Inelastic Behavior and Ductility Capacity of Reinforced

Concrete Bridge Piers under Earthquake. II:

Numerical Validation
Tae-Hoon Kim1; Kwang-Myong Lee2; Chongyul Yoon3; and Hyun Mock Shin4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Analytical models for the inelastic behavior and ductility capacity of reinforced concrete bridge piers under earthquake are
presented in Part I of this two-part paper. Part II presents experimental verification and results from numerical simulations. A general
purpose finite element analysis program implementing the reinforced concrete plane stress element and the interface element is developed.
Nonlinear analysis results for various reinforced concrete bridge piers subjected to given seismic loading show reasonable agreement with
the recorded experimental data, and this validates that the models may be appropriately used as constitutive models for inelastic analyses
of reinforced concrete bridge piers under earthquake. The displacement ductility capacity is computed for the members, and a seismic
design method for reinforced concrete bridge piers considering the response modification factor is discussed.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2003兲129:9共1208兲
CE Database subject headings: Inelastic action; Ductility; Concrete, reinforced; Bridges, piers; Earthquakes; Validation; Simulation;
Finite element method.

Introduction versed cyclic shear stress. The interface element is verified by

In Part I of this series 共Kim et al. 2003兲 analytical models for
inelastic behavior and ductility capacity of reinforced concrete
bridge piers under earthquake are presented. The models include
tensile, compressive, and shear models for cracked concrete, a
model for reinforcing steel, and an interface model. A finite ele-
ment analysis program implementing the reinforced concrete
plane stress element and the interface element is developed. The
program is built around the finite element analysis program shell
named FEAP 共Zienkiewicz and Taylor 1991兲. Custom elements
and nonlinear routines are easily adaptable in FEAP.
This Part II of the two-part paper presents experimental veri-
fication of the constitutive models and the interface element as
well as numerical simulation results for accurate and rational seis-
mic assessment. The constitutive models for reinforced concrete
are verified by comparing the analytical results with the available
experimental data on reinforced concrete panels subjected to re-
1
PhD Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sungkyunkwan Univ.,
300 Chunchun-dong, Jangan-gu, Suwon, Kyonggi-do, 440-746, Korea.
E-mail: kth7love@nature.skku.ac.kr
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sungkyunkwan
Univ., 300 Chunchun-dong, Jangan-gu, Suwon, Kyonggi-do, 440-746,
Korea. E-mail: leekm@skku.ac.kr
3 ness of all the specimens is 285 mm. Reinforcements in all the
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Hongik Univ., 72-1 Sangsu-
dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, 121-791, Korea. E-mail: cyoon@hongik.ac.kr
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sungkyunkwan Univ., 300
Chunchun-dong, Jangan-gu, Suwon, Kyonggi-do, 440-746, Korea.
E-mail: hmshin@skku.ac.kr
Note. Associate Editor: Brad Cross. Discussion open until February 1,
2004. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on June 22, 2001; approved on No-
vember 20, 2002. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 129, No. 9, September 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2003/9-1208 –1219/$18.00.
comparing the analytical results with data on reinforced concrete
columns. Nonlinear analysis results for various reinforced con-
crete bridge piers subjected to seismic loading agree well with the
experimental data. The displacement ductility capacity is also
computed for reinforced concrete bridge piers. For adequate seis-
mic assessment, evaluation of the ductility capacity is performed.
A seismic design method for reinforced concrete bridge piers con-
sidering the response modification factor is discussed.
Experimental Verification
The experimental data used for basic verification of the inelastic
behavior are the data reported by Stevens et al. 共1991兲 and Saat-
cioglu et al. 共1992兲. These data are conveniently available in digi-
tal form, and detailed information on the structural properties,
dimensions, and responses of the specimens may be found in the
references. By comparing with these data, the ability of the nu-
merical procedure to predict the response of reinforced concrete
panels subjected to reversed cyclic shear is investigated. The
specimens are all of the same overall size, that is, 1,625 mm
⫻1,625 mm with effective test dimensions of 1,524 mm
⫻1,524 mm as shown in Fig. 1. The effective test dimension is
the region where actual data from the test are obtained. The thick-
specimens are placed in two layers in each of the two orthogonal
directions.
Figs. 2, 3, and 4 show the analytical and experimental stress-
strain curves for the specimens named by Stevens et al. 共1991兲
SE8, SE9, and SE10. The specimen SE8 is subjected to reversed
cyclic pure shear stress and the bar arrangement is not symmetric.
The behavior is affected by the shear transfer model because of
the nonsymmetrical bar arrangement. The specimen SE9 is also
subjected to reversed cyclic pure shear stress but the bar arrange-
ment is symmetric and the model is not affected by the shear
transfer model. For this specimen, the bars yield when the load is

1208 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Reinforcement layout and application of stresses on specimens 共Stevens et al. 1991兲

near the maximum. The specimens SE10 and SE8 have the same
bar arrangements, but SE10 is subjected to compressive stresses
in both directions in addition to the pure shear stress. Figs. 2, 3,
and 4 show that the experiment and the analysis results show
good agreement in the initial loading curves, in the unloading
curves, and also in the reloading curves. These comparisons
verify that the reinforced concrete plane stress element model
may be appropriately used for two-dimensional problems.
The data for the reinforced concrete columns tested by Saat-
cioglu et al. 共1992兲 are used to verify the applicability of the
interface element, which is described in detail in Part I of the
paper. The mechanical properties of the specimens are listed on
Table 1 and the geometric details are shown in Fig. 5. All col-
umns are tested under 600 kN of constant compressive axial load.
The constitutive model for the interface element simulates pulling
out of reinforcing bars, closure at the joint plane, and shear slip at
the joint plane. U6 and U7 are the specimen names used by Saat-

Fig. 2. Stress-strain curves for SE8 reinforced concrete panel speci- Fig. 3. Stress-strain curves for SE9 reinforced concrete panel speci-
men 共Stevens et al. 1991兲 men 共Stevens et al. 1991兲

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1209

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Stress-strain curves for SE10 reinforced concrete panel speci-

men 共Stevens et al. 1991兲

Fig. 5. Geometric details of reinforced concrete column specimens

共Saatcioglu et al. 1992兲

Table 1. Properties of Reinforced Concrete Column Specimens 共Saatcioglu et al. 1992兲

Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement
Specimen Concrete f c 共MPa兲 f ly 共MPa兲 ␳ l 共%兲 f ty 共MPa兲 ␳ t 共%兲 s 共mm兲 Type 共see Fig. 5兲 A s f ty /s 共N/mm兲
U6 37.3 437 3.27 425 1.95 65 B 1,262
U7 39.0 437 3.27 425 1.95 65 C 1,262

Fig. 6. Lateral load–top deflection relationship for Specimen U6 共Saatcioglu et al. 1992兲: Analysis 共a兲 without and 共b兲 with interface element

1210 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Lateral Load–Top Deflection Relationship for Specimen U7 共Saatcioglu et al. 1992兲: Analysis 共a兲 without and 共b兲 with interface element

cioglu et al. 共1992兲 and the respective force-deformation relation-
ships for specimens U6 and U7 are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Each
figure also compares the analysis results for the cases with and
without the interface element. The figure shows better agreement
between the experimental and analysis results with the interface
element. Figs. 8 and 9 show, respectively, the components of the
lateral displacement for specimens U6 and U7. The computed
pull-out displacement is compared with the experimental data and
the total displacement increases about 30% due to the pull-out
effect. The analytical results show reasonable correspondence
with the experimental results. The effects of local discontinuities
are different according to the structural dimensions, and their ef-
fect on the load-displacement relations for the reinforced concrete
bridge should be included in the analysis.
Ductility Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Piers
Structures with less strength but higher ductility are known to
survive earthquakes with little or no apparent damage. Well de-
signed reinforced concrete bridge structures should remain func-

Fig. 8. Components of lateral displacement for Specimen U6 Fig. 9. Components of lateral displacement for Specimen U7
共Saatcioglu et al. 1992兲 共Saatcioglu et al. 1992兲

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1211

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Definitions of yield and ultimate displacements Fig. 11. Geometric details of reinforced concrete column specimens
共Ishibashi and Yoshino 1988兲: 共a兲 Elevation; 共b兲 cross section

Fig. 12. Geometric details of reinforced concrete column specimens 共Ang et al. 1989兲: 共a兲 Elevation; 共b兲 end view; 共c兲 section

Fig. 13. Geometric details of reinforced concrete column specimens Fig. 14. Finite element mesh for reinforced concrete column for
共Kawashima et al. 1993兲: 共a兲 Elevation; 共b兲 cross section seismic analysis

1212 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219

 Table 2. Properties of Shear Dominated Reinforced Concrete Column Specimens 共Ang et al. 1989兲
Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement
Concrete
Specimen Aspect ratio P/ f c A g f c 共MPa兲 Quantity f ly 共MPa兲 ␳ l 共%兲 d b 共mm兲 s 共mm兲 f ty 共MPa兲 ␳ t 共%兲
Unit 1 2.0 0 37.5 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 60 328 0.50
Unit 2 2.0 0 37.2 20-D16 296 3.20 6 60 328 0.50
Unit 3 2.5 0 36.0 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 60 328 0.50
Unit 4 2.0 0 30.6 20-HD16 436 3.20 10 165 316 0.51
Unit 5 2.0 0 31.1 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 40 328 0.76
Unit 6 1.5 0 30.1 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 60 328 0.50
Unit 7 2.0 0 29.5 20-HD16 448 3.20 6 80 372 0.38
Unit 8 2.0 0.2 28.7 20-HD16 448 3.20 6 30 372 1.01
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Unit 9 2.5 0.2 29.9 20-HD16 448 3.20 6 30 372 1.01

Unit 10 2.0 0.2 31.2 20-HD16 448 3.20 12 120 332 1.01
Unit 11 2.0 0.2 29.9 20-HD16 448 3.20 6 60 372 0.50
Unit 12 1.5 0.1 28.6 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 30 328 1.01
Unit 13 2.0 0.1 36.2 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 30 326 1.01
Unit 14 2.0 0 33.7 9-HD24 424 3.24 6 60 326 0.50
Unit 15 2.0 0 34.8 12-HD16 436 1.92 6 60 326 0.50
Unit 16 2.0 0.1 33.4 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 60 326 0.50
Unit 17 2.5 0.1 34.3 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 60 326 0.50
Unit 18 1.5 0.1 35.0 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 60 326 0.50
Unit 19 1.5 0.1 34.4 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 80 326 0.38
Unit 20 1.75 0.175 36.7 20-HD16 482 3.20 6 80 326 0.38
Unit 21 2.0 0 33.2 20-HD16 436 3.20 6 80 326 0.38
Unit 22 2.0 0 30.9 20-HD16 436 3.20 10 220 310 0.38
Unit 23 2.0 0 32.3 20-HD16 436 3.20 12 160 332 0.76
Unit 24 2.0 0 33.1 20-HD16 436 3.20 10 110 310 0.77
Unit 25 1.5 0 32.8 20-D16 296 3.20 — — — —

Table 3. Properties of Flexure Dominated Reinforced Concrete Column Specimens 共Ishibashi and Yoshino 1988; Kawashima et al. 1993兲
Concrete Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement
fc
Specimena Shear span ratio P/A g 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 f ly 共MPa兲 ␳ l 共%兲 f ty 共MPa兲 ␳ t 共%兲

P-10 5.4 0 31.3 308.3 2.03 272.2 0.10

P-11 5.4 0 32.1 308.3 2.03 272.2 0.20
P-13 5.4 0 32.8 308.3 2.03 272.2 0.31
P-56 5.4 0.49 42.5 369.7 2.03 370.2 0.10
P-57 5.4 0.98 40.0 369.7 2.03 370.2 0.10
P-58 5.4 1.96 39.2 369.7 2.03 370.2 0.10
I-1 4.0 1.47 32.4 380.8 0.95 330.1 0.36
I-2 4.0 1.47 32.8 342.3 2.15 330.1 0.36
I-3 4.0 1.47 32.8 316.5 3.80 330.1 0.36
I-4 4.0 1.47 32.5 342.3 2.15 366.8 0.24
I-5 4.0 1.47 32.8 316.5 2.15 366.8 0.16
I-6 4.0 1.47 32.5 342.3 2.15 330.1 0.29
I-7 4.0 0.98 32.5 342.3 2.15 366.8 0.18
I-8 4.0 3.92 32.5 342.3 2.15 330.1 0.36
I-9 4.0 0 32.4 342.3 2.15 330.1 0.36
I-10 4.0 1.47 32.8 345.7 1.49 330.1 0.36
I-11 4.0 1.47 32.4 345.7 1.49 366.8 0.24
IV-1 2.5 0.98 33.7 346.2 1.74 330.5 0.40
IV-2 2.5 0.98 33.7 346.2 2.23 330.5 0.45
IV-3 2.5 0.98 33.7 346.2 2.98 330.5 0.51
IV-4 4.0 0.98 41.2 342.3 2.15 366.8 0.11
IV-5 4.0 0.98 41.2 342.3 3.58 330.5 0.36
a
P-10–P-58 from Kawashima et al. 共1993兲; I-1–IV-5 from Ishibashi and Yoshino 共1988兲.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1213

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Transformation of a circular column to an idealized equivalent rectangular column

tional after earthquakes. Inelastic deformations in reinforced con-
crete bridges should be accommodated through the formation of
plastic hinges in the piers. A satisfactory response of the bridge
relies on the capacities of the columns to displace inelastically
through several cycles of response without significant degradation
of strength or stiffness; this characteristic is technically termed
the ductility. High ductility in reinforced concrete members may
be attained with adequate lateral confining reinforcement. When
this reinforcement is properly detailed, lateral reinforcement pro-
vides high ductility that prevents premature buckling of longitu-
dinal reinforcement, thus preventing shear failure.
The displacement ductility is defined as the displacement di-
vided by the yield displacement. The displacement ductility ca-
pacity ␮ is defined as the ratio between the ultimate displacement
␦ u and the yield displacement ␦ y
␦u
␮⫽ (1)
␦y

Table 4. Experimental 共Ang et al. 1989兲 and Analysis Results for Shear Dominated Reinforced Concrete Columns
Experiment Analysis Ratio of experiment and analysis results
Specimen V max 共kN兲 ␦ y 共mm兲 ␦ u 共mm兲 ␮ V max 共kN兲 ␦ y 共mm兲 ␦ u 共mm兲 ␮ V max ␦y ␦u ␮
Unit 1 320.0 10.0 24.9 2.5 333.1 7.0 20.0 2.9 0.96 1.43 1.25 0.87
Unit 2 228.0 7.8 31.2 4.0 249.8 5.0 23.0 4.6 0.91 1.56 1.36 0.87
Unit 3 298.0 10.1 40.3 4.0 280.4 10.0 34.0 3.4 1.06 1.01 1.19 1.17
Unit 4 Very large yield displacement
Unit 5 Very large yield displacement
Unit 6 390.0 6.5 8.5 1.3 428.2 6.0 10.0 1.7 0.91 1.08 0.85 0.78
Unit 7 280.0 8.3 13.2 1.6 321.3 8.0 23.0 2.9 0.87 1.04 0.57 0.55
Unit 8 475.0 6.8 27.2 4.0 477.3 10.0 37.0 3.7 1.00 0.68 0.74 1.08
Unit 9 385.0 8.3 64.7 7.8 391.7 12.0 54.0 4.5 0.98 0.69 1.20 1.73
Unit 10 450.0 9.5 37.9 4.0 475.9 9.0 29.0 3.2 0.95 1.06 1.31 1.24
Unit 11 404.0 6.9 17.2 2.5 415.1 10.0 17.0 1.7 0.97 0.69 1.01 1.47
Unit 12 527.0 6.2 18.5 3.0 518.3 6.0 30.0 5.0 1.02 1.03 0.62 0.60
Unit 13 443.0 8.5 34.0 4.0 416.2 8.0 34.0 4.3 1.06 1.06 1.00 0.94
Unit 14 311.0 8.4 16.8 2.0 318.1 8.0 25.0 3.1 0.98 1.05 0.67 0.64
Unit 15 230.0 6.6 26.4 4.0 213.9 6.0 33.0 5.5 1.08 1.10 0.80 0.73
Unit 16 379.0 8.3 12.4 1.5 415.1 9.0 25.0 2.8 0.91 0.92 0.50 0.54
Unit 17 329.0 9.0 18.0 2.0 301.8 11.0 18.0 1.6 1.09 0.82 1.00 1.22
Unit 18 Very large yield displacement
Unit 19 436.0 6.4 8.3 1.3 496.5 6.0 13.0 2.2 0.88 1.07 0.64 0.60
Unit 20 487.0 7.8 11.7 1.5 474.0 8.0 10.0 1.3 1.03 0.98 1.17 1.20
Unit 21 Failed prematurely
Unit 22 280.0 8.8 13.2 1.5 313.6 8.0 21.0 2.6 0.89 1.10 0.63 0.57
Unit 23 339.0 8.5 16.9 2.0 327.7 8.0 30.0 3.8 1.03 1.06 0.56 0.53
Unit 24 338.0 8.1 32.2 4.0 331.6 8.0 32.0 4.0 1.02 1.01 1.01 0.99
Unit 25 233.0 5.1 6.1 1.2 242.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.96 1.28 1.53 1.20

Subtotal Mean 0.98 1.03 0.93 0.93

Standard deviation 0.07 0.22 0.30 0.34

1214 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219

 Table 5. Experimental 共Ishibashi and Yoshino 1988; Kawashima et al. 1993兲 and Analysis Results for Flexure Dominated Reinforced Concrete
Columns
Experiment Analysis Ratio of experimental and analysis results
Specimen a
V max 共kN兲 ␦ y 共mm兲 ␦ u 共mm兲 ␮ V max 共kN兲 ␦ y 共mm兲 ␦ u 共mm兲 ␮ V max ␦y ␦u ␮
P-10 161.8 12.41 83.10 6.7 141.6 14.3 82.0 5.7 1.14 0.87 1.01 1.17
P-11 162.1 12.39 83.17 6.7 143.8 14.3 84.0 5.9 1.13 0.87 0.99 1.14
P-13 156.3 12.34 96.95 7.9 144.6 14.3 91.0 6.4 1.08 0.86 1.07 1.23
P-56 175.0 14.63 58.31 4.0 184.2 16.3 60.0 3.7 0.95 0.90 0.97 1.09
P-57 182.6 16.08 64.33 4.0 195.6 18.0 80.0 4.4 0.93 0.89 0.80 0.90
P-58 194.4 20.13 60.31 3.0 218.1 18.1 80.0 4.4 0.89 1.11 0.75 0.68
I-1 129.4 6.9 55.2 8.0 109.5 8.3 56.0 6.7 1.18 0.83 0.99 1.19
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

I-2 203.0 11.0 44.0 4.0 172.3 10.0 55.0 5.5 1.18 1.10 0.80 0.73
I-3 276.5 13.0 58.5 4.5 249.9 12.0 52.0 4.3 1.11 1.08 1.13 1.04
I-4 233.4 11.0 55.0 5.0 169.4 10.0 55.0 5.5 1.38 1.10 1.00 0.91
I-5 207.9 11.0 44.0 4.0 168.8 10.0 44.0 4.4 1.23 1.10 1.00 0.91
I-6 213.8 10.5 52.5 5.0 175.8 10.0 66.0 6.6 1.22 1.05 0.80 0.76
I-7 229.5 10.4 52.0 5.0 161.9 10.0 55.0 5.5 1.42 1.04 0.95 0.91
I-8 252.0 10.5 52.5 5.0 215.0 10.0 44.0 4.4 1.17 1.05 1.19 1.14
I-9 145.1 10.0 60.0 6.0 147.8 9.0 70.0 7.8 0.98 1.11 0.86 0.77
I-10 163.8 9.0 45.0 5.0 138.2 8.0 63.0 7.9 1.19 1.13 0.71 0.63
I-11 156.9 9.1 54.0 5.9 136.7 8.0 63.0 7.9 1.15 1.14 0.86 0.75
IV-1 234.4 5.1 26.2 5.1 236.4 5.0 35.0 7.0 0.99 1.02 0.75 0.73
IV-2 289.3 4.6 27.1 5.9 278.0 6.3 30.0 4.8 1.04 0.73 0.90 1.24
IV-3 378.5 5.3 26.5 5.0 335.7 6.3 25.0 4.0 1.13 0.84 1.06 1.26
IV-4 222.6 8.1 32.8 4.0 172.7 10.0 40.0 4.0 1.29 0.81 0.82 1.01
IV-5 301.1 9.1 54.6 6.0 244.3 12.2 46.0 3.8 1.23 0.75 1.19 1.59

Subtotal Mean 1.14 0.97 0.94 0.99

Standard deviation 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.24

Total Mean 1.06 1.00 0.93 0.96

Standard deviation 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.29
a
P-10–P-58 from Kawashima et al. 1993; I-1–IV-5 from Ishibashi and Yoshino 1988.

Fig. 10 shows graphically a method of experimentally deter-
mining the yield and ultimate displacement 共Park 1998兲. Gener-
ally, the yield displacement is obtained from the P-␦ curve as
shown in Fig. 10, and not as the displacement when the reinforce-
ment starts to yield. In the analysis, the yield displacement is
assumed to be when the strain is 1.5 times the yield strain; the
yield displacement is not taken to be when the maximum strain in
the reinforcement is at yield strain. The ultimate displacement is
defined as the total lateral deflection at which a limit state is
reached. Two possible limit states have been identified: 共1兲 the
maximum compression strain on the confined concrete is equal to
the ultimate strain of the confined concrete and 共2兲 the maximum
tensile strain in the vertical reinforcing bar is equal to unity, sig-
nifying that the bars have fractured. The ultimate displacement is
generally in the softening area occurring after the ultimate
strength is reached. The accuracy of prediction of this behavior
with finite element analyses depends on the size of mesh used in
the analyses. A modification factor is used to control the size of
the ultimate strain, and this accounts for the mesh dependence in
the softening region.
Numerical Examples
Specimens and Analytical Model Descriptions
The ductility of reinforced concrete bridge piers is associated with
the shear and flexural carrying capacity. Experiments show that
reinforced concrete bridge pier members with more transverse
reinforcements have higher ductility. Forty-three experimental re-
sults are compared with the finite element analytical results. All
the analytical cases have the interface element placed between the
footings and the piers.
Data from experiments by Ishibashi and Yoshino 共1988兲, Ang
et al. 共1989兲, and Kawashima et al. 共1993兲 are used. The geomet-
ric details of the reinforced concrete column specimens used by
Ishibashi and Yoshino are shown in Fig. 11, those used by Ang
et al. are shown in Fig. 12, and those used by Kawashima et al.
are shown in Fig. 13. The properties of the shear dominated re-
inforced concrete column specimens used by these investigators
are listed in Table 2, and the properties of the flexure dominated
reinforced concrete column specimens are listed in Table 3. The
specimen names in the tables are those used by these investiga-
tors. The longitudinal reinforcement ratio varies from 0.9% to
3.8%. The transverse reinforcement ratio varies from 0 to 1.01%.
The axial load ratio varies from 0 to 20% and the aspect ratio
ranges from 1.5 to 5.4.
Fig. 14 shows the finite element discretization and the bound-
ary conditions for seismic analyses of the reinforced concrete
column specimens. The interface elements between the footing
and the pier enhance the modeling of the effects of the bond slip
of steel bars and the local compression. Fig. 15 shows a method
for transforming a circular section into rectangular strips for the
purpose of using plane stress elements. For rectangular sections,
equivalent strips are calculated. After the internal forces are cal-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1215

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. Comparison between analytical and experimental results of strength and ductility: 共a兲 Maximum strength; 共b兲 ductility ratio

culated, the equilibrium is checked. Loading cycles with displace-
ment control are applied as this allows analysis beyond the ulti-
mate load where the load at the maximum strain is recognized
from the load displacement curve.
Comparison with Experimental Results
Among the 47 specimens, Unit 4, Unit 5, and Unit 18 have very
large yield displacements compared with similar others. Unit 21
failed prematurely. All other specimens have comparable values
with the analytical results and the comparative data are summa-
rized in Tables 4 and 5. In predicting the results of the Unit series
共Ang et al. 1989兲 involving primary shear failures, under a variety
of reinforcement and loading conditions, the ratio of experimental
to analytical ductility capacity had a mean value of 0.93 and a
standard deviation of 34%. For other specimens 共Ishibashi and
Yoshino 1988; Kawashima et al. 1993兲, the mean and standard
deviation were 0.99 and 24%, respectively. Shear failure modes
are very brittle and it is difficult to determine the ultimate dis-
placement for this mode from experiments. There are specimens
共Unit 7, Unit 16, and Unit 23兲 with twice as much analytical
ductility capacity, which is caused by both experimental and ana-
lytical error. So it needs care to design piers with aspect ratio

Fig. 17. Effect of axial stress on strength and ductility 共Specimens I-9 and I-2兲: 共a兲 Maximum strength; 共b兲 ductility ratio

1216 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 18. Effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio on strength and ductility 共Specimens Unit 14 and Unit 15兲: 共a兲 Maximum strength; 共b兲 ductility
ratio

under 2.0 and longitudinal reinforcement ratio over 3%. The
variations of the strength and the ductility ratios are shown in Fig.
16 where the experimental and analytical results agree reasonably
well. Both the experimental and analytical results show that the
increase in transverse reinforcement ratio in reinforced concrete
bridge piers yields higher ductility. The ductility of reinforced
concrete bridge piers with transverse reinforcement after the
yielding of longitudinal reinforcement may also be simulated by
computation using finite elements. All the results support that the
failure mode and ductility level of reinforced concrete bridge
piers after yielding of longitudinal reinforcement can be estimated
by the finite element analysis proposed in this paper.
The range of ductility capacity for single columns from experi-
mental results is from 1.2 to 8.0. The constant use of the value of
3 for the response modification factor for single columns, as dic-
tated by the American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials 共AASHTO兲 共1996兲 design specifications, may
result in overdesign or in a rather unsafe structure. Special con-
sideration must be given to the design of reinforced concrete

Fig. 19. Effect of transverse reinforcement ratio on strength and ductility 共Specimens P-10, P-11, and P-13兲: 共a兲 Maximum strength; 共b兲 ductility
ratio

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1217

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 20. Effect of aspect ratio on strength and ductility 共Specimens Unit 1 and Unit 3兲: 共a兲 Maximum strength; 共b兲 ductility ratio
bridge piers with aspect ratio of less than 2 and longitudinal re-
inforcement ratio of over 3%.
Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Piers
Analytical procedures based on the finite element method may be
used to estimate the ductility of reinforced concrete bridge piers
with reasonable accuracy when the failure mode is shear and
flexure. Based on the parametric study and empirical observation,
the main factors that influence the deformability of reinforced
concrete bridge piers are the axial force, the longitudinal rein-
forcement ratio, the transverse reinforcement ratio, and the aspect
ratio. Fig. 17 shows the effect of the axial stress, Fig. 18 shows
the effect of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, Fig. 19 shows
the effect of the transverse reinforcement ratio, and Fig. 20 shows
the effect of the aspect ratio on the strength and ductility of rein-
forced concrete bridge pier specimens. These figures show the
following tendencies:
1. The ductility tends to decrease when higher axial compres-
sive force is applied.
2. The ductility is lower for larger longitudinal reinforcement
ratio.
3. The ductility is higher for larger transverse reinforcement
ratio.
4. The ductility is higher for larger aspect ratio.
Conclusions
A method for analyzing the inelastic behavior and ductility capac-
ity of reinforced concrete bridge piers under earthquake is pro-
posed. Analysis results by the proposed method show reasonable
agreement with experimental data. The proposed method also pre-
dicts the load capacities, failure modes, crack patterns, and load-
deformation responses of reinforced concrete bridge piers with
acceptable accuracy. From the results of the numerical simula-
tions and comparisons with experimental data, the following con-
clusions are reached.
1218 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003
J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219
1. The proposed constitutive model and numerical analysis de-
scribe the inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete bridge
piers under earthquake with acceptable accuracy and the
method may be used in seismic design of reinforced concrete
bridge piers.
2. Experimental and analytical values for the yield, ultimate
displacements, and ductility capacity of the reinforced con-
crete bridge piers show reasonable agreement.
3. Inclusion of local discontinuous deformation at the boundary
plane results in a more accurate prediction of displacements
and ductilities.
4. Nonlinear finite element analysis may be used to investigate
the design details and the load-deflection responses of rein-
forced concrete bridge piers. Also, failure modes and ductil-
ity may be checked for seismic resistant design.
5. Based on the experimental results, the range of ductility ca-
pacity for single columns is from 1.2 to 8.0 and the value
depends on the aspect ratio (a/d), axial compressive stress,
and longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios. Special
consideration must be given to the design of reinforced con-
crete bridge piers with aspect ratio of less than 2 and longi-
tudinal reinforcement ratio of over 3%.
Acknowledgments
The study described in this paper was supported by the Korea
Science and Engineering Foundation 共KOSEF兲 through the Korea
Earthquake Engineering Research Center 共KEERC兲, under Grant
No. 2000G0203. The writers wish to express their gratitude for
the support received.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A g ⫽ gross sectional area;
A s ⫽ area of reinforcement;
 db ⫽ bar diameter; Ang, B. G., Priestley, M. J. N., and Paulay, T. 共1989兲. ‘‘Seismic shear
fc ⫽ compressive strength of concrete; strength of circular reinforced concrete columns.’’ ACI Struct. J.,
86共1兲, 45–59.
f ly ⫽ yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing bar;
Ishibashi, T., and Yoshino, S. 共1988兲. ‘‘Study on deformation capacity of
f ty ⫽ yield strength of transverse reinforcing bar;
reinforced concrete bridge piers under earthquake.’’ J. Jpn. Soc. Civ.
f yx , f y y ⫽ yield strength of reinforcing bar in x and y direc- Eng., 8共390兲, 57– 66 共in Japanese兲.
tions; Kawashima, K., Hasegawa, K., Nagashima, H., Koyama, T., and Yoshida,
P ⫽ axial force; T. 共1993兲. ‘‘Seismic design method of reinforced concrete bridge piers
s ⫽ bar spacing; based on dynamic strength and ductility.’’ Public Works Research In-
V ⫽ shear force; stitute Rep., Vol. 190, Ministry of Construction, Tokyo
V max ⫽ maximum shear force; 共in Japanese兲.
␦ ⫽ displacement; Kim, T.-H., Lee, K.-M., Yoon, C., and Shin, H. M. 共2003兲. ‘‘Inelastic
␦u ⫽ ultimate displacement; behavior and ductility capacity of reinforced concrete bridge piers
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

␦y ⫽ yield displacement; under earthquake. I: Theory and formulation.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 129共9兲,
␮ ⫽ ductility ratio; 1199–1209.
Park, R. 共1998兲. ‘‘Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical test-
␳l ⫽ longitudinal reinforcement ratio;
ing.’’ Proc., Ninth World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. VII,
␳t ⫽ transverse reinforcement ratio; and Balkema, Rotterdam, 605– 616.
␳ x ,␳ y ⫽ reinforcement ratios in x and y directions. Saatcioglu, M., Alsiwat, J. M., and Qzcebe, G. 共1992兲. ‘‘Hysteretic be-
havior of anchorage slip in R/C members.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 118共9兲,
2439–2458.
References Stevens, N. J., Uzumeri, S. M., and Collins, M. P. 共1991兲. ‘‘Reinforced
concrete subjected to reversed cyclic shear—Experiments and consti-
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials tutive model.’’ ACI Struct. J., 88共2兲, 135–146.
共AASHTO兲. 共1996兲. Standard specifications for highway bridges, Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Taylor, R. L. 共1991兲. The finite element method,
16th Ed., Washington, D.C. Vols. 1 and 2, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1219

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 1208-1219