<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>History of Seismic Design Codes for Piers and Wharves</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2263782</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper reviews the history of seismic design codes and practices in the United States and the relation with model building codes. Until the 1980's, design was done using a single level earthquake, and equivalent lateral force design. Since the mid-1980's, common practice in high seismic areas has been to use performance-based design with multiple level earthquakes, and different performance objectives for each level. The current state-of-practice is to use displacement-based design methods, with strain criteria based on several large scale experimental tests performed over the last 10 years. This practice has become prevalent throughout the United States. The history of building code development is also reviewed, and the impact on the marine industry. In particular, the introduction of the Maximum Credible Earthquake with a 2,475 year return period, has created inconsistent design premises for buildings and marine structures. The paper further describes what is currently happening in codes and standards developments in the marine industry. An ASCE Standards committee is preparing a consensus document that will address seismic design of piers and wharves. Because of varying jurisdictional authorities throughout the United States, it is still expected to take many years before the design approach becomes unified in this country.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 13:53:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2263782</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Seismic Performance of Eccentrically Braced Frames Using Codal Provisions: A Comparative Design Study</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2642975</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Seismic design provisions for eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) have undergone significant evolution in recent years, with major building codes continually refining their guidelines. This study presents a comparative analysis of the seismic design provisions in current standards, with a focus on key aspects including overstrength factors, behavior factors, and structural response under seismic loads. Unlike many previous studies that focused on a single design standard, this research highlights the differences between two codes and the implications for seismic resilience. A detailed case study of a multistory office building in Naples, Italy, where EBFs are designed in accordance with the studied guidelines, is presented. The study examines the impact of variations in link beam length, bracing configurations, and material properties (S275 and S355 steel) on seismic performance. Using commercially available software for structural analysis, including response spectrum analysis and second-order (P-Δ) effects, the study reveals significant differences in overstrength distribution, lateral drift limits, and energy-dissipation mechanisms. Notably, one code assigns variable behavior factors based on ductility class, whereas the other uses a fixed response modification factor. These differences influence base shear requirements, overstrength provisions, and material efficiency. The findings offer practical insights for structural engineers in selecting an appropriate design approach based on seismic performance objectives. Future research should focus on parametric studies and full-scale testing to further refine EBF design methodologies and contribute to the harmonization of global seismic design standards.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:02:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2642975</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Governing Seismic Design Scenarios for Graving Docks</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2559495</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There is no modern design code specific to the seismic design and evaluation of graving docks. However, many of these facilities are in regions of high seismicity. Consequently, there is a need to develop resources providing guidance to engineers engaged in the seismic assessment or design of these docks. This paper presents the results of a study evaluating three design scenarios (Empty, Docked Vessel, and Flooded) that have the potential to govern the seismic performance of graving docks. These scenarios are evaluated for three generic docks defined for the study, including a gravity dock and two pressure-relieved docks. The evaluations identify the scenario that is likely to govern each type of graving dock. In general, the Empty scenario is found to be the most likely to govern seismic performance; however, for certain pressure-relieved graving docks, the Flooded scenario governs instead.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 15:53:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2559495</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Navigating Existing Building Codes for Seismic Upgrade of Marine Structures Supporting Buildings</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2559490</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Marine structures and buildings are designed with different codes and methodologies. When marine structures support buildings, the engineering team must navigate these codes and propose an approach to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). When considering the alteration and seismic upgrade of existing marine structures, navigating the codes is further complicated. Existing building codes define thresholds that trigger the upgrade of existing elements, but these are not directly applicable to marine structures, introducing a variety of code interpretations. The Port of San Francisco’s Waterfront Resilience Program (WRP) has proposed seismic retrofits to improve the reliability of the seawall and marine structures along the Embarcadero. One key strategy includes wharf strengthening while adding a seismic joint between the wharf and pier. However, this joint introduces a structural modification to the existing pier and building, raising the question of whether a code upgrade is triggered for the pier structure. This paper discusses the impact of the seismic joint on the existing pier and code considerations for voluntary seismic upgrades of marine structures supporting buildings.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 15:53:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2559490</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Minimum Ledge Tie Reinforcement for UHPFRC Ledge Beams</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2550273</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Ledge beams are employed as the primary girders in numerous existing bridges, parking garages and high-rise buildings. No experimental investigations have been reported on Ultra-High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) ledge beams yet. This paper presents an experimental and numerical program to investigate UHPFRC ledge beams with various ratios of ledge tie reinforcement. The experimental program included eight full-scale ledge beams constructed from UHPFRC with concrete cube compressive strength of 146.1 MPa. The results revealed that failure modes of tested specimens depend mainly on ledge tie reinforcement. Increasing the ledge tie reinforcement ratio in specimens led to a significant enhancement of the ultimate strength and overall stiffness. The presence of ledge ties at the minimum ratio specified by the codes contributed to an approximate 65.0% increase in the ultimate load. The estimated failure modes for specimens using (AASHTO–LRFD 2020) and Strut-and-Tie Model (STM) according to (ACI 318-2019) were identical with experiments, while the predictions of (PCI 2020) were not identical with 50.0% of the experimental results. The predictions of ultimate strength of specimens based on the equations of (PCI 2020) and STM according to (ACI 318-2019) were conservative. A three-dimensional numerical model was proposed to predict the complete response of the tested UHPFRC ledge beams.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 14:15:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2550273</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Memphis International Airport Seismic Code Comparison and Upgrade Strategy</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2209137</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A team of professionals, including structural engineers, were retained to renovate Concourse B at the Memphis International Airport for a new retail configuration. The reconfiguration work required the removal of four existing interior columns, and the replacement of an 80 foot by 80 foot portion of the roof for a new glass skylight. The airport authority requested that the reconfiguration program include upgrades to the entire structure to meet current seismic design criteria. This report attempts to compare the SBC 1999 Building Code to the IBC 2000 building code, and summarize the seismic upgrade strategy chosen for this project.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:57:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2209137</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Retrofit of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns Using FRP, Steel and Concrete Jackets</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2209089</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A large number of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings and bridges is deemed structurally deficient. This is either because the infrastructure continues to age and deteriorate or the strength or deformation capacity of the existing older infrastructure does not meet the current code requirements, e.g., in high seismic regions. Thus, the need for more efficient retrofit methods has increased in recent years. Currently, there are only a few methods used for strengthening or retrofitting columns. Steel jackets and Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRJP) composites are the two most commonly used methods. In this study, along with these two retrofit methods, concrete jackets reinforced with spiral rebar, Welded Wire Fabric (WWF), and a new steel reinforcement termed PCS are investigated under different axial load conditions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:57:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2209089</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Minimum Web Reinforcement Requirements for Slender and Non-Slender Beams</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2437870</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Prescriptive shear requirements in the U.S. from the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 (2019), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Design (AASHTO LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications (2020), and the fédération international du béton Model Code (fib MC) (2010) include a minimum web reinforcement requirement. In general, slender beams require a minimum area of web reinforcement equal to 0.08% of the cross-section, while non-slender beams require up to 0.30%, or roughly three times more than the slender beam requirement. This investigation aims to evaluate the discrepancy between these requirements in relation to the strength and serviceability behavior of experimental test data. This is carried out through an analysis of existing and peer-reviewed databases. The results show that the minimum web reinforcement needed to ensure shear strength is consistent with code requirements for slender beams, but not non-slender beams. The minimum web reinforcement needed to restrain crack widths is consistent with code requirements for non-slender beams, but not slender beams. Thus, the prescriptive web reinforcement requirements for slender and non-slender beams do not appear to be derived from the same criteria. The requirement for slender beams is derived based on these members achieving their predicted strength, while the requirement for non-slender beams is derived based on the width of in-service cracks.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 14:58:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2437870</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Structures 2004: Building on the Past, Securing the Future</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2289025</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This collection contains 180 papers that explore the latest changes in codes, including wind and seismic provisions along with important new approaches, such as blast resistance, to enhance the security and stability of the structures. Rehabilitation and retrofitting emerge as a critical topic because private companies and government agencies alike are upgrading existing structures to hold the line on insurance premiums and to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency guidelines. Topics include: innovations in infrastructure design; recent trends in transportation structures; design approaches for different model building codes; restoration and repair of existing structures; seismic design concepts; project delivery systems; business and professional practice in structural engineering; ongoing theoretical and experimental research activities; and computation methods.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:02:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2289025</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Design of Airport Traffic Control Towers as They Relate to Model Codes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2149304</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Air traffic has been steadily increasing with the need for additional capacity at the nation's airports. To increase capacity at airports more runways, ramps, hangers and terminals are being added. This additional infrastructure is impacting the existing Airport Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs) requiring their replacement with taller and larger towers. These towers are unique structures having one or more floors sitting on top of a small shaft and topped off with an all glass observation platform, commonly referred to as the cab. The writers will discuss the various building codes and how they relate to the design of ATCTs. They will demonstrate the use of alternative design approaches for code compliance, which can substantively improve implementation of ATCTs. Additionally the writer's will make recommendations for updating the building codes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:31:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2149304</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:2020 Bridge Welding Code</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2108076</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This publication includes the latest code requirements and associated commentary for welded highway bridges made from carbon and low-alloy steels. It covers design of welded connections, workmanship, technique, procedure and performance qualification, inspection, and stud welding. It also features the latest revisions and nondestructive examination requirements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2023 15:58:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2108076</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Friction’s Contribution to Maximizing the Life-Cycle of Structures</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1994663</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Because of continued depletion of natural resources and the impact of carbon emissions on the environment, it is essential that buildings and bridges perform optimally with minimal damage when subjected to atypical loading demands. Today’s building codes are focused primarily on life-safety, not on performance. With the support of research and practice, codes of the future are expected to specifically address minimum expected levels of performance and perhaps will require structures to behave with limited damage when subjected to extreme loadings such as caused by major earthquakes. Friction historically has been used as a means of controlling behavior of structures through devices such as seismic isolators (e.g.: friction pendulum isolators) at the bases of buildings but rarely, if ever, has friction been used to control behavior directly in building frames. Friction can be used to additionally damp structures as well as to allow the dissipation of energy through heat. What is most important about the use of friction devices is that devices offer the possibility of protecting associated structural elements from damage. Pin-Fuse seismic systems have been under development for several years and one system is currently under review by the AISC’s Connection Pre-qualification Review Panel (CPRP). These systems include devices incorporated into building frames to dissipate energy during earthquakes, supplement structural damping, to allow structures to remain essentially elastic in major seismic events, thus enabling them to remain in service after such events. This paper will present the latest breakthroughs relating to the performance of non-metallic friction materials in the devices, proposed applications for the devices in buildings both new and retrofitted, a summary of full-scale testing relating to pin-fuse device and component testing performed to date, and planned future testing.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:47:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1994663</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Analysis and research on the difference of design codes for vertical bearing capacity of pile foundation in cold regions</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2083954</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The design results of pile foundations based on different national codes are not identical owing to differences in the design and calculation of the vertical bearing capacity of frozen soil pile foundation, thus inconveniencing pile foundation designers involved in international projects. This paper summarises the distribution of large-scale projects and the selection of pile foundations in cold regions. Models of a frictional elastic system and a friction end-bearing rigid–elastic system were obtained based on the vertical force characteristics of pile foundations under climate change in cold region. Differences in the design and calculation methods of the vertical bearing capacity of the pile foundations and the determination methods of the vertical ultimate bearing capacity in construction, transportation, and power transmission engineering in cold regions of various countries were discussed, and the applicability of each design method under complicated conditions was proposed. The calculations of the end resistance, side resistance, negative friction and frost heaving force of pile foundations in different national codes were described, and the values of partial safety factor for resistance and factor of safety were discussed, and the basis for the selection is summarised for different engineering design parameters. The study is intended to provide essential normative guidance for designing the vertical bearing capacity for pile foundation engineering in cold regions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2023 09:31:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2083954</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Electric Vehicle Charging for Residential and Commercial Energy Codes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2059045</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This technical brief presents a compilation of information on electric vehicles (EVs), examining market trends, benefits to consumers and society, and means of expanding the EV charging infrastructure by way of energy codes for new construction. A description of the concept is provided along with supporting justification and examples of similar concepts which have been adopted by states and local jurisdictions, as well as technical information on expected costs and benefits. In addition, the brief provides sample energy code language developed by 	Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) following consultations with the International Code Council (ICC) that can be overlaid directly onto model energy codes for EV charging infrastructure.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:09:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2059045</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Geo-Congress 2022: Deep Foundations, Earth Retention, and Underground Construction</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1948824</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This Geotechnical Special Publication contains 62 peer-reviewed papers on deep foundations, underground construction, and earth retention.  Topics include: deep and shallow foundations; underground engineering and construction; building code issues; earth retention systems; and rock mechanics.  GSP 332 will be valuable to practitioners and researchers working with the design of foundations and earth retention systems.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2022 10:08:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1948824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>