Design, Modeling, and Experimental Response of Seismic Resistant Bridge Piers with Posttensioned Dissipating Connections
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 133, Issue 11
Abstract
An increasing interest in the development of high-performance seismic resisting systems based on posttensioned, jointed ductile connections has been observed in the last decade. The extensive experimental and numerical studies carried out under the PRESSS program developed efficient alternative solutions for seismic resisting frame or wall systems in precast concrete building construction, typically referred to as jointed ductile connections. Low structural damage and self-centering behavior, leading to negligible residual displacements after an earthquake event, were recognized to be the main features of such systems. Recently, the extension and application of similar technology and seismic design methodologies to bridge piers and systems have been proposed in the literature as a viable and promising alternative to traditional cast-in situ or precast construction. However, a broad acceptance of these solutions in the bridge design and construction industry has yet to be observed. Valid justifications can be found in the lack of official guidelines for design and construction detailing as well as in the general apparent complexity of the design procedure and analytical models presented by the scientific community. In this contribution, confirmations of the unique design flexibility, the ease of construction, and the high seismic performance of jointed ductile hybrid systems, combining recentering and dissipation capabilities, are presented. After a presentation of simple design methodologies and modeling aspects herein adopted to fully control the seismic response of these systems, the experimental results of quasistatic cyclic tests on five 1:3 scaled, bridge pier specimens are reported and discussed. Four alternative hybrid configurations are implemented by varying the ratio between the posttensioning steel and the internal mild steel as well as the initial posttensioning load. Lower levels of damage and negligible residual/permanent deformations are observed in the hybrid solutions when compared to the experimental response of the benchmark specimen, representing a typical monolithic (cast-in situ) ductile solution. In addition, the efficiency of the simple analytical procedure adopted for design and modeling is further validated.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The financial support provided by the Earthquake Commission of New Zealand (EQC, Grant No. UNSPECIFIEDUNI/507) has been greatly appreciated. The technical support of Mr. Romain Laffont and Mr. Alistair Boys during the design, construction, and testing phases of the first specimens is also kindly acknowledged.
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI), Innovation Task Group 1. (2001). “Acceptance criteria for moment frames based on structural testing (ACI T1.1-01) and Commentary (ACI T1.1R-01).” Farmington Hills, Mich.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), Innovation Task Group 1. (2003). “Special hybrid moment frames composed of discretely jointed precast and post-tensioned concrete members (ACI T1.2-03) and commentary (ACI T1.2R-03).” Farmington Hills, Mich.
Billington, S. L., Barnes, R. W., and Breen, J. E. (1999). “A precast segmental substructure system for standard bridges.” PCI J., 44(4), 56–73.
Carr, A. J. (2005). RUAUMOKO program for inelastic dynamic analysis–users’ manual, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Cheok, G. S., and Stone, W. C. (1994). “Performance of 1/3 scale model precast concrete beam-column connections subjected to cyclic inelastic loads—Report No. 4.” Rep. No. NISTIR 5436, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, Md.
Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A., and Folz, B. (2002). “Seismic response of self-centering hysteresis SDOF systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(5), 1131–1150.
Dodd, L. L., and Restrepo-Posada, J. I. (1995). “Model for predicting cyclic behavior of reinforcing steel.” J. Struct. Eng., 121(3), 433–445.
fib, International Federation for Structural Concrete. (2004). “Seismic design of precast concrete building structures.” Bulletin 27, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Hewes, J. T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (2001). “Experimental testing of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete segmental bridge columns.” Proc., 6th Caltrans Seismic Research Workshop Program, Sacramento, Calif.
Ikeda, S., Hirose, S., Yamaguchi, T., and Nonaka, S. (2002). “Seismic performance of concrete piers prestressed in the critical sections.” Proc., 1st fib Congress, Osaka, Japan, 207–214.
Kawashima, K. (2002). “Seismic design of concrete bridges.” Proc., 1st fib Congress, Osaka, Japan.
Kim, J. (2002). “Behaviour of hybrid frames under seismic loading.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Kurama, Y., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., and Lu, L.-W. (1999). “Lateral load behaviour and seismic design of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete walls.” ACI Struct. J., 96(4), 622–632.
Kwan, W.-P., and Billington, S. L. (2003). “Unbonded posttensioned concrete bridge iers. II: Seismic analyses.” J. Bridge Eng., 8(2), 102–111.
Mackie, K., and Stojadinovic, B. (2004). “Residual displacement and post-earthquake capacity of highway bridges.” Proc., 13th WCEE, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper No. 1550.
Mander, J. B., and Cheng, C. T. (1997). “Seismic resistance of bridge piers based on damage avoidance design.” Technical Rep. No. NCEER-97-0014, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, N.Y.
Marriott, D., Palermo, A., and Pampanin, S. (2006). “Bi-directional quasi-static and pseudo-dynamic tests of damage-resistant bridge piers with hybrid connections.” Proc., 1st ECEES, Geneva, Paper No. 794.
Marriott, D., Pampanin, S., and Palermo, A. (2007). “Seismic design, experimental response and numerical modeling of rocking bridge piers with hybrid post-tensioned connections.” Research Rep. No. ISSN-0110-3326(2007-01), Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
New Zealand Standards (NZS). (2004). “Structural design actions. Part 5 Earthquake actions: New Zealand.” NZS1170.5:2004, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Standards (NZS) (2006). “Appendix B: Special provisions for the seismic design of ductile jointed precast concrete structural systems.” NZS 3101:2006, Concrete standard, Wellington, New Zealand.
Palermo, A. (2004). “The use of controlled rocking in the Seismic Design of Bridges.” Ph.D. dissertation, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Palermo, A., and Pampanin, S. (2006). “Enhanced seismic performance of hybrid bridge systems: Comparison with traditional monolithic solutions.” J. Earthquake Eng., submitted.
Palermo, A., Pampanin, S., and Calvi, G. M. (2005a). “Concept and development of hybrid solutions for seismic resistant bridge systems.” J. Earthquake Eng., 9(5), 1–23.
Palermo, A., Pampanin, S., and Carr, A. (2005b). “Efficiency of simplified alternative modelling approaches to predict the seismic response of precast concrete hybrid systems.” Proc., fib Conference: Keep the Concrete Attractive, Budapest, Hungary.
Pampanin, S. (2000). “Alternative design philosophies and seismic response of precast concrete buildings.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Technical Univ. of Milan, Italy.
Pampanin, S. (2005). “Emerging solutions for high seismic performance of precast/prestressed concrete buildings.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol., 3(2), 202–223.
Pampanin, S., and Nishiyama, M. (2002). “Critical aspects in modelling the seismic behaviour of precast/prestressed concrete building connections and systems.” Proc., 1st fib Congress, Osaka, Japan.
Pampanin, S., Priestley, M. J. N., and Sritharan, S. (2001). “Analytical modeling of the seismic behavior of precast concrete frames designed with ductile connections.” J. Earthquake Eng., 5(3), 329–367.
Priestley, M. J. N. (1991). “Overview of the PRESSS research programme.” PCI J., 36(4), 50–57.
Priestley, M. J. N. (2002). “Direct displacement-based design of precast/prestressed concrete buildings.” PCI J., 47(6), 66–78.
Priestley, M. J. N. (2003). Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering, revisited. The Mallet Milne lecture 2003, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M. J. N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J. R., and Pampanin, S. (1999). “Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-story precast concrete test-building.” PCI J., 44(6), 42–67.
Sakai, J., and Mahin, S. (2004). “Mitigation of residual displacements of circular reinforced concrete bridge columns.” Proc., 13th WCEE Conf., Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 1622.
Stanton, J. F., Stone, W. C., and Cheok, G. S. (1997). “A hybrid reinforced precast frame for seismic regions.” PCI J., 42(2), 20–32.
Zatar, W., and Mutsuyoshi, H. (2000). “Reduced residual displacements of partially prestressed concrete bridge piers.” Proc., 12th WCEE Conf., Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 1111.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2007 ASCE.
History
Received: Feb 15, 2006
Accepted: Apr 12, 2007
Published online: Nov 1, 2007
Published in print: Nov 2007
Notes
Note. Associate Editor: Yahya C. Kurama
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.