STRUCTURES 2006

Experimental Evaluation of Pre-Cast Pre-stressed Segmental

Concrete Bridge Columns

Authors:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 03/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Yu-Chen Ou, University at Buffalo, yuchenou@buffalo.edu

Jui-Chen Wang, Ruentex Group, Taiwan, ray.w0204@msa.hinet.net
Kuo-Chun Chang, National Taiwan University, Taiwan, ciekuo@ntu.edu.tw
George C. Lee, University at Buffalo, gclee@buffalo.edu

INTRODUCTION
Segmental bridge column construction has been proven to be an economic and durable
option to accelerate the bridge construction in non-seismic regions in the United States.
Examples include Seven Mile Bridge in Florida and Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D)
Canal Bridge in Delaware. The lack of knowledge of the seismic behavior of a bridge
with segmental columns is one of the important reasons which limit the use of such kind
of system in seismic regions. To promote the use of segmental bridge columns into
seismic regions, four large scale segmental columns were constructed and tested at
National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCEER) in Taiwan.
Recently, some researches on seismic behavior of precast segmental columns have
been carried out worldwide. Some studies emphasized the use of bonded tendons to
enhance the durability and strength of the column as opposed to unbonded systems.
Relevant studies can be found in Mo et al. (2000) and Arai et al. (2000). In addition to the
bonded systems, some other researchers advocated the use of unbonded tendons to reduce
the possibility of the yielding of the tendons, thus preserving the necessary clamping
force after strong seismic event. Relevant studies can be found in Hewes et al. (2002),
Chou et al. (2005), Billington et al. (2004), and Lee et al. (2004).
The first column specimen tested in NCREE used unbonded post-tensioned tendons
and no supplemental energy dissipation devices were provided. The other three
specimens used bonded tendons and were provided with mild steel reinforcements that
were extended across the joints to enhance the hysteretic energy dissipation.

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
The prototype bridge is composed of three spans with columns 50m in height. As a
consequence of the capacity limitations of the testing facilities in the laboratory, a scale
factor of 2.5 was adopted, resulting in a model column around 10m high representing the
bottom half part of the prototype column, which is assumed to experience double
curvature along the assumed loading direction. The first modal period of the bridge is 1.9
seconds in the same direction. Design of the confining reinforcement in the potential
plastic hinge region and shear reinforcement are based on available design codes and
references. Figure 1 shows the front view of the specimens with important characteristics

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

indicated. S1 to S9 are the designations of the segments from bottom to top. D36 are the
longitudinal mild steel reinforcement being extended across the segment joints and are
referred to as energy dissipation bars (ED bars) in the paper. Some specimen and material
properties are listed in Table 1 and 2. More detailed description of the specimens can be
found in Chang et al. (2002) and Wang (2005).

Specimen P1 and P2

Specimen P1 and P2 mainly consist of 9 precast hollow segments, 1 solid block for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 03/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

loading and the foundation beam. Each hollow segment is 1m in height. Shear keys were
introduced in each segment mainly to provide an alignment guide during installation. The
use of epoxy could enhance the durability and improve the strength of the joints. P1 was
pos-tensioned with unbonded tendons. No energy dissipation bars crossing the joints was
provided. For specimen P2, the tendon ducts were filled with non-shrink cemetitious
grout after post-tensioning (bonded tendon) to increase the durability and strength of the
column. The tendon ducts were designed to form U-loops in the foundation so that the
post-tensioning operation could be performed on the top of the column. Besides, bonded
high-strength energy dissipation bars (ED bars) crossing the joints were provided as
supplemental energy dissipation devices. Half of the ED bars were terminated at the joint
between S2 and S3 based on the moment capacity-demand diagram.

Specimen P3 and P4

The design of specimen P3 and P4 were based on the lessons learned from the testing
results of P1 and P2. The shear keys were removed to investigate the shear transfer solely
through other mechanisms such as the friction along the joints and the bonded steel
crossing the joints. The tendon ducts were re-designed such that the grout could be
pumped into the ducts from the bottom to top, which was expected to help compact the
grout.
During the testings of P1 and P2, it was observed that the gap openings at the joints
might be the most important reason that decreased the level of inelastic straining
expected to happen at the bottom regions of the columns, which led to unsatisfactory
energy dissipation capability. Thus, two measures were adopted in design of P3 and P4.
First, the height of the segment joint between S1 and S2 is increased from around 1m to
2m measured from the top surface of the foundation so that the joint is further away from
the bottom of the column. Second, the joint between foundation and S1 was strengthened
in an attempt to avoid gap opening. In P3, a base extension was introduced and tightened
up with the foundation using additional steel bars, while in P4, a portion of S1 was
embedded into the foundation. The amount of confinement steel used in P3 and P4 were
increased to enhance the ductility. The strength of the ED bars used in P3 and P4 were
lower than those of P2 to increase the inelastic straining to increase the energy
dissipation.

Test Setup and Loading Scheme

Figure 2 shows the test setup of specimen P3. A vertical transfer beam was utilized to
transfer the gravity load produced by four hydraulic jacks onto the top of the specimen. A

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

lateral transfer beam was placed between the actuators and the specimen to allow for
uniform application of the lateral load. Hinges were introduced at the ends of the
threaded rods to free the moment as the column was displaced laterally. Tests were
conducted under displacement-control to drift levels of 0.25%, 0.375%, 0.5%, 0.75%,
1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0%, 3.0%, and 4.0%. Each cycle was repeated twice. P3 and P4 was
subjected extra 5% drift level.

TEST RESULTS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 03/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Specimen P1

Figure 3 shows the photo of specimen P1 at the end of the test. The crushing of the
compression toe and a gap opening of around 40mm between segment S1 and S2 can be
seen in the photos. The gap opening at the joint between S1 and the foundation is found
to be much larger than those at other joints. Limited crackings were found on the surface
of segment S1 of the column. Figure 7(a) shows the hysteretic behavior with
characteristics of little hysteretic energy dissipation and little residual displacement upon
each unloading, which is similar to that of so called “rocking column” (Mander et al.
1997), as if a rigid column rocks against the foundation. Figure 8 shows the equivalent
viscous damping ratios, ζeq, versus the drift. The definition of ζeq can be found in Chopra
(2000). This specimen has a maximum value of ζeq of around 4.7%.

Specimen P2

Due to the use of high-strength ED bars, the strength of the column is greatly increased.
As a result, more flexural crackings of the concrete were observed in the bottom two
segments in the experiment. It can be observed from Figure 4 that this specimen bent in a
way such that the gap openings didn’t concentrate at the base segment joint as seen in
Specimen P1. The amount of gap openings at the bottom four joints are all on the order of
10mm. Due to the use of high-strength ED bars, the yielding of the ED bars was limited,
which resulted in only a slight increase in the hysteretic energy dissipation, as shown in
Figure 7(b), as opposed to specimen P1. As shown in Figure 8, ζeq has a maximum value
of 6.2% at the end of the test.

Specimen P3

As shown in Figure 5, the column failed at the joint between S1 and S2, where a large
gap opening is clearly seen (40mm), rather than the joint between foundation and S1 due
to the strengthening of that joint. Other joints also have gap openings but relatively small.
The use of ED bars with lower yield strength as opposed to those in P2 increased the
plastic deformation of the ED bars. The hysteretic behavior of specimen P3, shown in
Figure 7(c), shows much larger hysteretic energy dissipation as opposed to P1 and P2.
The value of ζeq of this specimen has a significant increase as compared with P1 with a
maximum value of around 13.5%, shown in Figure 8. Because of the large gap opening, a
total 7 ED bars were fractured at the end of the test.

Specimen P4

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

A portion of this specimen was embedded into the foundation beam. As shown in Figure
6, due to the embedment, the column seems that it would fail at the joint between S1 and
S2, where large gap opening and concrete crushing were found, rather than that between
foundation and S1. In general, P4 has a similar performance as P3. Figure 7(d) shows the
hysteretic behavior of this specimen and Figure 8 shows that P4 has a maximum value of
ζeq of 11.3%.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 03/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Through the experimental studies of the four specimens having the features of large scale
model, hollow sections, prestressing tendons unbonded or bonded and with or without
mild steel reinforcement crossing the segment joints for supplemental energy dissipation,
some important findings are summarized as follows.
• Although a significant amount of gap opening was observed at the critical joint at the
end of the each test, the shear still could be successfully transferred across the
segment joints without using shear keys or epoxies.
• It is shown the gap opening is difficult to be avoided and it did limit the inelastic
straining of the rebars (those not extended across the joint), thus preventing the plastic
hinge mechanism commonly seen in conventional columns. Specimen P1 is an
example. The addition of energy dissipation bars crossing the joint improved this
problem. Much higher hysteretic energy dissipation as a result of plastic deformation
of the ED bars was seen in specimen P3 and P4, although the gap opening is still
pronounced. It is also noted that adding the energy dissipation bars will also increase
the strength of the column, which will certainly help resist the earthquake.
• Specimen P3 and P4 were found to have hysteretic behaviors close to commonly seen
in conventional columns detailed for seismic regions. The equivalent damping ratio
has a maximum value of around 11~13%. As a result, the seismic demand in terms of
displacement response can be reduced. Specimen P3 and P4 provide viable solutions
for the applications in seismic regions. It is suggested that nonlinear response history
analysis may need to be performed to more accurately assess the sufficiency of this
type of the hysteretic energy dissipation.

P FPi P + Fpi ρp ρ ED ρs Epoxy Shear

Specimen
(kN) (kN) f c Ag
' (%) (%) (%) joint key
All
P1 3924 4021 0.15 0.38 None 2.3 S1-S4
joints
S1-S2: 0.57 All
P2 3902 4240 0.14 0.38 2.3 S1-S4
S3-S5: 0.28 joints
S1: 0.71
P3 3943 4175 0.13 0.41 S2-S3: 0.42 2.7 None None
S3-S5: 0.28
S1-S3: 0.42 S1: 3.6
P4 3936 3840 0.12 0.41 S1-S2 None
S3-S5: 0.28 S2-S8: 2.7
P = gravity load from superstructure, FPi = total initial tendon force, Ag = gross area of section

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

ρ P = ratio of the area of pre-stressing tendon to gross concrete area

ρ ED = ratio of the area of energy dissipation bars to gross concrete area
ρ s = volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement to confined concrete core

TABLE 1
SPECIMEN PROPERTIES

Post-tensioning
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 03/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

D13 D22 D36 ED bars

f ' tendon
c
Specimen
(MPa) fy fu fy fu fy fu fy fu
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
P1 37.4 none none
372 559 480 637
P2 39.8 1080 1230
1792 1888
P3 43.8
511 681 472 663 490 686
P4 46.7

f c' = concrete compressive strength, f y = yield strength of steel, fu = yield strength of steel

TABLE 2
MATERIAL PROPERTIES

FIGURE 1
SPECIMEN DESIGN

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 03/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Copyright ASCE 2006

FIGURE 3
FIGURE 2
TEST SETUP
STRUCTURES 2006

TEST RESULTS OF P1

Structures Congress 2006

Structures 2006
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 03/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Copyright ASCE 2006

FIGURE 5
FIGURE 4
STRUCTURES 2006

TEST RESULTS OF P3
TEST RESULTS OF P2

Structures Congress 2006

Structures 2006
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 03/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Copyright ASCE 2006

FIGURE 6
STRUCTURES 2006

TEST RESULTS OF P4

Structures Congress 2006

Structures 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

800

Lateral load (kN) 400

-400

-800
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift (%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 03/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)
1500

1000
Lateral load (kN)

500

-500

-1000

-1500
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift (%)
(b)
1500

1000
Lateral load (kN)

500

-500

-1000

-1500
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift (%)
(c)
1500

1000
Lateral load (kN)

500

-500

-1000

-1500
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift (%)
(d)

FIGURE 7
HYSTERETIC LOOPS OF SPECIMEN (A)P1, (B)P2, (C)P3, AND (D)P4

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

Equivalent viscous damping ratio (%)

16
Specimen
P1
12 P2
P3
P4
8

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 03/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Drift (%)

FIGURE 8
EQUIVALENT VISCOUS DAMPING RATIOS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This cooperative research is funded by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the

University at Buffalo (UB) in U.S. side and funded by Taiwan Area National Expressway
Engineering Bureau and National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering
(NCEER) in Taiwan side. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
[1] Arai, T., Hishiki, Y., Suda, K., Yamamoto, T., Takizawa, S., and Onabe, T. (2000). “Development of a
new precast segmental PC pier.” KaTRI Annual Report VOL.48, KAJIMA corporation, Japan (in
Japanese)
[2] Billington, S. L., and Yoon, J. K. (2004). "Cyclic Response of Unbonded Posttensioned Precast
Columns with Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Concrete." J. Bridge Eng., 9(4), 353-363.
[3] Chang, K. C., Loh, C. H., Chiu, H.S., Hwang, J. S., Cheng, C. B., Wang, R. J. (2002). The seismic
behavior of the precast segmental bridge column and the design methodology for applications in
Taiwan, Taiwan Area National Expressway Engineering Bureau, Taipei, Taiwan. (In Chinese).
[4] Chopra, A.K. (2000), Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering,
2nd Edition, Prentice Hall.
[5] Chou, C. C., and Chen, Y. C. (2005). “Cyclic tests of post-tensioned precast CFT segmental bridge
columns with unbonded strands.” Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn. (in press).
[6] Hewes, J. T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (2002). "Seismic design and performance of precast concrete
segmental bridge columns." Rep. No. SSRP-2001/25, University of California, San Diego, San Diego,
CA.
[7] Lee, W. K., Billington, S. L., and Rouse, J. M. (2004). "Damage Estimation of a Self-centering Precast
Concrete Bridge Pier System Using a Performance-based Assessment Methodology." Proc., 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
[8] Mander, J. B., and Cheng, C. T. (1997). "Seismic Resistance of Bridge Piers Based on Damage
Avoidance Design," Rep. No. NCEER-97-0014, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, University at Buffalo, Buffalo.
[9] Mo, Y.-L., and Lin, J.-C. (2000). The shear transfer behavior of precast prestressed hollow
rectangular bridge columns. Dept of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan,
Taiwan (in Chinese).
[10] Wang, J. C, “Testing and Behavioral Study of Precast Segmental Columns,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept
of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2005.

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006