<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Research in Progress (RIP)</title>
    <link>https://rip.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://rip.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>Low Temperature Performance of a Friction Pendulum Bearing Inundated with Ice</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1669407</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Friction pendulum system (FPS) bridge bearings manufactured by Earthquake Protection Systems (EPS) at several locations around the country are known to fill with and retain water in the inner cavity of the bearing. FPS bearings are delivered and installed with cover seals around the outer bearing (attached to the top and bottom plate) that prevent exposure of the sliding surfaces. However, from inspection of in-service bearings, several DOTs have reported observations of breached seals and standing water on the sliding surface. The influence of water contamination on the sliding surface friction properties appears to be absent in prior literature, but anecdotal observations have suggested that water contamination may decrease the bearing friction coefficient.
In Alaska, an even bigger concern is the fact that water trapped in the bearings will freeze during the winter months. The presence of ice in the cavity of the isolator could obstruct the movement of the bearing during an earthquake. This would result in increased base shear demand, which is potentially damaging to the bridge superstructure and foundation. Thus, the consequences of water and ice contamination in the bearings must be evaluated to determine how well the bearings will function, and whether uncertainties in the bearing response can be accounted for in the design process. If consequences of water or ice contamination are severe, mitigation options should be explored that can either prevent the bearings from taking on water or help the bearings to quickly dry out.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:25:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1669407</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SEISMIC: UNR: Testing of Pile Extension Connections to Slab Bridges</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234333</link>
      <description><![CDATA[No summary provided.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:10:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234333</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SEISMIC: Strong Motion Instrumentation Program</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234328</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Currently no instrumented bridge has captured the performance of a bridge responding nonlinearly to strong ground motion. The Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) is supported by the Seismic Advisory Board and is consistent with the goals of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Long Term Bridge Performance Program (LTBPP). Sensors are placed to record acceleration, the relative deflection of various members and to determine the mode shapes caused by strong ground motions. Research is currently underway to use the data to evaluate the conditions of bridges following a large earthquake.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:10:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234328</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SEISMIC: Maintain California Bridge Strong Motion Instrumentation Systems</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234327</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Caltrans has installed instrumentation at over 100 bridge and geotechnical array sites with the assistance of the California Geological Survey. This instrumentation is used to record earthquake induced motions, to assess structural damage (or deterioration) and for design model verification, following large seismic events.  The strong motion recording systems are located throughout the entire state, from near the Oregon border to the Mexican border, with concentrations in the San Francisco Bay area and the greater Los Angeles region.  The number of sensors at structures ranges from as many as 100, for some of the larger structures, to as few as 6 for some small bridges.  The required maintenance work involves routine periodic checks of the status of each system to establish state-of-health. For instrumentation needing maintenance, trouble shooting and failure analysis will be performed remotely from Sacramento.  Field repair and replacement of failed components will be performed as necessary to restore the instrumentation systems to operation to record earthquakes.  In addition, periodic replacement of batteries and other preventative maintenance will be done on a scheduled basis.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:10:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234327</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SEISMIC: Bridge Design for Earthquake Fault Crossings: Synthesis of Design Issues and Strategies</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234317</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This proposed research plan is aimed at translating previously completed research into products that can be easily implemented by bridge engineers. Specific products that will be developed during this project are: (a) Report on independent verification of the reliability of the three previously developed procedures; (b) Examples for the use of the three procedures for different types of bridges, different fault types, and different orientation between the bridge and fault; and (c) Procedures that are clear and can be put into Caltrans Memo to Designers and Seismic Design Criteria. The proposed research plan consists of seven tasks: (1) Identification of Bridge Examples; (2) Selection of Ground Motion Histories; (3) Development of Computer Models; (4) Evaluation of Previous Procedures; (5) Review of Analysis Approaches for Practical Use; (6) Development of Example Problems; and (7) Development of Recommendations for Bridges in Fault-Rupture Zones. This research will use realistic bridge models for independent evaluation of the three previously developed procedures, investigate impediments to their practical application and suggest possible solutions, develop simple to follow example problems for different scenarios, and provide recommendations to Caltrans that can be offered for adoption in the next Seismic Design Criteria and Memo to Designers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:10:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234317</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Seismic Design Recommendations</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1230841</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This proposal is in response to New Jersey Department of Transportation RFP#2008-09 entitled "Seismic Design Recommendations". Current Seismic design of new highway structures in New Jersey follows the requirements of Subsection 3.10 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. All bridges in New Jersey are considered as "essential" for seismic design and as "standard" for seismic retrofit. Highway bridges in New Jersey are seismically retrofitted according to "Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges" currently numbered as, FHWA-RD-94-052, May, 1995. However, because of the newly adopted "LRFD Guide Specifications for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges" prepared by Roy Imbsen by the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges* and Structures and the publication of 2006 Edition of the "Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1 - Bridges and Part 2 - Retaining Structures, Slopes, Culverts and Roadways" by the FHWA, it has become necessary to develop unified seismic design and retrofit recommendations for New Jersey bridges based on these documents. The main objective of the proposed research is to develop recommendations on adoption of these documents by NJDOT for seismic design and retrofit of highway bridges. The specific objectives of the proposed research are: (i) Preparation of guidelines for seismic design of New Jersey bridges based on review and critical analysis of "LRFD Guide Specifications for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges". (ii) Preparation of guidelines for retrofit of existing bridges based on review and critical analysis of "Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1 - Bridges and Part 2 - Retaining Structures, Slopes, Culverts and Roadways". (iii) Development of classification and importance categories for New Jersey bridges. (iv) Recommendations on acceptable retrofit options and guidelines on the implementation of these retrofit options for New Jersey bridges. (v) Development of computer models and examples illustrating applications of guidelines for the design of new bridges and retrofit of different types of bridges. Seismically, New Jersey falls in central Appalachian seismic region. Several earthquakes of intensity V or greater on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale have occurred in New Jersey since 1895. Figure 1 shows the seismic hazard map of New Jersey for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2500 Years return period). It is observed that current seismic hazard levels in New Jersey vary from small hazards in Southern New Jersey to a moderate in Northern New Jersey and neighboring New York City. However, New Jersey ranks 10th in terms of Annualized Earthquake Loss (AEL) to building inventory because of high value building inventories, even though the seismic risk is relatively low [FEMA (366)]. Since the highway bridge network in New Jersey serves as a vital link in the transportation infrastructure in the NE region, the implications of seismic hazard to highway bridges in New Jersey are quite severe, even though New Jersey is a region of low seismicity. Hence, increasing the seismic resistance of highway bridges through detailed seismic design and retrofit planning is essential. This proposal offers to develop seismic design and retrofit guidelines specifically for New Jersey bridges through in-depth and critical review and analysis of all available documents and in particular the new guidelines by AASHTO and FHWA.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:07:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1230841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>