Ohio.gov State Agencies  |  Online Services
Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Attachments
  
  
  
  
  
  
Questions
  
  
  
Michael WilliamsODOTmwillia3@dot.state.oh.us387-0772
Yes I do.
0
  
Jim StockW.E. QUICKSALL & ASSOCIATES, INC.jrs@wequicksall.com330 339 6676
Do you have upcoming LRFD Bridge Design training classes? 

I am an EIT and while I have picked up a fair understanding of LRFD Bridge Design it would be extremely helpful to learn from a trained professional.  I'm sure there are other young engineers out there who would benefit greatly from your training seminars.

Thanks.
  
Rezauyguyjghyjtytfyt
cgcgfcgf
  
Douglas C. BrunotLouis Perry & Associates, Inc.dbrunot@louisperry.com330.334.1585
Where can I find course dates for the LRFD training?
  
Michael WilliamsODOTmwillia3@dot.state.oh.us6143870772
TEST
Yes
  
Michael WilliamsODOTmwillia3@dot.state.oh.us6143870772
TEST
Yes
  
Michael WilliamsODOTmwillia3@dot.state.oh.us6143870772
TEST
Yes
  
RezaODOTReza.zandi@dot.state.oh.us
fdvasdfasdfasdffd
No
  
RezaODOTReza.zandi@dot.state.oh.us
fdvasdfasdfasdffd
No
  
RezaODOTReza.zandi@dot.state.oh.us
fdvasdfasdfasdffd
No
  
RezaODOTReza.zandi@dot.state.oh.us
fdvasdfasdfasdffd
No
  
RezaODOTReza.zandi@dot.state.oh.us
fdvasdfasdfasdffdghjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj   njgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
No
  
Jonathan HrenTranSystemsjdhren@transystems.com216-861-1780
When will we be required to rate a structure using LRFR?
Yes
  
estimhhpzwvJLkNNpvzagnon@vtkvwq.comEduIXWdptxliHRqeYes
  
David GreifzuIllinois Department of Transportationdavid.greifzu@illinois.gov217 785-2923
I am working on developing LRFD training material for Illinois DOT.  I would like to look at / download the ODOT LRFD training material from your site but am unable.  When I click on the links, it asks me to logon with a username and password. I would like access to the site if this is acceptable to you.
Yes
  
Boon KuntakomOsborn Engineringkuntakom@osborn-eng.com330-535-3132
Do we need to use LRFD to design new 30 ft span 3 sided flat top pre-fabricated structure including footing and wingwall? 
Yes
  
H. John SnyderW. E. Quicksall & Assoc.hjs@wequicksall.com330-339-6676
In the AASHTO Standard Specification the effective flange width for a composite girder was controlled by the following:
(1) One-fourth of the span length of the girder.
(2) The distance center to center of girders.
(3) Twelve times the least thickness of the slab.
In Section 4.6.2.6 of the 4th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Specification, the 2008 Interim revises the effective flange width for a composite girder to the tributary width perpendicular to axis of the member. What effective flange width should be used when running a bridge rating analysis with BARS? Is ODOT using this new effective flange width criterion only for structures designed with the LRFD Specification?
Yes
  
Chris SelvaggioEMH&Tcselvaggio@emht.com775-4500
It seems that LRFD composite deck design results in less reinforcing steel than with LFD, while extra reinforcing steel requirements over the piers have not (1% of gross cross sectional area). In a current design, this results in the need to add as many as 3 extra top longitudinal bars (same size)between each pair of typical bars and barely needing one extra bar in the bottom longitudinal mat. Is it ODOT's preference to take this at face value, or tighten up the typical longitudinal bar spacing to eliminate the need for an additional bottom bar and fewer top bars at the pier? Also, please clarify the required development length of the additional bars.  Is it the larger of 40 % of the longer adjacent span or LRFD 5.11.1.2.3 as is defined for non-composite design?
Yes
  
jyhcvonlFYoHYNUJfTsioZGrhgywtxw@krsrga.comOPFkLfVGvrbWsWFZIYes
  
aabbbtwrVcGocrhvlBktTaujwdp@iynshb.comYGLmsqZsCuEWBdTLZoNo
  
djzutrxvyditmgHyrceylpMSNgijzpp@izkbys.comVRIYHmJThiYNNnKDFkYes
  
Roger KochmanBurgess & Niplerkochman@burnip.com459-2050
Section 1000 S3.10.9.2 states that substructures with seismic restraints should be designed at Extreme Event I for .2 times the dead load. The LRFD code, however, states in Section 5.10.11.2 that "no consideration of seismic forces shall be required for the design of structural components" in Seismic Zone 1 where the response acceleration coefficient is less than 0.1. Is your intent to be stricter than the LRFD code? This design criterium can potentially have large costs associated with it.
Yes
  
Micahel MalloyKS Associates, Inc.malloym@ksassociates.com14403654730
I consider a new bridge to mean an entire new superstructure under the guidelines for when to use LRFD.  Am I correct in this understanding, or is a new bridge defined as an entirely new superstructure and an entirely new substructure?
Yes
  
Fang-Fu TangRJM Engineering Companyfft@rjmengineeringco.com(740) 797-0500
BDM S3.10.9.2 Paragraph 5: "If seismic restraints are provided, design the substructure units for an earthquake force (EQ) at the Extreme Event I limit state equal to 0.2 times the tributary dead loads applied in the restrained direction in the maximum load effect."

For a two (2) span composite bridge continuing for live loads with elastomeric bearings fixed for translation at pier and longitudinally free to translate at abutments, it is likely that the pier would respond to resist most of longitudinal earthquake loads. If this consideration stands as commented in LRFD C3.10.9.2, is it inappropriate to apply a longitudinal earthquake load for the pier design equal to 0.2 times the dead loads from the two spans superstructure?
Yes
  
bcwqkoxfpkiEUVAfCcgEhyhTcniudv@vrqhvd.com33786No
  
Jennifer MillerBarr & Prevostjmiller@barreng.com614-714-0270
I have a question about Elastomeric Bearing design Method B.  I am using the fifth edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications manual dated 2010.  In section 14.7.5.3.2 - Shear Deformations, it discusses "The maximum shear deformation of the bearing, at the service limit state, delta s, shall be takes as delta 0, modified to account for the substructure stiffness and construction procedures.  If a low friction sliding surface is installed, delta s need not be taken to be larger than the deformation corresponding to the first slip."  My question is, how do I modify delta 0 to determine delta s?  Are there factors somewhere?  Or, can I just conservatively assume that delta s is equal to delta 0?
Yes
  
Jennifer MillerBarr & Prevostjmiller@barreng.com614-714-0270
In the sliding friction force eqn. AASHTO 14.6.3.1-1 Hbu = mu * Pu, which value should I use for the coefficient of friction, mu?  I've found values for rubber on concrete anywhere from 0.6 - 0.85 (dry) and 0.45 - 0.75 (wet).
Yes
  
Jennifer MillerBarr & Prevostjmiller@barreng.com614-714-0270
In AASTHO Section 14.7.5.3.3 - Combined Compression, Rotation, and Shear, I wanted to clarify a few things.  First, In the commentary, last paragraph on page 14-60, it states, "..for rectangular bearings represent simplified values for determining shear strains which are evaluated for rotation about an axis which is parallel to the transverse."  Since the rotation is about the transverse, does that mean that it is longitudinal? (or does that mean transverse?)

In Eqn. 14.7.5.3.3-6, shear strain due to rotation for a rectangular bearing:  Theta S is defined as the "maximum static or cyclic service limit state design rotation angle of the elastomer specified in Article 14.4.2.1."  How do I determine Theta S?  Is it (LL deflection/(span length/2)) * 1.3 * 1.75 for live load?  And DL deflection/(span length/2) for dead load?
Yes
  
Joe MellmanResource Internationaljoem@resourceinternational.com513-769-6998
Are the LRFD training classes still offered?
Yes
  
hjjlrsgWodxyMVtkprhkd@bncqty.comcYekeqpccAYes
1 - 30Next