751.9 Bridge Seismic Design - Revision history

Hoskir at 15:25, 22 January 2026

2026-01-22T15:25:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:25, 22 January 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div style="float: right; margin-left: 30px; margin-bottom: 30px;">__TOC__</div>		<div style="float: right; margin-left: 30px; margin-bottom: 30px; width: 450px;">__TOC__</div>

	==751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications==		==751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications==

Hoskir: added link to usgs

2026-01-22T15:23:51Z

added link to usgs

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:23, 22 January 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	All new or replacement bridges on the state system shall include seismic design and/or detailing to resist an expected seismic event per the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. For example, for a bridge in Seismic Design Categories A, B, C or D, complete seismic analysis or seismic detailing only may be determined as per “[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]”.		All new or replacement bridges on the state system shall include seismic design and/or detailing to resist an expected seismic event per the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. For example, for a bridge in Seismic Design Categories A, B, C or D, complete seismic analysis or seismic detailing only may be determined as per “[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]”.

	'''Preliminary Seismic Design Map''': Preliminary seismic regions are shown with major routes and 1st and 2nd priority earthquake emergency routes. Seismic regions are preliminary since they are based on the assumption of Site Class D. The map uses the 2023 AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS), 3rd Ed. (Risk-targeted design spectra from USGS 2018 National seismic hazard model, NSHMP Static Data Services (usgs.gov)). Bold green lines are major routes. Orange highlighted roads are 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency routes. For additional information, See [https://www.modot.org/media/47036 SEG 24-01].		'''Preliminary Seismic Design Map''': Preliminary seismic regions are shown with major routes and 1st and 2nd priority earthquake emergency routes. Seismic regions are preliminary since they are based on the assumption of Site Class D. The map uses the 2023 AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS), 3rd Ed. (Risk-targeted design spectra from USGS 2018 National seismic hazard model, [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/aashto-2023/ NSHMP Static Data Services (usgs.gov)]). Bold green lines are major routes. Orange highlighted roads are 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency routes. For additional information, See [https://www.modot.org/media/47036 SEG 24-01].

	{{SpanID\|fig751.9.1}}		{{SpanID\|fig751.9.1}}

Hoskir: /* 751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications */ updated per RR 4148

2026-01-21T19:51:05Z

751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications: updated per RR 4148

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:51, 21 January 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications==		==751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications==
	<div style="float: ~~left~~; margin-top: 5px; margin: 15px; width:255px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">		<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin: 15px; width:255px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
	'''<u><center>Additional Information</center></u>'''		'''<u><center>Additional Information</center></u>'''
	* [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]		* [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]
	</div>		</div>

	All new or replacement bridges on the state system shall include seismic design and/or detailing to resist an expected seismic event per the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. For example, for a bridge in Seismic Design Categories A, B, C or D, complete seismic analysis or seismic detailing only may be determined as per “[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]”.		All new or replacement bridges on the state system shall include seismic design and/or detailing to resist an expected seismic event per the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. For example, for a bridge in Seismic Design Categories A, B, C or D, complete seismic analysis or seismic detailing only may be determined as per “[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]”.

			'''Preliminary Seismic Design Map''': Preliminary seismic regions are shown with major routes and 1st and 2nd priority earthquake emergency routes. Seismic regions are preliminary since they are based on the assumption of Site Class D. The map uses the 2023 AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS), 3rd Ed. (Risk-targeted design spectra from USGS 2018 National seismic hazard model, NSHMP Static Data Services (usgs.gov)). Bold green lines are major routes. Orange highlighted roads are 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency routes. For additional information, See [https://www.modot.org/media/47036 SEG 24-01].

			{{SpanID\|fig751.9.1}}
			[[File:fig_751.9.1.png\|center\|800px\|thumb\|alt=Figure 751.9.1 Preliminary Seismic Design Map\|<center>'''Figure 751.9.1 Preliminary Seismic Design Map'''</center>]]

	Missouri is divided into four Seismic Design Categories. Most of the state is SDC A which requires minimal seismic design and/or detailing in accordance with SGS (Seismic Zone 1 of LRFD) and “[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]”. The other seismic design categories will require a greater amount of seismic design and/or detailing.		Missouri is divided into four Seismic Design Categories. Most of the state is SDC A which requires minimal seismic design and/or detailing in accordance with SGS (Seismic Zone 1 of LRFD) and “[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]”. The other seismic design categories will require a greater amount of seismic design and/or detailing.
Line 52:		Line 58:
	:* Except for section 7 of the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS) is based on Displacement Based Design. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD) is based on Force Based Design. For seismic details and design concept use the SGS when information is available otherwise use LRFD. Seismic analysis shall be performed using displacement-based design (for exception see SGS 7).		:* Except for section 7 of the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS) is based on Displacement Based Design. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD) is based on Force Based Design. For seismic details and design concept use the SGS when information is available otherwise use LRFD. Seismic analysis shall be performed using displacement-based design (for exception see SGS 7).

	{\| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"		{\| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; margin: auto;"
	! colspan="3" \| Seismic Design Category/Seismic Zone by Code		! colspan="3" \| Seismic Design Category/Seismic Zone by Code
	\|-		\|-
Line 552:		Line 558:
	Multi-mode spectral analysis is recommended for most bridges. Time History analysis is generally not recommended because its application requires considerable engineering judgement and experience.		Multi-mode spectral analysis is recommended for most bridges. Time History analysis is generally not recommended because its application requires considerable engineering judgement and experience.

			<div style="margin: auto; width: 655px">
	[[Image:751.9.1.3.3.jpg\|center\|650px\|thumb\|<center>'''Fig. 751.9.1.3.3 Seismic Map'''</center>]]		[[Image:751.9.1.3.3.jpg\|center\|650px\|thumb\|<center>'''Fig. 751.9.1.3.3 Seismic Map'''</center>]]

			'''Note''': For LFD, use Fig. 751.9.1.3.3 Seismic Map to determine seismic performance categories (SPC A, B, C and D). For LRFD, use EPG [[#fig751.9.1\|Figure 751.9.1 Preliminary Seismic Design Map]] to determine preliminary seismic design category (SDC A (A1 and A2), B, C, and D) based on site class D.
			</div>

	===751.9.1.4 Seismic Performance Category (SPC), Acceleration Coefficient (A)===		===751.9.1.4 Seismic Performance Category (SPC), Acceleration Coefficient (A)===

Hoskir: /* 751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement */ updated old math code

2026-01-15T20:03:56Z

751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement: updated old math code

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:03, 15 January 2026
Line 452:		Line 452:
	\| colspan="3" \| Additional longitudinal horizontal reinforcement at top of footing, <math>A_{sb}</math>: \|\|		\| colspan="3" \| Additional longitudinal horizontal reinforcement at top of footing, <math>A_{sb}</math>: \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| <math>A_{sb}</math> \|\| = <math>0.0625 \mbox{ x } A_{st} \mbox{ x } F_{ye} \mbox{/} F_{y}</math> \|\|		\| \|\| <math>A_{sb}</math> \|\| = <math>0.0625 \mbox{x} A_{st} \mbox{x} F_{ye} \mbox{/} F_{y}</math> \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| colspan="2" \| Where, \|\|		\| \|\| colspan="2" \| Where, \|\|

Hoskir: /* 751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Cap Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement */ updated per RR4140

2025-12-19T14:01:10Z

751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Cap Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement: updated per RR4140

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, 19 December 2025
Line 441:		Line 441:
	</gallery>		</gallery>

	=====751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile ~~Cap~~ Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement =====		=====751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement =====
	{\|		{\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| colspan="3" \| For seismic detail option, use following information for spread footing and pile ~~cap~~ footing \|\| width="170px" \| SGS 6.4.7		\| colspan="3" \| For seismic detail option, use following information for spread footing and pile footing \|\| width="170px" \| SGS 6.4.7
	\|-		\|-
	\| colspan="3" \| Vertical shear reinforcement #5 at about 12” each way shall be placed around the column perimeter within a horizontal dimension from face of the column equal to minimum <math>D_{ftg}</math> as shown in [[#751.9.1.2.4.2a\|Figure 751.9.1.2.4.2a]] and [[#751.9.1.2.4.2b\|Figure 751.9.1.2.4.2b]]. #6 maximum bar size shall be used for vertical shear reinforcement.		\| colspan="3" \| Vertical shear reinforcement #5 at about 12” each way shall be placed around the column perimeter within a horizontal dimension from face of the column equal to minimum <math>D_{ftg}</math> as shown in [[#751.9.1.2.4.2a\|Figure 751.9.1.2.4.2a]] and [[#751.9.1.2.4.2b\|Figure 751.9.1.2.4.2b]]. #6 maximum bar size shall be used for vertical shear reinforcement.

Hoskir: /* 751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications */ updated per RR4034

2025-07-11T15:31:14Z

751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications: updated per RR4034

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:31, 11 July 2025
Line 23:		Line 23:
	</div>		</div>

	When existing bridges are identified as needing repairs or maintenance, a decision on whether to include seismic retrofitting in the scope of the project shall be determined per the “[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Retrofit_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Retrofit Flowchart]”, the extent of the rehabilitation work and the expected life of the bridge after the work. For example, if the bridge needs painting or deck patching, no retrofitting is recommended. However, redecking or widening the bridge indicates that MoDOT is planning to keep the bridge in the state system with an expected life of at least 30 more years. In these instances, the project core team should consider cost effective methods of retrofitting the existing bridge. Superstructure replacement requires a good substructure and the core team shall decide whether there is sufficient seismic capacity. Follow the design procedures for new or replacement bridges in forming logical comparisons and assessing risk in a rational determination of the scope of a superstructure replacement project specific to the substructure. For example, based on SPC and route, retrofit of the substructure could include seismic detailing only or a complete seismic analysis may be required determine sufficient seismic capacity. Economic analysis should be considered as part of the decision to re-use and retrofit, or re-build. Where practical, make end bents integral and eliminate expansion joints.		When existing bridges are identified as needing repairs or maintenance, a decision on whether to include seismic retrofitting in the scope of the project shall be determined per the “[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Retrofit_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Retrofit Flowchart]”, the extent of the rehabilitation work and the expected life of the bridge after the work. For example, if the bridge needs painting or deck patching, no retrofitting is recommended. However, redecking or widening the bridge indicates that MoDOT is planning to keep the bridge in the state system with an expected life of at least 30 more years. In these instances, the project core team should consider cost effective methods of retrofitting the existing bridge. Superstructure replacement requires a good substructure and the core team shall decide whether there is sufficient seismic capacity. Follow the design procedures for new or replacement bridges in forming logical comparisons and assessing risk in a rational determination of the scope of a superstructure replacement project specific to the substructure. For example, based on SPC and route, retrofit of the substructure could include seismic detailing only or a complete seismic analysis may be required determine sufficient seismic capacity. Economic analysis should be considered as part of the decision to re-use and retrofit, or re-build. Where practical, make end bents integral and eliminate expansion joints. Seismic isolation systems shall conform to AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design 4th Ed. 2023.

	Bridge seismic retrofit shall be in accordance with [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Retrofit_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Retrofit Flowchart]. Seismic ~~isolation systems~~ shall ~~conform~~ to AASHTO Guide ~~Specifications~~ for ~~Seismic Isolation~~ Design ~~4th~~ Ed. ~~2023~~.		Bridge seismic retrofit for widenings shall be in accordance with [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Retrofit_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Retrofit Flowchart]. Seismic details should only be considered for widenings where they can be practically implemented and where they can be uniformly implemented as not to create significant stress redistribution in the structure. When a complete seismic analysis is required for widenings the existing structure shall be retrofitted and the new structural elements shall be detailed to resist seismic demand.

			* '''Seismic Details for Widening (one side):''' When widening the bridge in one direction there is not a significant benefit, and it could be detrimental, to strengthen a new wing or column while ignoring the existing structure. It may be practical to use FRP wrap to retrofit the existing columns to provide a similar level of service to a new column with seismic details, but this will likely require design computations to verify (see below). For SDC C and D, seismic details typically require a T-joint detail in the beam cap and footing, but t-joint details shall be ignored if the existing beam cap is not retrofitted. For abutments it is not practical to dig up an existing wing solely to match the new wing design so the abutment need not be designed for mass inertial forces. SPM, SLE or owner’s representative approval is required to determine the appropriate level of seismic detail implementation.
			* '''Seismic Details for Widening (both sides):''' When widening in both directions the wings shall be designed to resist the mass inertial forces. Seismic details shall be added to the new columns in SDC B only if the existing columns can be retrofitted with FRP wrap to provide a similar level of service as discussed below. SDC C and D bridges may be detailed and retrofitted similar to SDC B since retrofitting the beam cap or footing is likely not practical.
			* '''Seismic Details for Widening (FRP wrap)''': Carbon or glass fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite wrap should be considered to strengthen the factored axial resistance of existing columns. There are limitations to the existing and achievable column factored axial resistance with FRP wrap. The goal of the FRP wrap is to increase the factored axial resistance of the existing column to be not less than the factored axial resistance of the new column with seismic details. If an existing column cannot be retrofitted with FRP wrap to match the factored axial resistance of a new column with seismic details at the same bent then seismic details shall be ignored for all columns in the bridge substructure. See AASHTO Guide Spec for Design of Bonded FRP Systems for Repair and Strengthening of Concrete Bridge Elements, March 2023, 2nd Ed., Appendix A, Example 6 for an example for increasing column factored axial resistance with FRP wrap. Use [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#I5._Fiber_Reinforced_Polymer_(FRP)_Wrap_–_Intermediate_Bent_Column_Strengthening_for_Seismic_Details_for_Widening._Report_following_notes_on_Intermediate_bent_plan_details.\|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes I5]] on plans to report factored axial resistance of existing column and new column. The flexural resistance of the column is also increased with FRP wrap, but it may not be practical to match the flexural resistance of a new column using existing longitudinal steel. For additional references, see [[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.3.2_Bent_Cap_Shear_Strengthening_using_FRP_Wrap\|EPG 751.40.3.2 Bent Cap Shear Strengthening using FRP Wrap]].

	===751.9.1.1 Applicability of Guidelines and Seismic Design Philosophy===		===751.9.1.1 Applicability of Guidelines and Seismic Design Philosophy===

Hoskir: /* 751.9.1.2.2 Seismic Details for Non-oversized Drilled Shaft */ updated image 751.9.1.2.2 per email from BR

2025-06-09T13:16:51Z

751.9.1.2.2 Seismic Details for Non-oversized Drilled Shaft: updated image 751.9.1.2.2 per email from BR

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 9 June 2025
Line 269:		Line 269:

	<gallery mode=packed heights=950 id="751.9.1.2.2">		<gallery mode=packed heights=950 id="751.9.1.2.2">
	File:751.9.1.2.~~2_01~~-2025.~~jpg~~\|'''Figure 751.9.1.2.2 Seismic Details for Non-oversized Drilled Shaft'''		File:751.9.1.2.2_06-2025.png\|'''Figure 751.9.1.2.2 Seismic Details for Non-oversized Drilled Shaft'''
	</gallery>		</gallery>

Hoskir: /* 751.9.3.1.8 Anchorage of Piles for Seismic B, C and D */ updated per RR4033

2025-04-18T17:40:39Z

751.9.3.1.8 Anchorage of Piles for Seismic B, C and D: updated per RR4033

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 18 April 2025
Line 2,410:		Line 2,410:
	====751.9.3.1.8 Anchorage of Piles for Seismic B, C and D====		====751.9.3.1.8 Anchorage of Piles for Seismic B, C and D====

	For anchorage of piles for seismic categories B, C and D, see [[751.~~36 Driven Piles~~#751.36.~~4 Anchorage of Piles for Seismic Categories B, C and D~~\|EPG 751.36.4 Anchorage of Piles for Seismic ~~Categories B, C and D~~]].		For anchorage of piles for seismic categories B, C and D, see [[751.36_Driven_Piles#751.36.4_Anchorage_of_Piles_for_Seismic_Details\|EPG 751.36.4 Anchorage of Piles for Seismic Details]].

	===751.9.3.2 Abutment Component Design===		===751.9.3.2 Abutment Component Design===

Hoskir: /* 751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Cap Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement */ updated per RR4033

2025-04-18T17:35:07Z

751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Cap Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement: updated per RR4033

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 18 April 2025
Line 462:		Line 462:
	\| \|\| \|\| = 60 ksi for ASTM A706 and ASTM A615 \|\| SGS Table 8.4.2-1		\| \|\| \|\| = 60 ksi for ASTM A706 and ASTM A615 \|\| SGS Table 8.4.2-1
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| \|\| The additional longitudinal reinforcement shall be extended at least up to a distance <math>D_{ftg}</math> plus development length from face of the column and must be placed so that the reinforcement goes through the column reinforcement as shown in [[#751.9.1.2.4.2b\|Figure 751.9.1.2.4.2b]] <math>A_{sb}</math> shall be provided in both directions in the footing. \|\|		\| \|\| \|\| The additional longitudinal reinforcement shall be extended at least up to a distance <math>D_{ftg}</math> plus development length from face of the column and must be placed so that the reinforcement goes through the column reinforcement as shown in [[#751.9.1.2.4.2a\|Figure 751.9.1.2.4.2a and Figure 751.9.1.2.4.2b]] <math>A_{sb}</math> shall be provided in both directions in the footing. \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| colspan="3" \| When complete seismic analysis is required per ~~bridge seismic design flowchart~~, joint shear reinforcement shall be provided in accordance with AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS). Modify above information and provide additional reinforcement as needed by design. \|\| style="vertical-align:bottom;" \| SGS 6.4.5, 6.4.6 and 6.4.7		\| colspan="3" \| When complete seismic analysis is required per [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart], joint shear reinforcement shall be provided in accordance with AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS). Modify above information and provide additional reinforcement as needed by design. \|\| style="vertical-align:bottom;" \| SGS 6.4.5, 6.4.6 and 6.4.7
	\|}		\|}

Hoskir: /* 751.9.1.2.4.1 Bent Cap Joint Shear Reinforcement */ updated per RR4033

2025-04-18T17:28:15Z

751.9.1.2.4.1 Bent Cap Joint Shear Reinforcement: updated per RR4033

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:28, 18 April 2025
Line 389:		Line 389:
	\| width="10px" \| 1. \|\| Additional Vertical Stirrups Outside the Joint Region \|\| width="150px" \| SGS 8.13.5.1.1		\| width="10px" \| 1. \|\| Additional Vertical Stirrups Outside the Joint Region \|\| width="150px" \| SGS 8.13.5.1.1
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jv_0 \atop s\ \ \ } \geq 0.175 A_{st} A_{st} =</math> ~~Total area of column longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint =~~ Total area of column longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint \|\|		\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jv_0 \atop s\ \ \ } \geq 0.175 A_{st}</math> \|\|
			\|-
			\| \|\|Where, \|\|
			\|-
			\| \|\| <math>A_{st} =</math> Total area of column longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jv_0 \atop s\ \ \ } =</math> Minimum total area of additional vertical stirrups on each side of joint \|\|		\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jv_0 \atop s\ \ \ } =</math> Minimum total area of additional vertical stirrups on each side of joint \|\|
Line 397:		Line 401:
	\| 2. \|\| Additional Vertical Stirrups Inside the Joint Region \|\| SGS 8.13.5.1.2		\| 2. \|\| Additional Vertical Stirrups Inside the Joint Region \|\| SGS 8.13.5.1.2
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jvi \atop s\ \ \ } \geq 0.135 A_{st} =</math> \|\|		\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jvi \atop s\ \ \ } \geq 0.135 A_{st}</math> \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| Where, \|\|		\| \|\| Where, \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| <math>A_{st} =</math> Total area of column longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint \|\|		\| \|\| <math>A_{st} =</math> Total area of column longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jvi \atop s\ \ \ } =</math> Minimum total area of vertical stirrups inside the joint region \|\|		\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jvi \atop s\ \ \ } =</math> Minimum total area of vertical stirrups inside the joint region \|\|
Line 409:		Line 413:
	\| 3. \|\| Additional Longitudinal Cap Beam Reinforcement \|\| SGS 8.13.5.1.3		\| 3. \|\| Additional Longitudinal Cap Beam Reinforcement \|\| SGS 8.13.5.1.3
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jl \atop s\ } \geq 0.245 A_{st} =</math> \|\|		\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jl \atop s\ } \geq 0.245 A_{st}</math> \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| Where, \|\|		\| \|\| Where, \|\|
Line 415:		Line 419:
	\| \|\| <math>A_{st} =</math> Total area of column longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint \|\|		\| \|\| <math>A_{st} =</math> Total area of column longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {~~jvi~~ \atop s\ \ \ } =</math> Minimum total area of additional longitudinal reinforcement in top and bottom faces of the cap beam \|\|		\| \|\| <math>{}A\ {jl \atop s\ \ \ } =</math> Minimum total area of additional longitudinal reinforcement in top and bottom faces of the cap beam \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| The additional longitudinal reinforcement shall be extended at least one column diameter plus development length from face of the column as shown in [[#751.9.1.2.4.1a\|Figure 751.9.1.2.4.1a]] \|\|		\| \|\| The additional longitudinal reinforcement shall be extended at least one column diameter plus development length from face of the column as shown in [[#751.9.1.2.4.1a\|Figure 751.9.1.2.4.1a]] \|\|
Line 423:		Line 427:
	\| \|\| #4 Horizontal J-bars shall be hooked around the longitudinal reinforcement on each face of the cap beam at every other stirrup inside the joint as shown in [[#751.9.1.2.4.1b\|Figure 751.9.1.2.4.1b]].		\| \|\| #4 Horizontal J-bars shall be hooked around the longitudinal reinforcement on each face of the cap beam at every other stirrup inside the joint as shown in [[#751.9.1.2.4.1b\|Figure 751.9.1.2.4.1b]].
	\|-		\|-
	\| colspan="2" \| When complete seismic analysis is required per ~~bridge seismic design flowchart~~, joint shear reinforcement shall be provided in accordance with AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS). Modify above information and provide additional reinforcement as needed by design. \|\| style="vertical-align:bottom;" \| SGS 8.12 and 8.13		\| colspan="2" \| When complete seismic analysis is required per [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart], joint shear reinforcement shall be provided in accordance with AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS). Modify above information and provide additional reinforcement as needed by design. \|\| style="vertical-align:bottom;" \| SGS 8.12 and 8.13
	\|}		\|}