio   FHWA          There are no provisions for tighter transverse steel spacing                         Derrell Manceaux         02-13-07-Section 8.6.3 resolves this issue             02-13-07-Section 8.6.3 should have the title "Transverse                                                              Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                              in plastic zones versus "middle of column" zones                                                                                                                     Reinforcement for Confinement at Plastic Hinges" as shown
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   in Commentary
554        3             8             C8.6.7.1.1, units        FHWA          ksi should be used instead of Mpa                                                    Derrell Manceaux         02-13-07-Elmer missed this equation                    02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.13 -- this                                                                 Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   commentary is out of place and does not belong with "pier
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   walls in the weak direction." It appeasr to be for joints.
555        3             8             8.6.10                   MO            There appears to be a conflict between Section 8.6.10 and                            Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Further                                                                       02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.6.10.           Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                              Section 8.8.2 (Eq. 8.33 & 8.34)                                                                               investigation required.
556        3             8             8.7.1, min lateral       FHWA          This section appear to be the only flexural requirement in                           Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                         02-19-07: (by ELMER) good point. I'm not sure what the       Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                       strength                               calculating longitudinal steel in SDC B. The force is                                                                                                                                                                         proper answer is but I have tried to clarify the intent by
                                                                              .1xDead Load. This should be contributory mass the                                                                                                                                                                            providing an equation. THIS EQUATION MUST BE
                                                                              column will carry in an event. It is not clear if phi factors                                                                                                                                                                 REVIEWED BY CALTRANS AND ROY IMBSEN.
                                                                              are required or if this is compared to an elastic capacity or
                                                                              plastic capacity. Also, this is only valid for a single column
                                                                              since a multiple column bent will have different DL’s.
                                                                              Since they will deflect the same amount due to the rigid
                                                                              diaphragm, they will require the same flexural capacity.
                                                                              My example problem has an acceleration is .191 so the
                                                                              actual force is doubled from the minimum capacity
                                                                              requirements.
557        3             8             8.8, SDC B               FHWA          Since plastic hinging can form in SDC B, there should not                            Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                         02-19-07: (by ELMER) I tend to agre but this issue is best No                No             Yes-03-01-07   Yes
                                                                              be provisions permitting lessor requirements than in SDC                                                                                                                                                                      addressed by Roy Imbsen and Caltrans. JQ 03-08-07: DM
                                                                              C,D in the plastic hinge zone                                                                                                                                                                                                 suggested to place in parking lot for next revisions.

558        3             8             8.8.2, min steel ratio FHWA            How does 8.8.2 min steel differ from min steel in 8.7.1?                             Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                                                                    No                No             No             Yes
559        3             8             8.8.3, splicing in SDC FHWA            Since plastic hinging can form in SDC B, there should not                            Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                         JQ 03-08-07: DM suggested to place in parking lot for next No                No             Yes-03-01-07   Yes
                                       B                                      be provisions permitting splicing in the plastic hinge zone                                                                                                                                                                   revisions.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 26 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                        LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                          11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                          Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section           Article            State/                          Initial Comment                             Initial Response         Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                                 Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                  Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                       Resolved By     Resolved By       Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                             Name                             (by Originator)                            (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Lead?           Team?             Issue?            Item?

560        3             8             8.8.4                 MO               Minimum Development Length of Reinforcing Steel for                                Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07: Imbsen                                                                               02-19-07: (by ELMER) The transverse joint reinforcing        Yes              Yes               No             No
                                                                              SDC C or D – It is assumed that these proposed guidelines                                                   suggests that a minimum embedment length of 24db                                                                         requirements may be intended to confine and therby reduce
                                                                              would replace seismic information in the current LRFD                                                       is required, cannot use hooks or mechanical devices                                                                      the developmet length of the longitudinal column bars in the
                                                                              AASHTO. Is it correct that the 1.25 factor discussed in                                                     to reduce that length. LRFD development lengths                                                                          footings and cap beams. VERIFY WITH ROY IMBSEN
                                                                              the current LRFD Section 5.10.11.4.3 is unnecessary and                                                     will in many cases be larger than this value - may                                                                       3-6-07-SB Agree, this requirement should be considered
                                                                              only 24 bar diameters needed?                                                                               need to suggest some language to clarify intent.                                                                         along with joint shear requirements of Art 8.13.

561        3             8             8.8.4 & 8.8.5,       FHWA              Since plastic hinging can form in SDC B, there should not                          Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                  JQ 03-08-07: DM suggested to place in parking lot for next No                 No                Yes-03-01-07   Yes
                                       development in SDC B                   be provisions permitting smaller development length in the                                                                                                                                                                           revisions.
                                                                              plastic hinge zone
562        3             8             C8.8.4.3.2            MO               Format error in the numbering of the commentary sections.                          Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Editorial for                                                                         3-6-07 SB Edited                                            Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                          CA to administer.
563        3             8             8.9                   MO               Clarify for non-monolithic connection between                                      Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 01/31/07:                                                                                      02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised language                   Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                              superstructure and substructure the statement “. . .girders                                                 Statement/provisions in Guide Spec. seem clear but
                                                                              shall be designed to remain essentially elastic when the                                                    hard to apply. Possible suggest some commentary.
                                                                              column reaches its overstrength capacity.”
564        3             8             8.9, capacity protected FHWA           How is this section different from the last paragraph in                           Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                  02-19-07: (by ELMER) rvised the language and added some Yes                   Yes 03-01-07      No             No
                                                                              8.5? What is the "overstrength" factor to use in this                                                                                                                                                                                commentary. Refernce to figure 8.5-1 is provided to
                                                                              section? Define "essentially elastic"                                                                                                                                                                                                illustrate point on the M-f curve corresponding to Mne.
565        3             8             8.11, 2cd paragraph   FHWA             Overstrength moment should be Mpo and not Mo                                       Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                  02-19-07: OK                                            Yes                   Yes               No             No
566        3             8             8.13.4.1              MO               Typographic error of Ajv instead of Ajh.                                           Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Agree with                                                                            3-6-07 SB Edited                                        Yes                   Yes               No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                          commenter. Editorial for CA to administer.
567        3             8             8.13.4.2, units       FHWA             psi units should be ksi                                                            Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                  02-19-07: (by ELMER) see revised Article 8.13.              Yes               Yes 03-01-07      No             No
568        3             8             8.16.2                MO               Clarify “. . .the extent of longitudinal reinforcement can be                      Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Suggested                                                                             3-6-07 SB Edited to clarify intent.                         Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                              reduced to only the upper portion of the pile required to                                                   response to MO: Statement in Guidelines seem
                                                                              develop ultimate tension and compression forces.” Based                                                     clear. Context begins with verbiage about "In special
                                                                              on what analysis or deflection?                                                                             cases" and "when permanent casing is used".
                                                                                                                                                                                          Permanent casing serves as longitudinal
                                                                                                                                                                                          reinforcement. Consider matter resolved.

601        4             1             1.1                   TRB              Section 1.1, Task 5, Item 2 (p. 1-3). Geotechnical site                            Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.           I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until                                                                Yes               Yes               Yes            No
                                                             Subcommittee     investigations are increasing using cone penetration tests to                                                                                                       more specific input can be obtained.
                                                             AFF50(1) of      characterize stratigraphy and soil properties. Methods that
                                                             AFF50 -          use the CPT should be included in national specifications.
                                                             "Seismic
                                                             Design of
                                                             Bridges"
                                                             chaired by Dr.
602        4             1             Figure 1.3A           Ed Kavazanjian
                                                             FHWA             02-06-07- Change the term "SEAT WIDTH" to                                          Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                  02-20-07 This will be consistant with LRFD                  Yes               Yes 03-01-07      No             No
                                                                              "SUPPORT LENGTH" in 2 locations
603        4             3             3.1                   TRB              Section 3.1 (p.3-1); “no detailed seismic analysis is                              Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.           This is an important issue to consider. If we have potential     JQ 02-22-07: Paragraph is tentatively deleted pending       Yes               Yes               No             Yes
                                                             Subcommittee     required for a single span bridge…”. This ignores                                                                                                                   for significant lateral spreading or other form of instability   discussion with Team. … JQ 02-27-07: Retained
                                                             AFF50(1) of      potential ground instability, liquefaction & lateral spread                                                                                                         due to liquefaction at the abutments, we should not be           paragraph; modified per suggestion. Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07
                                                             AFF50 -          effects that could result in collapse of even a long single                                                                                                         eliminating the need to perform the geotechnical seismic         Team discussed in Sacramento. See modified guide spec.
                                                             "Seismic         span bridge in a very high seismic area. Perhaps there                                                                                                              analysis. I suggest the wording in Comment Insert #1 (see
                                                             Design of        could be some consideration or commentary to at least                                                                                                               WORD document: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc Comment
                                                             Bridges"         consider looking at long single span bridges (>200 feet?) in                                                                                                        Insert #1).
                                                                              high seismic areas with end bents on high embankments
                                                                              over liquefiable soils.
604        4             3             3.2                   AR               Art. 3.2 mentions "Life Safety for the Design Event",                              Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/4/07: Suggested                                                                             JQ 02-22-07: Item is closed on condition response is        Yes               Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                              "Significant Damage Level" and "Significant Disruption to                                                   Response to AR: The phrases Life Safety for the                                                                          adequate to AR.
                                                                              Service Level". These terms are somewhat cumbersone.                                                        Design Event, Significant Damage Level, and
                                                                              The could be called Performance Level I, II, and III for                                                    Significant Disruption to Service Level are better
                                                                              example. Also, how does Figure C3.3-1 relate to these                                                       defined and clarified in Art. 3.2. These phrases are
                                                                              levels? What is the "operational objective"? How do the                                                     all tied together when describing one level of
                                                                              Design Levels differ, and what is specifically required of                                                  performance. Other higher levels of performance,
                                                                              each?                                                                                                       such as the "operational objective" are not coverved
                                                                                                                                                                                          by the Guide Specs. With acceptance of suggested
                                                                                                                                                                                          response, mattter considered resolved.
605        4             3             C3.2, 3rd Para.       BERGER/ Lee Either delete the entire paragraph, or delete the reference to                          Lee Marsh                                                                        3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   JQ 02-22-07: Paragraph tentatively deleted.                 Yes 02-22-07 JQ   Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             Yes
                                                             Marsh        Table C3.2-1 and reference ATC 49 for the information
                                                                          developed at the workshop.
606        4             3             3.4                   TRB          (p. 3-9) Articles 3.4 and 3.4.3 are mixing up the term “site                           Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.           See Comment Insert #2 (see WORD Document: Chyuan-02- JQ 02-26-07: Tentatively inserted proposed commentary.                  Yes               Yes               No             Yes
                                                             Subcommittee specific” procedures. There has been confusion in the past                                                                                                              09-2007.doc Comment Insert #2).                      Chyuan-Shen: 3/1/07 Team discussed in Sacramento. See
                                                             AFF50(1) of  as to what a “site specific” procedure consists of. There are                                                                                                                                                                modified guide spec.
                                                             AFF50 -      two takes on this 1) a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
                                                             "Seismic     Analysis (PSHA), or deterministic methods, to assess the
                                                             Design of    affects of all earthquake sources on a given site and 2) a
                                                             Bridges"     Site Response Analysis (SRA) which just evaluates the soil
                                                                          response at the site. Both of these have been referred to as a
                                                                          “site response” analysis. The distinction between these two
                                                                          different procedures should be clearly defined in the
                                                                          commentary to Article 3.4. Also it might be best to keep
                                                                          these two procedures separated and not intermixed when
                                                                          possible.
607        4             3             C3.3, 2nd Para.       BERGER/ Lee Start a new paragraph for 'Conventional Ductile Design'.                                Lee Marsh                                                                        3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                             Marsh
608        4             3             C3.3, 3rd Para.       BERGER/ Lee The reference to Article 4.7 should be to 4.3.3.                                        Lee Marsh                                                                        3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                             Marsh
609        4             3             C3.3, Page 3-11       BERGER/ Lee This is the second entry for a commentary section C3.3.                                 Lee Marsh                                                                        3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   JQ 02-22-07: Require team approval on rewrite (if any) of   Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                             Marsh        The information in this second section directly supports the                                                                                                                                                                             the entire commentary in this section. See S.
                                                                          mandatory directions given in 3.3 several pages earlier.                                                                                                                                                                                 Brandenberger's proposal.
                                                                          Suggest moving all the second C3.3 ahead of the first C3.3.
                                                                          The last paragraph of the second C3.3 contains an
                                                                          incomplete reference to a flow chart.
610        4             3             C3.4, Heading         BERGER/ Lee Shaking is mis-spelled.                                                                 Lee Marsh                                                                        3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                             Marsh




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Page 27 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                      LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                            11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                        Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section             Article         State/                         Initial Comment                             Initial Response         Lead Person                   Lead Person's Comments                                  Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                  Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                       Resolved By     Resolved By       Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                            Name                            (by Originator)                            (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Lead?           Team?             Issue?            Item?

611        4             3             3.4.1                TRB             (p. 3-10) Figure 3.4.1.1; Why reduce the spectral                                  Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.             This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this                                                                    Yes               Yes               Yes            Yes
                                                            Subcommittee    accelerations at To from SDS to 0.4SDS. Why not keep it                                                                                                               issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input and
                                                            AFF50(1) of     flat like the old spectra? It would seem that some bridges                                                                                                            supporting evidence can be obtained.
                                                            AFF50 -         with very low periods in this range may start to deform
                                                            "Seismic        plastically and the period of the structure could shift
                                                            Design of       towards a higher period during the course of the earthquake
                                                            Bridges"        (especially in a high M event) and might be required to take
                                                                            on higher loads than designed for. This may be
                                                                            unconservative especially in high seismic areas.
612        4             3             C3.4                 FHWA            02-06-07-Change the word "SHARING" to "SHAKING"                                    Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                    JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation.                   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No

613        4             3             3.4.2.1              TRB             Site Class Definitions, Page 3-12: Even though these are                           Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.             This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this                                                                    Yes               Yes               Yes            Yes
                                                            Subcommittee    straight from NEHRP, some notice that NERHP may not                                                                                                                   issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input and
                                                            AFF50(1) of     be appropriate for sites with Rock at less than 100 ft or for                                                                                                         supporting evidence can be obtained.
                                                            AFF50 -         deep soil sites should be included. We recommend these
                                                            "Seismic        cases be considered as special study sites.
                                                            Design of
614        4             3             C3.4.2.2 2nd Para    Bridges" Lee
                                                            BERGER/     Reference to Appendix B with the strikethrough should                                  ?                                                                                  3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement          Yes 02-22-07 JQ   Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                            Marsh       stand. Remove strikethrough, and keep current Appendix
                                                                        B. However, if App A is moved then the citations should
                                                                        change accordingly.
615        4             3             C3.4.2.2 Last Para   BERGER/ Lee Missing reference to an an appendix should be to App C.                                ?                                                                                  3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement          Yes 02-22-07 JQ   Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                            Marsh       Include NCHRP 12-49 Appendix C verbatim. Renumber if
                                                                        required.
616        4             3             3.4.3                BERGER/ Lee Reference to "Appendix A" should be "C3.4.1", which                                    ?                                                                                  3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   JQ 02-22-07: Deleted reference to Appendix A and placed     Yes 02-22-07 JQ   Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                            Marsh       matches the original use in NCHRP 12-49.                                                                                                                                                                                                   referal to Article C3.4.1.
617        4             3             C3.4.5               FHWA        02-06-07- Commentary does not coorespond to and Spec                                   Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                    JQ 02-22-07: Article C3.4.5 deleted.                        Yes 02-22-07 JQ   Yes 02-22-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                        provisions. Consider deleting it or parking lot that section

618        4             3             3.5                  Alaska/ Elmer   Remove the "g" fom table 1. Note that "g" is not included                          Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. The spectral maps should reflect                                                                          JQ 02-22-07: Modified per recommendation including          Yes               Yes 02-15-07 JQ   No             No
                                                                            as part of SD1 of Article 3.4.1                                                                             that the plot values are acceleration coefficients (or                                                                     Tables 3.4.2.3-1 and 2.
                                                                                                                                                                                        similar language) not actual accelerations and as
                                                                                                                                                                                        such the consideration of gravity "g" is not
                                                                                                                                                                                        specifically needed.
619        4             4             C4.1.2               AR              P. 4-2, "C4.1.2 Minimum Seat Width" should be C4.12                                Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/4/07: Suggest this                                                                            02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07:            Yes              Yes               No             Yes
                                                                            and should be relocated to P. 4-22. The formula for N is                                                    Article be deleted.                                                                                                        Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
                                                                            given in Metric Units and should be given in U.S.                                                                                                                                                                                      agree…………Dan/IL 2/19/07: Support width provsions
                                                                            Customary Units to match the rest of these Guidelines. It                                                                                                                                                                              edited revised to be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot...3-6-
                                                                            is said in this commentary that the multiplier for skew is                                                                                                                                                                             07 SB Seat width calculation for SDC D using rigorous
                                                                                                                      2                                                                                                                                                                                            analysis is maintained.
                                                                            (1/cos S) but is should be (1+0.000125S ). S being the
                                                                            skew.
620        4             4             C4.1.2               FHWA            02-06-07 "Minimum Seat Width" Should be "Minimum                                   Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                    02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07:        Yes                  Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                                                            Support Length". Also, the scetion should be relocated and                                                                                                                                                                             Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
                                                                            renumbered C4.12.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      agree…………Dan/IL 2/19/07: Support width provsions
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   edited revised to be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
621        4             4             C4.1.2-second        FHWA            02-06-07-Change the word "Seat" to "Support" and change                            Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                    02-12-07 OK…...MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07:        Yes                  Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
                                       paragraph                            the symbol □ to Ø                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Team leans towards consistency with LRFD Ballot. We
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   agree…………Dan/IL 2/19/07: Support width provsions
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   edited revised to be consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
622        4             4             C4.3                 AR              Art. C4.3 is titled "SDC B". Either the C4.3 designation or                        Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/4/07: Text of C4.3                                                                            Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes                  Yes               No             No
                                                                            the "SDC B" title incorrect. Art. 4.3 is titled                                                             is not bad, but completely out of context with
                                                                            "Determination of Seismic Lateral Displacements                                                             corresponding code side Article. Tried to "find a
                                                                            Demands".                                                                                                   home" without success. Suggest deleting. C4.3.2
                                                                                                                                                                                        seems more or less OK.
623        4             4             C4.3, 3rd Para.      BERGER/ Lee Paragraph seems to conflict with the limits given in Table                             Lee Marsh                                                                          3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes                  Yes               No             No
                                                            Marsh         4.2 and the procedures of Table 4.1.
624        4             4             4.3.2                Alaska/ Elmer Suggest that effective damping greater than 5% be                                    Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. As the following phrase to the end                                                                        Dan/IL 2/19/07: Edited this into Article.                   Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                          permitted only with owner's approval.                                                                         of the first sentence of the first paragraph: "with the
                                                                                                                                                                                        owner's approval."
625        4             4             C4.3.2               Alaska/ Elmer   Remove te fourth and fifth paragraphs of the commentary.                           Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Remove the commentary language                                                                            Dan/IL 2/19/07: Commentary language deleted beginning       Yes               Yes               No             No
                                                                            This information is not required nor is it applicable to this                                               beginning with "Equivalent viscouse damping may                                                                            with "Equivalent viscouse damping may be considered…"
                                                                            article.                                                                                                    be considered…" and ending with "…is the damping                                                                           and ending with "…is the damping ratio, capped at 30%."
                                                                                                                                                                                        ratio, capped at 30%."
626        4             4             C4.3.2, 3rd Para.    BERGER/ Lee Consider adding: 'responding as a single-degree-of-freedom                             Lee Marsh                                                                          3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes                  Yes               No             No
                                                            Marsh         system' to the end of the 3rd sentence.
627        4             4             4.3.3                Alaska/ Elmer Commentary should be added about the background of the                               Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Add the following commentary:                                                                             Dan/IL 2/19/07: Commentary added with grammatical and       Yes               Yes               No             Yes
                                                                          short-period structure modification factor, Rd.                                                               "C4.3.3 The assumption that displacements of an                                                                            notational corrections.
                                                                                                                                                                                        elastic system will be the same as those of an elasto-
                                                                                                                                                                                        plastic system are not valid for short-period
                                                                                                                                                                                        structures that are expected to perform inelastically.
                                                                                                                                                                                        The proposed adjust factor is one method for
                                                                                                                                                                                        correcting the displacement determined from an
                                                                                                                                                                                        elastic analysis for a short-period structure."

628        4             4             C4.5, 3rd Para.      BERGER/ Lee     Which plane is being referred to? Horizontal, top and                              Lee Marsh                                                                          3-1-07: OK, LM                                                   Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes                  Yes               No             No
                                                            Marsh           bottom trusses?
629        4             4             Table 4.3            FHWA            2/6/2007-Ss should be SDS                                                          Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                    Dan/IL 2/19/07: Table deleted.                              Yes               Yes 03-01-07      No             Yes
630        4             4             C4.8                 AR              Art. C4.8 exists two times, one titled "Capacity Design and                        Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/4/07: As a first            Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                     3-6-07 SB Commentary edited.                                Yes               Yes               No             Yes
                                                                            Strength Requirements of Members Framing into Columns"                                                      iteration, suggest deleting the first title for C4.8 and proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                            and "Structural Displacement Capacity for SDC B, C, and                                                     replacing with the second. Then delete the second        anticipated for resolution.
                                                                            D". The "Capacity Design …." C4.8 should be nearer                                                          title.
                                                                            C4.11.
631        4             4             C4.8                 AR              Art. C4.8 mentions P-, should this be P-D?                                         Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/4/07: Suggest: Yes           Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA                    3-6-07 SB Commentary edited.                                Yes               Yes               No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                        with CA to administer.                                    proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  anticipated for resolution.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Page 28 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                        LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                 11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                          Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article            State/                         Initial Comment                             Initial Response         Lead Person                   Lead Person's Comments                                 Originator's Follow-Up Comment               Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                    Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                              Name                            (by Originator)                            (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                  Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

632        4             4             C4.8.2                 AR              C4.8.2 references Figure C3.3.1.1(b) which should be                               Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Editorial:          Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA    3-6-07 SB Commentary and Article edited. Figures        Yes              Yes            No             Yes
                                                                              Figure 3.3.1(b).                                                                                            Rename: Figures 3.3.1a, 3.3.1b, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 to proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is   renamed following AASHTO style guidelines.
                                                                                                                                                                                          3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-3, and 3.3-4, respectively. Change anticipated for resolution.
                                                                                                                                                                                          these figure references in Article 3.3 also. In C4.8.2
                                                                                                                                                                                          change the reference to Article 3.3.1 to Article 3.3.
                                                                                                                                                                                          In C4.8.2 change the reference to Figure C3.3.1.1(b)
                                                                                                                                                                                          to Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3. Note that comment
                                                                                                                                                                                          sparked more cleanup than originally indicated.

633        4             4             C4.8.2, 1st Para.      BERGER/ Lee Suggest deleting the first sentence. The way the guidelines                            Lee Marsh                                                                           3-1-07: OK, LM                               Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA            Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh       are written, I am not sure that this is true.                                                                                                                                                                           proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  anticipated for resolution.
634        4             4             C4.8.2, 1st Para.      BERGER/ Lee Limits on the plastic rotations for in-ground hinges are not                           Lee Marsh                                                                           3-1-07: OK, LM                               Dan/IL 2/18/07: Major Issue……Acceptance of CA            Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh       provided in the Guidelines, as far as I can tell.                                                                                                                                                                       proposal from Sacramento meeting of whole team is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  anticipated for resolution.
635        4             4             C4.11, 1st Para.       BERGER/ Lee Numerous missing references (Article X.X) are included.                                Lee Marsh                                                                           3-1-07: OK, LM                               Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh




636        4             4             C4.11.2, First Entry   BERGER/ Lee There are two C4.11.2 sections. The first possibly could be                            Lee Marsh                                                                           3-1-07: OK, LM                               Dan/IL 2/19/07: Dan and Stephanie fixed this commentary. Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                              Marsh       renumbered C4.11.1(a).
637        4             4             4.12                   FHWA        02-05-07-Correct Figure 4.3 to remove ∆ot from figure                                  Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-See attachment                                                                                 MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards   Yes              Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
638        4             4             4.12                   FHWA            02-05-07-Add commentary similar to LRFD. C4.12                                     Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-Add commentary similar to LRFD. C4.12                                                          MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards   Yes              Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                              Support lengths are equal to the length of the overlap                                                      Support lengths are equal to the length of the                                                          consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                              between the girder and seat as shown in figure4.3. To                                                       overlap between the girder and seat as shown in                                                         2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                              satisfy the minimum values for N in this Article, the overall                                               figure4.3. To satisfy the minimum values for N in                                                       consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
                                                                              seat width will be larger than N by an amount equal to                                                      this Article, the overall seat width will be larger than
                                                                              movments due to prestress shortening, cree, shrinkage, and                                                  N by an amount equal to movments due to prestress
                                                                              thermal expansion/contraction. THe minimum values for N                                                     shortening, cree, shrinkage, and thermal
                                                                              given in equations 4.15 & 4.16 includes arbitrary                                                           expansion/contraction. THe minimum values for N
                                                                              allowance for cover concrete at the end of the girder face of                                               given in equations 4.15 & 4.16 includes arbitrary
                                                                              the seat. If above average cover is used at these locations,                                                allowance for cover concrete at the end of the girder
                                                                              N should be increased accordingly                                                                           face of the seat. If above average cover is used at
                                                                                                                                                                                          these locations, N should be increased accordingly

639        4             4             4.12.1                 FHWA            02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 4.15 and                            Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 4.15                                                     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards   Yes              Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                              the definition for ∆ot.                                                                                     and the definition for ∆ot.                                                                             consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
640        4             4             4.12.2                 FHWA            02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 4.15 and                            Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from equation 4.15                                                     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards   Yes              Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                              the definition for ∆ot.                                                                                     and the definition for ∆ot.                                                                             consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
641        4             4             4.12.2                 FHWA            02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from the sentence "∆ot                            Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-Delete the variable ∆ot from the sentence                                                      MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards   Yes              Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                              and Sk are defined in in Article 4.12.1"                                                                    "∆ot and Sk are defined in in Article 4.12.1"                                                           consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
642        4             4             4.12.2                 FHWA            02-05-07-First sentence, change the word "width" to                                Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-First sentence, change the word "width" to                                                     MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards   Yes              Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                              "length" and delete the words "thermal movement, prestress                                                  "length" and delete the words "thermal movement,                                                        consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                              shortening, creep, shrinkage, and the"                                                                      prestress shortening, creep, shrinkage, and the"                                                        2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
643        4             4             4.14                   Alaska/ Elmer   The wording in this article is confusing.                                          Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Specific reference to Article 5.8.4                                                    Dan/IL 2/19/07: LRFD Article has been referenced.       Yes              Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                          of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
                                                                                                                                                                                          Specifications may be warranted.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Page 29 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                    LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                       11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                      Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article         State/                         Initial Comment                            Initial Response         Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                                  Originator's Follow-Up Comment                               Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                          Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                           Name                            (by Originator)                           (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

644        4             4             C4.14               AR               In Art. C4.14, the over-strength shear key capacity is used                      Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Suggested                                                                           Dan/IL 2/19/07: Article has been improved.                      Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                            for "assessing the load path to adjacent members". Is this                                                Response for AR: If we understand the question, we
                                                                            higher shear force used to design shear blocks?                                                           believe the answer is yes, in a sense. It is our
                                                                                                                                                                                      understanding that the "overstrength capacity" of a
                                                                                                                                                                                      shear key is a kind of plastic capacity. At the Life
                                                                                                                                                                                      Safety Design Event acceleration for the Guide
                                                                                                                                                                                      Specs, the key is typically designed to fuse or break,
                                                                                                                                                                                      but this is not always the case. If the overstrength
                                                                                                                                                                                      capacity of a shear key is exceeded and it fuses, the
                                                                                                                                                                                      load path to adjacent members will change and this
                                                                                                                                                                                      should be taken account of by the designer. So,
                                                                                                                                                                                      generally, or typically, the shear key overstrength
                                                                                                                                                                                      capacity would be the seismic force from the Life
                                                                                                                                                                                      Safety Design Event.
645        4             4             Chap 4, General     BERGER/ Lee There is nothing in Chapter 4 about the abutments and                                 Lee Marsh                                                                         3-1-07: OK, LM                                                Dan/IL 2/19/07: Say OK….Say Done.                               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                           Marsh       whether to include them in the ERS. It seems that the
                                                                       material in Section 5.2.1 that relates to design choices (as
                                                                       opposed to modelling) should go into Chapter 4.
646        4             4             4.12                FHWA        02-05-07-Change title to read "MINIMUM SUPPORT                                        Derrell Manceaux         02-05-07-Change title to read "MINIMUM                                                                                 MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/3/07: Team leans towards           Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             Yes
                                                                       LENGTH REQUIREMENTS" to be same as proposed                                                                    SUPPORT LENGTH REQUIREMENTS" to be                                                                                     consistency with LRFD Ballot. We agree…………Dan/IL
                                                                       LRFD specs                                                                                                     same as proposed LRFD specs                                                                                            2/19/07: Support width provsions edited revised to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             consistent with LRFD Code Ballot
647        4             5             5.1.2               Alaska/ Elmer The third and fourth paragraphs are more commentary than                            Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Move third and fourth paragraphs                                                                      Dan/IL 2/20/07: Same as 381.                                    Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                         specification requirements.                                                                                  to the commentary.
648        4             5             C5.1, 2nd Para.     BERGER/ Lee Either remove or define the term 'very flexible'.                                     Lee Marsh                                                                         3-1-07: OK, LM                                                Dan/IL 2/21/07: "Very flexible" deleted. "shall" revised to     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                           Marsh                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             "should".
649        4             5             5.2.2               Alaska/ Elmer The last sentence of the first paragraph is more                                    Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Move the last sentence of the first                                                                   Dan/IL 2/21/07: Same Comment as 382.                      Yes                   Yes            No             No
                                                                         commentary then specification requirements.                                                                  paragraph to the commentary.
650        4             5             5.2.3.3(b)          TRB           (p. 5-8) Section 5 has values for determining deflection to                         Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.        This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this      Dan/IL 2/21/07: IL's geotechnical engineer helped me take a Yes                    Yes            Yes            No
                                                           Subcommittee mobilize the passive earth pressure. The basis for 0.04                                                                                                            issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input and look at this Article. These computed stiffnesses were judged
                                                           AFF50(1) of   term on page 5-8 is unknown. The deflection for cohesive                                                                                                          supporting evidence can be obtained.                           "reasonable". However, the 0.04 factor in the denominator
                                                           AFF50 -       soils should be increased from from 0.02H to 0.04H or                                                                                                                                                                            was removed and 0.02 was replaced with the variable Fw.
                                                           "Seismic      0.05H.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Commentary was added which reads: "Guidance on the
                                                           Design of                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      value of Fw to use for a particular bridge may be found in
                                                           Bridges"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Table C3.11.1-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Specifications. The table presents values of Fw for dense
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          sand, medium dense sand, loose sand, compacted silt,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          compacted lean clay, and compacted fat clay. If the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          influence of passive pressure extends beyond one particular
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          soil type at an abutment, averaged or weighted average
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          values for Fw may be used at the engineer’s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          discretion."...Advice from WA was very beneficial. Chyuan-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Shen: 3/1/07 Team discussed in Sacramento. See modified
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          guide spec.
651        4             5             5.3                 Alaska/ Elmer The arrowhead in the "Diaphragm Abutments" figure does                              Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Fix the arrow to point to the                                                                      Dan/IL 2/21/07: Yes it points to the dashed line however     Yes                   Yes            No             No
                                                                         not point to anything.                                                                                       dashed line.                                                                                                        clunkily. If we have time, will revise, but leave for now.
652        4             5             5.3.1               Alaska/ Elmer The reference to SDC D in the third paragraph seems to                              Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Remove the reference to SDC D in                                                                   Dan/IL 2/21/07: Agree, has been revised.                     Yes                   Yes            No             No
                                                                         contradict the requirements of the fourth paragraph.                                                         the third paragraph.
653        4             5             C5.3.1, 1st Para.   BERGER/ Lee In the second sentence, this should read 'point of fixity', not                       Lee Marsh                                                                     3-1-07: OK, LM                                                 Dan/IL 2/21/07: Fixed.                                       Yes                   Yes            No             No
                                                           Marsh         'point of flexibility'.
654        4             5             5.3.2               TRB           Page 5-12 gives strain factors that were developed based                            Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.            This may need more investigation - I suggest putting this      Dan/IL 2/21/07: Agree. This was heavily edited.                Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                           Subcommittee upon the 2500 year EQ from the ATC/MCEE work. It                                                                                                                       issue in the parking lot for now until more specific input and References to Appendix C were removed and now reads:
                                                           AFF50(1) of   does not appear that anyone ever checked them for the                                                                                                                 supporting evidence can be obtained.                           "The shear modulus (G) used to compute stiffness values
                                                           AFF50 -       1000 year event.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     should be determined by adjusting the low-strain shear
                                                           "Seismic                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           modulus (Gmax) for the level of shearing strain using strain
                                                           Design of                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          adjustment factors (G/Gmax) which are less than one (1.0).
                                                           Bridges"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Strain adjustment factors for SDC D should be less than
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              those for SDC B or C."
655        4             5             C5.4.4              FHWA             02-06-07-Delete 1st paragraph since it is not applicable                         Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                 Dan/IL 2/21/07: Stehpanie and Dan have modified                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              commentary. Should be OK.
656        4             5             C5.5.1              FHWA         02-06-07-word wrap problems between 2cd and 3rd                                      Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                 Dan/IL 2/21/07: Stehpanie and Dan have modified                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                        paragraph                                                                                                                                                                                                                             commentary. Should be OK.
657        4             5             C5.5.2, 3rd Para.   BERGER/ Lee Consider adding some guidance alerting the                                            Lee Marsh                                                                         3-1-07: OK, LM                                                 Dan/IL 2/21/07: Stehpanie and Dan have modified                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                           Marsh        analyst/designer to the fact that warping torsional                                                                                                                                                                                   commentary. While a good idea, may not have time.
                                                                        resistance (from individual girder flexure) can exceed the
                                                                        pure torsional stiffness for open girder bridges.
658        4             6             6.2.4               TRB          (p. 6-2) Why require a seismic slope stability analysis in                           Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.            See Comment Insert #4 (see WORD Document: Chyuan-02- JQ 03-05-07: Team agreed to include statement regarding                  Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                           Subcommittee SDC B & C but not require a liquefaction analysis and it’s                                                                                                             09-2007.doc Comment Insert #4 ).                     slope stability and liquifaction in Art. 6.2.1
                                                           AFF50(1) of  effects on slope stability? Limiting liquefaction effects to
                                                           AFF50 -      only SDC D will likely ignore areas where liquefaction
                                                           "Seismic     could occur and cause significant slope instability and
                                                           Design of    bridge damage.
                                                           Bridges"




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Page 30 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                    LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                      11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                      Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article         State/                         Initial Comment                            Initial Response         Lead Person                   Lead Person's Comments                                  Originator's Follow-Up Comment                            Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                         Resolved By    Resolved By      Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                           Name                            (by Originator)                           (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Lead?          Team?            Issue?            Item?

659        4             6             6.3.4               Alaska/ Elmer   Remove this article until it becomes more commmonly used                          Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Remove Article 6.3.4. Article                                                                       2-28-7: moved rocking to appendix A and permit with           Yes              Yes              No             Yes
                                                                           and understood.                                                                                            6.7.1will need to be modified to remove the                                                                          owners approval.
                                                                                                                                                                                      reference to the rocking analysis -- specifically,
                                                                                                                                                                                      removing the second to last sentence of the second
                                                                                                                                                                                      paragraph. Article 5.3.2 will need be modified to
                                                                                                                                                                                      remove the reference to the rocking analysis --
                                                                                                                                                                                      specifically, removing the last sentence of the last
                                                                                                                                                                                      paragraph. Article 5.3.2 will need to be modified to
                                                                                                                                                                                      remove the reference to the rocking analysis --
                                                                                                                                                                                      specifically, removing the last sentence of the last
                                                                                                                                                                                      paragraph. Delete Figures 6.1 and 6.2. Remove the
                                                                                                                                                                                      last sentence of the first paragraph of Article 8.3.1.
                                                                                                                                                                                      Remove option 9 from Figure 3.3.1b. Remove
                                                                                                                                                                                      option 4 from Figure 3.3.2. Remove "rocking"
                                                                                                                                                                                      notation from Section 2. Replace the language in
                                                                                                                                                                                      Article 6.3.2 with "Design spread footings in SDC B
                                                                                                                                                                                      for the forces associated with the elastic seismic
                                                                                                                                                                                      analysis." Replace the language in Article 6.3.3 with
                                                                                                                                                                                      "Design spread footings in SDC C and SDC D for
                                                                                                                                                                                      the forces associated with the overstrength plastic
                                                                                                                                                                                      moment capacity, Mpo."
660        4             6             C6.3.1              AR           The commentary after Art. C6.3.1 reads C7.4.2.1. Should                              Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Suggest                                                                           3-6-07 SB Rocking Analysis has been moved to Appendix.        Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                        this designation be C6.3.4?                                                                                   Rocking analysis be moved to Parking Lot.
661        4             6             C6.3.1, 4th Para.   BERGER/ Lee There is not a Table C3.2-1.                                                          Lee Marsh                                                                           3-1-07: OK, LM                                            2-15-07-SB Edited, same as #529                               Yes 2-15-07 SB   Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
                                                           Marsh
662        4             6             C6.3.1              FHWA         02-06-07-Delete last paragraph"Inertial response…" since                             Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                                                                            Yes              Yes 03-01-07     No             No
                                                                        it is not applicable.
663        4             6             6.4.2               TRB          Section 6.4.2, describes foundation design for “standard                             Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.              In the 1st paragraph of Article 6.4.2, suggest changing "16 SB 02-15-07 Suggest compromise: 18" pipe piles.             Yes              Yes              Yes            No
                                                           Subcommittee size piles”, (diameters ≤ 16”). Diameters of 18”-24” are                                                                                                                 inches" to "18 inches". Regarding what to do with larger
                                                           AFF50(1) of  not that uncommon. What does a designer do for piles                                                                                                                     diameter piles, put that issue in the parking lot for now, until
                                                           AFF50 -      larger than 16”? Why not go to 24” diameter for                                                                                                                          more specific guidance can be developed.
                                                           "Seismic     “standard” piles and then provide commentary on what
                                                           Design of    additional considerations are needed for larger diameter
                                                           Bridges"     piles?
664        4             6             C6.4.1              AR           Art. C6.4.1 talks about battered piles. Why isn't this in the                        Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Suggested                                                                         3-6-07SB Commentary has been edited.                          Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                        Actual Code itself? Does Art. C6.4.1 apply to Art. 6.4.1?                                                     Response to AR: This Commentary Article could be
                                                                                                                                                                                      misplaced or does not have a "good home yet". It
                                                                                                                                                                                      will either be moved, revised or deleted for the first
                                                                                                                                                                                      publication of the Guide Specs. As far as batter is
                                                                                                                                                                                      concerned, it is our feeling that this subject is fairly
                                                                                                                                                                                      well suited for a commentary, especially with the
                                                                                                                                                                                      style that this Commentary Article is written.
                                                                                                                                                                                      Battered piles have been traditionally discouraged in
                                                                                                                                                                                      regions of high seismicty and really should be dealt
                                                                                                                                                                                      with on a case-by-case basis as the Guide Specs
                                                                                                                                                                                      state.
665        4             6             C6.4.2              AR              The commenary after Art. C6.4.2 reads C7.4.3.3 and                                Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Suggest at a                                                                      2-15-07-SB Edited                                             Yes              Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
                                                                           C7.4.3.4. What is the correct Article Designation? Also,                                                   minimum the headings for C7.4.3.3 Moment and
                                                                           C7.4.3.4 "Liquefaction Check" does not have any text.                                                      Shear Design and C7.4.3.4 Liquefacion Check be
                                                                                                                                                                                      deleted. As commentary is addressed further, the
                                                                                                                                                                                      text for C7.4.3.3 may be deleted as is apparent.
666        4             6             C7.4.2.1, Heading   BERGER/ Lee Should this heading number be C6.3.4?                                                 Lee Marsh                                                                           3-1-07: OK, LM                                            2-15-07-SB Edited                                             Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                           Marsh
667        4             6             C7.4.3.3            FHWA        02-08-07- Title should be bold                                                        Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              2-15-07-SB Edited                                             Yes              Yes              No             No
668        4             6             C7.4.3.3            FHWA        02-08-07-First sentence should read "…SDC B for two                                   Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              2-15-07-SB Edited                                             Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                       reasons…"
669        4             6             C7.4.3.4            FHWA        02-08-07-Delete this commentary. It has no text and is                                Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              2-15-07-SB Edited                                             Yes              Yes              No             No
                                                                       incorrectly numbered
670        4             6             6.4.4               AR          Art. 6.4.4, 2nd paragraph, last sentence says "in no case                             Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: To be                                                                             3-6-07-SB Information moved to C6.4.4 and reworded to          Yes             Yes              No             No
                                                                       shall uplift exceed the weight of material surrounding the                                                     addressed further.                                                                                                   say "uplift capacity need not be taken less than the weight of
                                                                       embedded portion of the pile". Does this mean there should                                                                                                                                                                          the pile (buoyancy considered)".
                                                                       be no net uplift at the service limit state, considering Dead
                                                                       Load and Buoyancy? The weight of material surrounding
                                                                       the pile might be only a small fraction of the total applied
                                                                       Dead Load (i.e. columns and caps). What is the "material
                                                                       surrounding the embedded portion of the pile"?

671        4             6             6.4.4               WA/ Tony        (p. 6-10) Section 6.4.4, 3rd paragraph – Why are treated                          Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.       Recommend deleting "Treated or" in "Treated or untreated         Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment. Delete Yes                   Yes              No             No
                                                           Allen           timber piles not allowed?                                                                                                                                      timber piles are not allowed."                                   the paragraph.
672        4             6             C6.4.4              AR              Art. C6.4.4 is titled "Drilled Shafts", should this be Art.                       Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/6/07: Suggest taking                                                                    2-15-07-SB Edited                                        Yes                   Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
                                                                           C6.5?                                                                                                      the two paragraphs under the heading C6.4.4 Drilled
                                                                                                                                                                                      Shaft and moving them to be the first two
                                                                                                                                                                                      paragraphs under the heading C6.5 Drilled Shafts.
                                                                                                                                                                                      The delete the heading C6.4.4.
673        4             6             C6.4.4              TRB             (p. 6-10) C.6.4.4 : “Drilled Shafts”; this section is in the                      Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.       Move the two paragraphs in Article C6.4.4 to Article C6.5.       2-15-07-SB Edited                                             Yes              Yes 2-15-07 SB   No             No
                                                           Subcommittee    “Pile Cap Foundation section and it should be moved to
                                                           AFF50(1) of     Section 6.5.
                                                           AFF50 -
                                                           "Seismic
                                                           Design of
674        4             6             C6.4.4              Bridges"
                                                           FHWA            2/8/2007-Commentary should be numbered as C6.5                                    Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              2-15-07-SB Edited                                             Yes              Yes              No             No




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Page 31 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                     LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                        11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                       Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section          Article         State/                         Initial Comment                               Initial Response         Lead Person                 Lead Person's Comments                          Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                   Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                         Name                            (by Originator)                              (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                         Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

675        4             6             6.5               TRB             In Section 6.5 it states: A stable length shall be ensured                           Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.   See Comment Insert #6 (see WORD Document: Chyuan-02- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in                Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                         Subcommittee    for a single column/shaft. The stable length can be                                                                                                           09-2007.doc Comment Insert #6).                      Sacramento. See revised guide spec.
                                                         AFF50(1) of     determined by using the lesser of 1.5 times the stable
                                                         AFF50 -         length achieved by applying lateral forces based on
                                                         "Seismic        overstrength properties or applying a 1.5 multiplier
                                                         Design of       factor on the lateral forces based on overstrength
                                                         Bridges"        principals considered in determining the tip of the shaft
                                                                         required for lateral stability. What is the purpose of this
                                                                         multiplier? How was the 1.5 value determined? This is
                                                                         really a load factor and I think most load factors are 1.0 (or
                                                                         less) under seismic loading. There should be some
                                                                         discussion in the commentary about this multiplier and
                                                                         what a “stable length” is. Why is this required if all of the
                                                                         limit states have already been satisfied? Could this result in
                                                                         a significant cost increase for shafts in solid rock?

676        4             6             6.8               TRB             (p. 6-17) Regarding Section 6.2.5, “Foundation                                       Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.   I agree that this is a general problem with the proposed          Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in   Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                         Subcommittee    Investigation for SDC – D” and Section 6.8 “Liquefaction                                                                                                      specifications, in that structural criteria are being force fit   Sacramento. See revised guide spec.
                                                         AFF50(1) of     Design Requirements”, liquefaction assessment is only                                                                                                         into the geotechnical design. Criteria for deciding whether
                                                         AFF50 -         required in SDC – D and then only if certain “mean”                                                                                                           or not a liquefaction assessment should be conducted needs
                                                         "Seismic        magnitude requirements are met. The SDC – D category                                                                                                          to be separate from the structural response spectra criteria,
                                                         Design of       is based on SD1 (one-second spectra acceleration) > 0.50g                                                                                                     as those criteria are not applicable to geotechnical design.
                                                         Bridges"        (section 3.5). Why was the one-second spectral acceleration                                                                                                   See suggested wording in Comment Insert #7 (see attached
                                                                         selected to evaluate the need for liquefaction analysis? The                                                                                                  WORD document: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc Comment
                                                                         Site Coefficients were not developed for liquefaction                                                                                                         Insert #7).
                                                                         assessment; they are for use in characterizing site response
                                                                         for the development of response spectra. What is the
                                                                         connection between a 5% damped, 1 sec. design response
                                                                         spectra and the liquefaction potential at a given site?

677        4             6             6.8               TRB             Using the criteria in Artcle 6.8 for determining whether or                          Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.   See suggested wording in Comment Insert #7 (see attached          Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in   Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                         Subcommittee    not liquefaction needs to be assessed, a soil profile is                                                                                                      WORD document: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc Comment                      Sacramento. See revised guide spec.
                                                         AFF50(1) of     classified as Site D if the average N value for the upper                                                                                                     Insert #7).
                                                         AFF50 -         100 feet of soil is ≥ 15, even if there may be a significant
                                                         "Seismic        layers of say N = 3 – 8 liquefiable sands present. With the
                                                         Design of       average N greater than 15 you can find (depending on the
                                                         Bridges"        S1) that you don’t have to evaluate liquefaction at all. This
                                                                         method for screening liquefiable sites may be extremely
                                                                         unconservative in many areas. Also, the magnitude 6.5
                                                                         cutoff is extremely unconservative.
678        4             6             6.8               TRB             In paragraph b, is “the” [(N1)60] blow count referring to                            Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.   I assume that this is referring to the average blowcount in   Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in       Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                         Subcommittee    the any (N1)60 value in the soil column?                                                                                                                      the column, but this is not clear. In any case, see suggested Sacramento. See revised guide spec.
                                                         AFF50(1) of                                                                                                                                                                   rewording in Comment Insert #7 (attached WORD
                                                         AFF50 -                                                                                                                                                                       document: Chyuan-02-09-2007.doc Comment Insert #7)
                                                         "Seismic
                                                         Design of
679        4             6             6.8               Bridges"
                                                         TRB             Sometimes the “mean” magnitude doesn’t represent the                                 Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.   I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until     Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                         Subcommittee    magnitude of any real earthquake that might actually affect                                                                                                   more specific input can be obtained.                              Sacramento. See Modified Guide Spec.
                                                         AFF50(1) of     the site. You should look at all the sources affecting the site
                                                         AFF50 -         through the deaggregation process described in the
                                                         "Seismic        Appendix.
                                                         Design of
680        4             6             6.8               Bridges"
                                                         TRB             Section 6.8 (p. 6-17). Moment magnitude limits for no                                Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.   See Comment Insert #7 (see WORD Document: Chyuan-02- Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in                Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                         Subcommittee    liquefaction of 6.5 to 6.7 are too unconservative for use in                                                                                                  09-2007.doc Comment Insert #7).                      Sacramento. See revised guide spec.
                                                         AFF50(1) of     general practice. In general, magnitude 5.5 earthquakes are
                                                         AFF50 -         capable of triggering liquefaction near the earthquake
                                                         "Seismic        source.
                                                         Design of
681        4             6             6.8               Bridges"
                                                         TRB             Section 6.8 (p. 6-18). It is overly conservative to use                              Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.   I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until     Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                         Subcommittee    liquefied conditions for resistance, but use essentially                                                                                                      more specific input can be obtained.                              Sacramento.
                                                         AFF50(1) of     “peak” strength conditions for demand (i.e., a non liquefied
                                                         AFF50 -         spectrum).
                                                         "Seismic
                                                         Design of
682        4             6             6.8               Bridges"
                                                         TRB             Section 6.8 (p. 6-18). The limit of 2/3 of the nonliquefied                          Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.   I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until     Chyuan-She : 3/1/07. Team discussed this comment in   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                         Subcommittee    spectrum on a “liquefied” spectrum should only be allowed                                                                                                     more specific input can be obtained.                              Sacramento. Agree with Originator's Proposal.
                                                         AFF50(1) of     for periods up to 1 second. At greater than 1 to 2 second
                                                         AFF50 -         period, this limit could be highly unconservative
                                                         "Seismic
                                                         Design of
683        4             6             C6.8              Bridges"
                                                         FHWA            02-08-07-2nd Paragraph. Need a reference to the Appendix                             Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                           2-15-07 SB Edited. Note all appendices deleted per    Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                         for liquifaction.                                                                                                                                                                                                               committee decision.
684        4             7             7.1               Alaska/ Elmer   It appears that for the most part, structural steel members                          Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   Agree. No change recommended due to the apparent REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                            2-28-7: finalized                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                         are designed using force-based principals.                                                                    significant amount of work involved.               LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
685        4             7             C7.1              AR              The fourth paragraph of Art. C7.1 starts out "The intent of                          Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/7/07: Suggest at a    REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                          3-6-07 SB See revised Article and Commentary          Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                         Article 7.2……." Should this be Art. C7.2?                                                                     minimum inserting a C7.2 heading above current     LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                       "4th paragraph". Others are also re-examining this REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                                                                                                                                       section and part may be moved to another
                                                                                                                                                                                       Section/Article entirely.
686        4             7             C7.1, 7th Para.   BERGER/ Lee Remove the reference to 'expected earthquake'.                                           Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                      REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                          2-28-7: finalized                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                         Marsh                                                                                                                                                                            LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
687        4             7             C7.1, Overall     BERGER/ Lee The commentary runs over into the next spec sections.                                    Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                      REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY                          2-28-7: finalized                                     Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                         Marsh                                                                                                                                                                            LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Page 32 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                         LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                    11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                           Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section            Article             State/                          Initial Comment                            Initial Response         Lead Person                  Lead Person's Comments                               Originator's Follow-Up Comment             Lead Person's Follow-Up Response            Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                               Name                             (by Originator)                           (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                     Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

688        4             7             Figure 7.1              FHWA            02-08-07-The note in Figure 7.1 has incorrect fonts                                Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                             REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   2-28-7: finalized                                 Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
689        4             7             7.4.1                   Alaska/ Elmer   Present Table 7.1 in LRFD (dimensionless) format.                                  Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   Agree. See attached MS Word document.                     REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   2-28-7: finalized                                 Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
690        4             7             7.4.2                   Alaska/ Elmer   Present Table 7.2 in LRFD (dimensionless) format.                                  Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   Agree. See attached MS Word document.                     REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   2-28-7: finalized                                 Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
691        4             7             Table 7,1               FHWA            02-08-07-Incorrect fonts used                                                      Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                             REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   2-28-7: finalized                                 Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
692        4             7             Table 7.2               FHWA            02-08-07-Incorrect fonts used                                                      Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                             REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   2-28-7: finalized                                 Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
693        4             7             7.5.1                   Alaska/ Elmer   It seesm odd that of the three bulleted plastic hinge regions                      Lian Duan / Elmer Marx   Agree. No change is required. PERHAPS ROY                 REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   2-28-7: finalized                                 Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               the last value is 39 inches.                                                                                CAN ADDRESS WHY A FIXED DIMENSION                         LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                           RATHER THAN A VARIABLE DIMENSION IS                       REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                                                                                                                                           USED.
694        4             7             C7.5.3,C7.5.4,C8,7,6, FHWA              02-08-07-Incorrect commentary-Suggest parking lot these                            Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                             REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   2-28-7: finalized                                 Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                       C8.7.6.3,C8.7.6.2,C7.                   items                                                                                                                                                                 LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                       7.1,C8.7.5.4                                                                                                                                                                                                  REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
695        4             7             C7.6                  AR                Art. C7.6 mentions Art. 8.7.7, this Article could not be                           Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/7/07: Suggest                REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   3-6-07 SB See edited Article and Commentary       Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               found.                                                                                                      deleting the sentence: "The provisions of Article         LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                           8.7.7 are added to prevent this behavior." in C7.6.       REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                                                                                                                                           Article 8.9 could be refered to, but it only deals with
                                                                                                                                                                                           capacity protected concrete foundation members and
                                                                                                                                                                                           does not deal with steel, e.g. H-piles, etc.

696        4             7             C7.6                    AR              Art. C7.6, C7.6.1, C7.6.2, and C7.6.3 are out of place.                            Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/7/07: Suggested              REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   3-6-07 SB See edited Article and Commentary       Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               They follow C7.7.1 and the C8's listed in the following                                                     repsonse to AR: Yes, major cleanup and revision is        LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                               comment.                                                                                                    required in this area of the Guide Specs. which the       REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                                                                                                                                           Improvement Team will address.
697        4             7             C7.6.2                  AR              Art. C7.6.2, Paragraph 3, Figure mentioned as C8.7.7.2-2                           Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/7/07: Suggested              REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   3-6-07 SB See edited Article and Commentary       Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               and should be Figure C7.6.2-2. Paragraph 4 mentions                                                         repsonse to AR: Yes, major cleanup and revision is        LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                               C8.7.7.2-3 and should be C7.6.2-3.                                                                          required in this area of the Guide Specs. which the       REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                                                                                                                                           Improvement Team will address.
698        4             7             7.7                     AR              Found near Art. 7.7 are Articles C8.7.6, C8.7.6.1,                                 Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/7/07: Suggested              REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   3-6-07 SB See edited Article and Commentary       Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               C8.7.6.2, C8.7.6.3, and C8.7.5.4. What is the correct                                                       repsonse to AR: Yes, major cleanup and revision is        LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                               designation or location for these Article?                                                                  required in this area of the Guide Specs. which the       REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
                                                                                                                                                                                           Improvement Team will address.
699        4             7             7.7.6, equation 7.20    FHWA            02-08-07-Incorrect fonts used                                                      Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                             REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   2-28-7: finalized                                 Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
700        4             7             C7.10                   FHWA            02-08-07-Parkinglot Commentary until a specification is                            Lian Duan / Elmer Marx                                                             REFER TO MS WORD DOCUMENT PREPARED BY   2-28-7: removed commentary                        Yes             Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                                               developed                                                                                                                                                             LIAN DUAN AND INCORPORATED INTO THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     REFORMATED SECTION 7 BY ELMER MARX
701        4             8             8.3.1                   Alaska/ Elmer   Either the Strength or Service Load Combiantion may                                Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Remove the first paragraph and           ok                                      02-19-07: OK                                      Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                               govern the design of a member.                                                                              replace it with the following: "Initial sizing of
                                                                                                                                                                                           columns can be performed using the Strength and
                                                                                                                                                                                           Service Load Combinations."
702        4             8             8.3.2                   Alaska/ Elmer   This article references itself.                                                    Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Remove the last sentence of the          ok                                      02-19-07: OK                                      Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                           first paragraph and replace it with the following:
                                                                                                                                                                                           "Force demands shall be less than capacities
                                                                                                                                                                                           established in Article 8.5 and Article 8.6."
703        4             8             8.3.4                   Alaska/ Elmer   The term "Equivalent Member" is undefined.                                         Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Suggest that the term "Equivalent        ok                                      02-19-07: OK                                      Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                           Member" by replaced with "member." PERHAPS
                                                                                                                                                                                           ROY OR OTHER MEMBER OF THE TEAM
                                                                                                                                                                                           CAN PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE.

704        4             8             8.4                     Alaska/ Elmer   This article is confusing.                                                         Elmer Marx               02-09-07: Agree. Remove the first paragraph and        ok                                         02-19-07: see revised language                    Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                                                                                                                                           replace it with the following: "Use the expected
                                                                                                                                                                                           material properties to determine section stiffness and
                                                                                                                                                                                           overstrength capacities."
705        4             8             Figure 8.2              FHWA            02-08-07-Delet the term (Mpa)-See attached file                                    Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                           02-19-07: okay                                    Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
706        4             8             8.6.2                   FHWA            02-08-07- all equations-fyt is not defined. Should this be                         Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                           02-19-07: see previous item and revised article   Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                               fyh as shown in the nomenclature?
707        4             8             8.6.2, Equation 8.23    FHWA            02-08-07-Ds should read "D'".                                                      Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                           02-19-07: see previous item and revised article   Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
708        4             8             8.6.3, Equation 8.25,   FHWA            02-08-07-"D" is not defined. Change D to D'                                        Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                           02-19-07: see previous item and revised article   Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                       8.27
709        4             8             8.6.3, Equation 8.26    FHWA            02-08-07-Equation 8.26 is missing-add a note "equation                             Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                           02-19-07: revised all equation numbers            Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               8.26 is deleted" OR renumber the equations and all
                                                                               references
710        4             8             C8.6.3                  AR              Art. C8.6.3 mentions Figure C8.8.2.4-3. This designation                           Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Coment is                                                      3-6-07-SB See edited commentary                   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               should be Figure C8.6.3-3.                                                                                  correct. Editorial change.
711        4             8             C8.6.3                  AR              Art. C8.6.3 and Fig. C8.6.3-1 mention 200 mm as the                                Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Coment is                                                      3-6-07 SB See edited commentary                   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               maximum spacing for the longitudinal bars. As this                                                          correct. Editorial change.
                                                                               specification is in English units, 8" should be the preferred
                                                                               dimension.
712        4             8             C8.6.3                  AR              Art. C8.6.3 mentions "Equation 7.8.2.5-1 or 8.8.2.5-1 of                           Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: We think                                                       02-19-07: see revised Article 8.6.3               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               the Specifications ". Where are these equations and which                                                   Specifications refers to the Guide Specifications.
                                                                               Specifications re the guidelines referring to?                                                              Dr. Imbsen "adapted" this Commentary from 12-49
                                                                                                                                                                                           (That is why the refered to equation numbers are
                                                                                                                                                                                           what they are). Suggest this is part of the
                                                                                                                                                                                           Commentary that will require futher clean-up as
                                                                                                                                                                                           apparent through time.
713        4             8             C8.6.3                  FHWA            02-08-07-Change the title to read "Shear Reinforcement                             Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                           02-19-07: okay                                    Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                               Capacity"




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Page 33 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                     LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                                  11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                       Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment       Section             Article        State/                         Initial Comment                             Initial Response         Lead Person                 Lead Person's Comments                               Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                 Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                       Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                           Name                            (by Originator)                            (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

714        4             8             C8.6.3              FHWA        02-08-07-Change the term "D=diameter of column" to                                     Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              02-19-07: okay                                               Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                       D'=Core diameter of column"
715        4             8             C8.6.3, Heading     BERGER/ Lee The commentary and guidelines section of the same number                               Lee Marsh                                                                     3-1-07: OK, LM                                                  02-19-07: see revised - okay                                 Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                           Marsh       do not seem to match? I believe the commentary goes with
                                                                       C8.8.7?
716        4             8             C8.6.3-1            FHWA        02-05-07-Replace the figure with the one attached in the                               Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                                                                                           Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                       file. This clears out the mm term. Last sentence, change the
                                                                       term from "200 mm" to "8 inches". Change the reference
                                                                       rom C8.8.2.4.3" to C8.6.3-4"
717        4             8             8.6.6               FHWA        02-08-07-Add SDC A, (if SDS > .05)                                                     Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              JQ 03-08-07: DM suggested to place in parking lot for next No                No             Yes-03-01-07   Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            revisions.
718        4             8             C8.6.7              AR              Should Art. C8.6.7 "Limited Ductility Requirements for                             Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: We believe                                                                        02-19-07: okay                                             Yes               Yes            No             No
                                                                           Wall-Type Piers" be labeled C8.6.10?                                                                        comment is correct. Editorial change.
719        4             8             8.6.7.1             AR              There is not an Art. 8.6.7.1 or 8.6.7.1.1 but there are                            Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Suggest                                                                           3-6-07 SB Commentary edited.                                 Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                           commentaries referring to them. What is the proper                                                          deleting these Articles in Commentary.
                                                                           designation for these Articles? This Article refers to Figure
                                                                           C8.8.4.3-1. Where does this Figure exist? The formula
                                                                           contained in this Article should be in English units instead
                                                                           of MPa?
720        4             8             8.6.9, Equation 8.30b FHWA          02-08-07-Fonts incorrect                                                           Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              02-19-07: OKAY                                               Yes             Yes            No             No
721        4             8             8.7.1                 FHWA          02-08-07-Pdl is defined at the bottom of the column in the                         Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              02-19-07: refer to revised article and equation. NEED        Yes             Yes 03-01-07   No             No
                                                                           nomenclature. Change the 2nd sentence to read from "top                                                                                                                                                                          INPUT FROM TEAM AND DR. IMBSEN
                                                                           of column" to "bottom of column"
722        4             8             8.7.1               FHWA            02-08-07-Need to discuss with Panel-A flexure strength of                          Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              JQ 03-08-07: DM suggested to place in parking lot for next No                No             Yes-03-01-07   Yes
                                                                           .1DL is required for SDC B,C,D, but SDC "A" requires a                                                                                                                                                                           revisions.
                                                                           connction/flexure strength of .2DL. This is a discrepency-
                                                                           See #360
723        4             8             C8.8                AR              The designation for Articles C8.8.4.3.2, C8.8.4.4,                                 Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Suggested                                                                         02-19-07: see revised Section                                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                           C8.8.5.3, C8.8.6, and C8.8.6.1 is incorrect or these                                                        response to AR: The commentary in this area of the
                                                                           Articles are out of place. They are near Articles 8.12 and                                                  Guide Specifications will be revised, edited and
                                                                           8.13.                                                                                                       organized.
724        4             8             8.8.2, Equation 8.32a FHWA          02-08-07- Add SDC A (if SDS>0.05)                                                  Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              JQ 03-08-07: DM suggested to place in parking lot for        Yes             No             Yes-03-01-07   Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            future revision.
725        4             8             C8.8.2.7            FHWA            02-08-07-Titel should read "C8.8.3 Splicing of                                     Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              JQ 03-08-07: SDC B not included; DM suggested to place       Yes             No             Yes-03-01-07   Yes
                                                                           Longitudinal Reinforcement in Columns Subject to                                                                                                                                                                                 in parking lot for future revision.
                                                                           Ductility Demands for SDC B,C, or D"
726        4             8             8.8.3               FHWA            02-08-07-Change the word "shaft" to "pile"                                         Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              02-19-07: used "pile or shaft".                              Yes             Yes            No             No
727        4             8             8.8.3 & 8.8.4       FHWA            02-08-07-Add SDC B to satisfy minimum splicing and                                 Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              JQ 03-08-07: SDC B not included; DM suggested to place       Yes             No             Yes-03-01-07   Yes
                                                                           development length requirements                                                                                                                                                                                                  in parking lot for future revision.
728        4             8             C8.8.7              FHWA            02-08-07-Change the Title to read "Lateral Reinforcement                           Derrell Manceaux                                                                                                                              02-19-07: see revised Section                                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                           Inside the Plastic Hinge Region for SDC D"

729        4             8             C8.8.7              AR              The Article after Art. C8.8.7 is C8.8.2.7 "Splices". Is this                       Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: It appears that                                                                   02-19-07: see revised Section                                Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                           Article out of place or is its designation inncorrect?                                                      this commentary applies to Article 8.8.3. Suggest
730        4             8             8.8.10              WA/ Chyuan-     Revise Sub-Article as follows: " 8.8.10 Development                                Chyuan-Shen Lee          2/07/07. Agree. Consistent with Article 8.8.11 &                                                                     02-19-07: OKAY                                               Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                           Shen Lee        Length for Column Bars Extended into Oversized Pile                                                         8.8.12.
                                                                           Shafts for SDC C or D"
731        4             8             8.8.10              WA/ Chyuan-     Embedment length for column longitudinal bars seem                                 Chyuan-Shen Lee          2/07/07. See see attached WORD document:                                                                             02-19-07: This is Caltrans standard detail. Need to verify   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                           Shen Lee        excessive. For a 6' dia. Column needs to place construction                                                 Chyuan-2007-02-07 Article 8-8-10.doc                                                                                 with them prior to making change. Chyuan-She : 3/1/07.
                                                                           18' below bottom of column. It's hard for construction.                                                                                                                                                                          Team discussed this comment in Sacramento. See revised
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            guide spec.
732        4             Appendix      Appendix A          BERGER/ Lee Suggest moving Appendix A into Commentary as C3.4.4.                                   ?                                                                             3-1-07: OK, LM In a future revision some consideration          JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.          Yes             Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                           Marsh       This will match the original use of this text in NCHRP 12-                                                                                                           should be given to adding this information to the               Parking lot?
                                                                       49.                                                                                                                                                                  commentary. This would provide engineers with useful
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            background information.
733        4             Appendix      Appendix B          TRB             Appendix B -- this appendix needs to integrated with what                          Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.        I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.          Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                           Subcommittee    is in the Section 10 of the 2006 Interim. When the initial                                                                                                       more specific input can be developed.                           Parking lot.
                                                           AFF50(1) of     write up for NCHRP 12-49 was prepared, LRFD didn't
                                                           AFF50 -         have much guidance.
                                                           "Seismic
                                                           Design of
734        4             Appendix      Appendix B          Bridges"
                                                           TRB             Note that liquefaction (page B-4) is what we came up with                          Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.        I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.          Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                           Subcommittee    for ATC/MCEER 12-49 -- so greater than 0.15g. This                                                                                                               more specific input can be developed.                           Parking lot.
                                                           AFF50(1) of     contradicts what is in the Guidelines.
                                                           AFF50 -
                                                           "Seismic
                                                           Design of
735        4             Appendix      Appendix B          Bridges"
                                                           TRB             Referernce is made in this appendix to Youd and Idriss                             Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.        I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.          Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                           Subcommittee    (1997). We should be changing this reference to Youd et                                                                                                          more specific input can be developed.                           Parking lot.
                                                           AFF50(1) of     al. (2001). The same comment applies throughout this
                                                           AFF50 -         Appendix as well as to the next Appendix.
                                                           "Seismic
                                                           Design of
736        4             Appendix      Appendix B          Bridges"
                                                           TRB             Ideally, we should also add words to mention Cretin and                            Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.        I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.          Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                           Subcommittee    Moss's work with Ray Seed and the work that Boulanger                                                                                                            more specific input can be developed.                           Parking lot.
                                                           AFF50(1) of     and Idriss have done recently for liquefaction. Geoff, recall
                                                           AFF50 -         that we had some of the same discussions on the update to
                                                           "Seismic        the NEHRP documents. What the current write-up reflects
                                                           Design of       is our thinking 8 years ago. It seems to me that if we are
                                                           Bridges"        updating AASHTO, we should be within the decade on
                                                                           references. I see this as a serious shortcoming of the work
                                                                           that was taken from 12-49.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 34 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                                LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                       11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                  Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment     Section         Article      State/                          Initial Comment                               Initial Response         Lead Person                 Lead Person's Comments                           Originator's Follow-Up Comment                                Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                 Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                   Name                             (by Originator)                              (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                        Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

737        4             Appendix    Appendix C      TRB            Appendix C -- this appendix is terrible. Someone tried to                            Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   extract parts of what we did for 12-49, and made a mess of                                                                                                     more specific input can be developed.                           Parking lot.
                                                     AFF50(1) of    things. The texts now refers to factors for strain and liftoff
                                                     AFF50 -        without providing these factors (page C-2). The order is
                                                     "Seismic       inconsistent, and there is little explanation in the way of
                                                     Design of      commentary. I don't recall if some of this discussion was
                                                     Bridges"       what we wrote for commentary or specification. But
                                                                    whatever, it was taken out of context and now is very
                                                                    difficult to understand.
738        4             Appendix    Appendix C      TRB            Group effects (page C-5) assume 3 diameters. This was                                Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   what we thought 10 years ago. But I wonder if the work                                                                                                         more specific input can be developed.                           Parking lot.
                                                     AFF50(1) of    by Rollins, Ashford, McVay, Brown and others suggest the
                                                     AFF50 -        group effect should be different. Note that WSDOT and
                                                     "Seismic       others are now use different factors for trailing piles versus
                                                     Design of      forward piles. Maybe Po could provide some guidance on
                                                     Bridges"       this.
739        4             Appendix    Appendix C      AR             Page C-5. Where does the 1.25 constant in the axial                                  Brandenberger / Tobias   MT/IL (Stephanie and Dan) 02/8/07: Appendices                                                                    3-6-07 SB Appendix deleted                            Yes             Yes            No             Yes
                                                                    stiffness equation (C-1) come from?                                                                           Removed from Guide Spec. Guide Specs reference
                                                                                                                                                                                  other documents as required.
740        4             Appendix    Appendix C      TRB            Section C.5 needs to be put back with the spread footing                             Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   discussion. The equation for moment rotation was dropped                                                                                                       more specific input can be developed.
                                                     AFF50(1) of    from page C-7 -- or did I overlook it in the Guideline? The
                                                     AFF50 -        displacement to mobilize passive pressure is inconsistent
                                                     "Seismic       with the text in the Guideline.
                                                     Design of
741        4             Appendix    Appendix C      Bridges"
                                                     TRB            The discussion of passive earth pressures (page C-8) was                             Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   what we thought in 1997. I think that reference needs to be                                                                                                    more specific input can be developed.
                                                     AFF50(1) of    made to Anoosh's recent work at Caltrans -- at least to get
                                                     AFF50 -        us a little more current.
                                                     "Seismic
                                                     Design of
742        4             Appendix    Appendix C      Bridges"
                                                     TRB            Discussion at the end of page C-9 is inconsistent with the                           Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   next Appendix.                                                                                                                                                 more specific input can be developed.
                                                     AFF50(1) of
                                                     AFF50 -
                                                     "Seismic
                                                     Design of
743        4             Appendix    Appendix C      Bridges" Lee
                                                     BERGER/        Evaluate whether to include this material at all. If no return-                      ?                                                                         3-1-07: OK, LM In a future revision some consideration          JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                     Marsh          period specific values are included, then this appendix may                                                                                                    should be given to updating the corresponding appendix of
                                                                    be fine as is.                                                                                                                                                 12-49. This would provide engineers with useful
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   background information.
744        4             Appendix    Appendix D      TRB            Appendix D refers to SDRs. How do these relate to the                                Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   SDCs. They should be consistent.                                                                                                                               more specific input can be developed.
                                                     AFF50(1) of
                                                     AFF50 -
                                                     "Seismic
                                                     Design of
745        4             Appendix    Appendix D      Bridges"
                                                     TRB            There appears to be some conflicting recommendations                                 Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   between Appendix D.4.1 where it seems to say spread                                                                                                            more specific input can be developed.
                                                     AFF50(1) of    footings over liquefiable soils are acceptable in some cases
                                                     AFF50 -        and the requirements in Section 6.3 (no footings over
                                                     "Seismic       liquefiable soil). It should be clear that footings are not
                                                     Design of      recommended over liquefiable soils under any condition.
                                                     Bridges"       Again there is the SDR inconsistency in this appendix
                                                                    section
746        4             Appendix    Appendix D      TRB            Appendix D -- overall I think that this appendix is OK --                            Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   better than everything else that I read. At least it followed                                                                                                  more specific input can be developed.
                                                     AFF50(1) of    a consistent story. The screening for liquefaction is not
                                                     AFF50 -        consistent with what is stated in the Guidelines -- in terms
                                                     "Seismic       of looking at liquefaction for SDR 3-6. As noted above,
                                                     Design of      the work is now at least 8 years old, and needs to be
                                                     Bridges"       updated to give newer references -- Youd et al. (2001) as a
                                                                    minimum but probably also recent work by Cretin, Moss,
                                                                    Boulanger, etc.
747        4             Appendix    Appendix D      TRB            Criteria for fines on page D-4 is no longer accepted by                              Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    See Comment Insert #7 (see WORD Document: Chyuan-02- JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.              Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   most folks -- per work by Boulanger, Idriss, Bray, etc.                                                                                                        09-2007.doc Comment Insert #7).
                                                     AFF50(1) of    This needs to be changed.
                                                     AFF50 -
                                                     "Seismic
                                                     Design of
748        4             Appendix    Appendix D      Bridges"
                                                     TRB            Need to check to see if reference to Youd's lateral spread                           Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   equation is the most up to date. I thought that he revised in                                                                                                  more specific input can be developed.
                                                     AFF50(1) of    2003 or so.
                                                     AFF50 -
                                                     "Seismic
                                                     Design of
749        4             Appendix    Appendix D      Bridges"
                                                     TRB            Geoff's curves on page D-18 and D-19 have been updated.                              Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   Also, as I have noted to Geoff several times, I don't think                                                                                                    more specific input can be developed.
                                                     AFF50(1) of    that we should be showing displacements less than 1 inch --
                                                     AFF50 -        and maybe it should be 4 inches on these plots.
                                                     "Seismic
                                                     Design of
750        4             Appendix    Appendix D      Bridges"
                                                     TRB            Discussion on page D-28 (last paragraph) needs to be                                 Chyuan-Shen Lee          02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.    I suggest putting this issue in the parking lot for now until   JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee   checked against our original write-up. I am not sure if this                                                                                                   more specific input can be developed.
                                                     AFF50(1) of    is what we said. References on page D-32 seem to be to
                                                     AFF50 -        Sections that no longer exist.
                                                     "Seismic
                                                     Design of
                                                     Bridges"




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 35 of 36
66c990e9-ae6f-46c0-bd39-9e7acc82190e.xls                                                                                                                          LRFD Seismic Guide Spec Improvement Team                                                                                                                                                                                                   11/18/2011

                                                                                                                                                                            Comment Spreadsheet



  Item         Comment     Section         Article       State/                         Initial Comment                          Initial Response        Lead Person                Lead Person's Comments                           Originator's Follow-Up Comment                             Lead Person's Follow-Up Response                 Resolved By    Resolved By    Parking Lot         Major
 Number         Cycle                                    Name                            (by Originator)                         (by Roy Imbsen)                                                                                                                                                                                                   Lead?          Team?          Issue?            Item?

751        4             Appendix    Appendix D      BERGER/ Lee Check with NCHRP 12-49 geotech authors regarding                                   Lee Marsh                                                                3-1-07: OK, LM In a future revision some consideration      JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            Yes
                                                     Marsh       appropriateness of retaining this appendix verbatim. If                                                                                                     should be given to updating the corresponding appendix of
                                                                 changes are required, then delete completely.                                                                                                               12-49. This would provide engineers with useful
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             background information.
752        4             Appendix    Appendix E      TRB           Appendix E -- I do not believe that this should be included                      Chyuan-Shen Lee        02/07/07. See Originator's Follow-Up Comment.     I recommend deleting Appendix E from the guide              JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            Yes            No
                                                     Subcommittee  in the guide spec. This was an example that was included                                                                                                  specification.
                                                     AFF50(1) of   to show cost comparisons for the 475 and 2475 year
                                                     AFF50 -       earthquake. Since the 1000 year EQ is not treated, it has
                                                     "Seismic      limited application to the rest of the appendix. Also, I am
                                                     Design of     not sure that our conclusions should be used as a guide for
                                                     Bridges"      the spec. Lastly, it seems to me that our methodology has
                                                                   improved somewhat. We would probably be better to refer
                                                                   to work done by UCD. In Appendix E, the Washington
                                                                   DOT’s case study has time-acceleration input motions
                                                                   specified at the till, not in hard rock. It would be very
                                                                   helpful if the subject report could provide some guidelines
                                                                   on how to reasonably revise the rock input motions to those
                                                                   for shallower stiff soil sites and still yield an accurate
                                                                   ground response analysis?
753        4             Appendix    Appendix E      BERGER/ Lee Remove this appendix completely.                                                   ?                                                                        3-1-07: OK, LM                                              JQ 02-22-07: Appendices removed per Team agreement.   Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                     Marsh
754        4             General     Equations       Alaska/ Elmer Rewrite all equations in the same style and format as the                        Elmer Marx             02-09-07: Agree. See attached MS Word documents                                                               02-19-07: OK                                          Yes             Yes            No             No
                                                                   AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.                                                               (4 parts).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Page 36 of 36

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:72
posted:11/18/2011
language:English
pages:36