NCHRP864Main PDF

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24985 SHARE

   
Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating

Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview and Volume 2:
Guidelines
DETAILS
108 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-44668-6 | DOI 10.17226/24985
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK M. Saiid Saiidi, Mostafa Tazarv, Sebastian Varela, Stuart Bennion, M. Lee Marsh,
Iman Ghorbani, and Thomas P. Murphy; National Cooperative Highway Research
Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences,
FIND RELATED TITLES Engineering, and Medicine

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview and Volume 2: Guidelines
NCHRP
NATIONAL
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
RESEARCH REPORT 864
Seismic Evaluation of
Bridge Columns with Energy
Dissipating Mechanisms
Volume 1: Research Overview
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2017 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

OFFICERS
Chair: Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento
Vice Chair: Katherine F. Turnbull, Executive Associate Director and Research Scientist, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station
Executive Director: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board
MEMBERS
Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental
Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock
Jennifer Cohan, Secretary, Delaware DOT, Dover
James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations (retired), Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, TX
Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Executive Director–CEO, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, FL
A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe
John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix
Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA
Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA
Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Power, Energy, and Infrastructure Group, BMO Capital Markets Corporation, New York
S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson Professor of Manufacturing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, MI
Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Melinda McGrath, Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Patrick K. McKenna, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City
James P. Redeker, Commissioner, Connecticut DOT, Newington
Mark L. Rosenberg, Executive Director, The Task Force for Global Health, Inc., Decatur, GA
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Davis
Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX
Pat Thomas, Senior Vice President of State Government Affairs, United Parcel Service, Washington, DC
James M. Tien, Distinguished Professor and Dean Emeritus, College of Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
Dean H. Wise, Vice President of Network Strategy, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Fort Worth, TX
Charles A. Zelle, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT, Saint Paul
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Michael Berube, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy
Mary R. Brooks, Professor Emerita, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and Chair, TRB Marine Board
Mark H. Buzby (Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy), Executive Director, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT
Steven Cliff, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento
Howard R. Elliott, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Audrey Farley, Executive Director, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. DOT
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
Heath Hall, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT
Brandye Hendrickson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT
Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT
Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Heidi King, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Bevan B. Kirley, Research Associate, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, and Chair, TRB Young
Members Council
Wayne Nastri, Acting Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA
Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL
Todd T. Semonite (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC
Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Richard A. White, Acting President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
K. Jane Williams, Executive Director, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT
Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Paul F. Zukunft (Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
* Membership as of October 2017.

N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 864

M. Saiid Saiidi
Mostafa Tazarv
Sebastian Varela
Infrastructure Innovation, LLC
Reno, NV
Stuart Bennion
M. Lee Marsh
Iman Ghorbani
BergerABAM
Seattle, WA
Thomas P. Murphy
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
Mechanicsburg, PA
Subscriber Categories
Bridges and Other Structures
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2017

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 864, VOLUME 1

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve Project 12-101
many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state ISBN 978-0-309-44667-9
universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway Library of Congress Control Number 2017959576
transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter-
© 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a
coordinated program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by published or copyrighted material used herein.
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
United States Department of Transportation. understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies
or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and NOTICE
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer-
The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an
according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
directly to those in a position to use them. researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transporta- program sponsors.
tion departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are proposed to the do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
AASHTO Board of Directors and the National Academies. Research solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified
research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administra-
tion and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the
National Academies and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published research reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 864, VOLUME 1

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Scott E. Hitchcock, Senior Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 12-101 PANEL

Field of Design—Area of Bridges
Elmer E. Marx, Alaska DOT and Public Facilities, Juneau, AK (Chair)
Anne M. Rearick, Indiana DOT, Indianapolis, IN
Ronald J. Bromenschenkel, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
David W. Fish, Rhode Island DOT, Providence, RI
Jugesh Kapur, Burns and McDonnell, Kansas City, MO
Jamshid Mohammadi, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL
Amgad F. Morgan-Girgis, eConstruct USA, LLC, Omaha, NE
Sheila Rimal Duwadi, FHWA Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 12-101 by Infrastructure Innovation,
LLC in collaboration with BergerABAM and Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
The principal investigator (PI) on this project was M. Saiid Saiidi. M. Lee Marsh of BergerABAM and
Thomas P. Murphy of Modjeski and Masters, Inc. were the co-PIs of the project. Senior research associate,
Mostafa Tazarv, and research associate, Sebastian Valera, performed the research under the supervision
of the PI. Stuart Bennion and Iman Ghorbani developed the design examples under the supervision of
M. Lee Marsh (Co-PI).
The research team is indebted to Dr. Amir Mirmiran of the University of Texas at Tyler for his feedback
on concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer tube columns.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Scott Arnold of FYFE Co. LLC, Mr. Dominique Corvez and
Mr. Paul White of Lafarge North America Inc., Mr. Kevin Friskel of Dynamic Isolation Systems Inc.,
Mr. Rich LaFond of Saes Smart Materials, and Mr. Edward Little of FiberMatrix Inc. for providing cost
estimates for novel materials.
Dr. Toutlemonde of Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, de l’Aménagement
et des Réseaux (IFSTTAR) is thanked for sharing UHPC design recommendations.

FOREWORD
By Waseem Dekelbab
Staff Officer
This report describes the evaluation of new materials and techniques for design and
construction of novel bridge columns meant to improve seismic performance. These
techniques include shape memory alloy (SMA), engineered cementitious composite (ECC),
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), and rocking mechanisms. The report includes two volumes:
Volume 1: Research Overview and Volume 2: Guidelines. The guidelines cover a quantita-
tive evaluation method to rate novel columns as well as design and construction methods
for three specific novel columns: (1) SMA-reinforced ECC columns, (2) SMA-reinforced
FRP-confined concrete/columns, and (3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. More
than 2,250 analyses in the form of moment-curvature, pushover, cyclic, and dynamic simu-
lations were carried out to investigate the behavior of the selected columns and to develop
proposed design guidelines according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
and the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. The material in this
report will be of immediate interest to bridge owners.
The primary objective of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the
AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design is to prevent bridge collapse
in the event of earthquakes. Reinforced concrete bridge columns are designed to dissipate
earthquake energy through considerable ductile nonlinear action that is associated with
severe spalling of concrete and yielding of reinforcement. Proven detailing procedures have
been developed for reinforced concrete bridge columns that provide this type of behavior
and are intended to prevent bridge collapse. However, for columns to successfully dissipate
energy, they have to behave as nonlinear elements subject to substantial damage and possibly
permanent drift to the point that the bridge would have to be decommissioned for repair
or replacement. The impact of bridge closure on the traveling public and the economy is
significant. Therefore, alternative design approaches using advanced materials and uncon-
ventional seismic techniques are needed to improve current practice. Despite the superior
performance of columns with the innovative materials reported in the literature, design
guidelines and methods of structural analysis are not addressed in the current seismic
bridge design specifications. Research was needed to develop proposed AASHTO guidelines
to help bridge owners incorporate innovative seismic energy dissipation principles into
practice.
Research was performed under NCHRP Project 12-101 by Infrastructure Innovation, LLC
to develop (1) proposed guidelines for the evaluation of new techniques for the design and
construction of bridge columns with energy dissipation mechanisms meant to minimize
bridge damage and replacement after a seismic event and (2) design and construction concepts
based on new materials and techniques (e.g., post-tensioning, SMA, ECC, rubber pads, and

FRP wrapping) and analytical techniques (e.g., current design practice, direct displacement
based design, and substitute structure design method). The guidelines included analysis
procedures, evaluation criteria (e.g., constructability, serviceability, inspectability, seismic
and non-seismic system performance, and post-event repair), design procedures, construction
details, and detailed design examples.
A number of deliverables, provided as appendices, are not published but are available on
the TRB website (trb.org) by searching for “NCHRP Research Report 864.” These appendices
are titled as follows:
• Appendix A: Literature Review

• Appendix B: Survey of State Departments of Transportation
• Appendix C: Synthesis of Literature
• Appendix D: Novel Column and Construction Concepts
• Appendix E: Demonstration of Evaluation Guidelines
• Appendix F: Detailed Design Examples for Three Novel Columns
• Appendix G: Benefits and Economic Impact of Novel Columns
• Appendix H: Relationship Between Drift Ratio and Displacement Ductility
• Appendix I: Modeling Methods and Validation for Novel Columns

CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Introduction
3 1.1 Problem Statement
3 1.2 Research Objectives
4 1.3 Document Organization
5 Chapter 2 Guidelines for Evaluation of Novel Columns

6 Chapter 3 Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction
of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy
7 3.1 Proposed Seismic Design and Construction of Sma-Reinforced ECC Columns
7 3.1.1 Introduction
7 3.1.2 Application of SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns
7 3.1.3 Materials
7 3.1.3.1 SMA
8 3.1.3.2 ECC
10 3.1.4 Analysis of SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns
10 3.1.4.1 Selection of Analysis Procedure to Determine Seismic Demand
10 3.1.4.2 Effective Section Properties
11 3.1.4.3 Damping Ratio for Dynamic Analysis
11 3.1.4.4 Displacement Modification for Damping
12 3.1.4.5 Displacement Modification for Short-Period Bridges
13 3.1.4.6 Displacement Ductility versus Drift Ratio
14 3.1.4.7 Column Drift Demand Requirement
15 3.1.4.8 Column Force Demand
15 3.1.4.8.1 Moment Demand
15 3.1.4.8.2 Shear Demand
15 3.1.4.8.3 Column Adjoining Member Force Demand
16 3.1.4.9 Residual Drift
16 3.1.5 Design of SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns
16 3.1.5.1 Analytical Plastic Hinge Length
17 3.1.5.2 Column Drift Capacity
17 3.1.5.2.1 Minimum Drift Capacity
17 3.1.5.3 Shear Capacity
19 3.1.5.4 Axial Capacity
19 3.1.5.5 Minimum Lateral Strength
19 3.1.5.6 Other Loading and Strength Design
19 3.1.5.7 Serviceability Design
20 3.1.5.7.1 Shrinkage and Creep
20 3.1.5.7.2 Axial Deformations

20 3.1.6 Details for SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns

20 3.1.6.1 Partially or Fully Cast ECC Columns
20 3.1.6.2 Reinforcement Details
20 3.1.6.2.1 Longitudinal SMA Reinforcement
21 3.1.6.2.2 SMA Bar Size
21 3.1.6.3 Splicing of SMA Reinforcement
22 3.1.6.4 Maximum Axial Load
22 3.1.6.5 Maximum Aspect Ratio
23 3.1.7 Construction of SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns
23 3.1.7.1 Quality Control Tests
23 3.1.7.2 Construction Procedures
23 3.1.7.3 Construction Tolerance
23 3.1.8 References
25 3.2 Proposed Design and Construction of SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined
Concrete Columns
25 3.2.2 Application of SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined Concrete Columns
26 3.2.3 Materials
26 3.2.3.1 SMA
27 3.2.3.2 FRP-Confined Concrete
29 3.2.4 Analysis of SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined Concrete Columns
29 3.2.4.1 Selection of Analysis Procedure to Determine
Seismic Demand
31 3.2.4.6 Displacement Ductility versus Drift Ratio
35 3.2.5 Design of SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined Concrete Columns
38 3.2.6 Details for SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined Concrete Columns
38 3.2.6.1 FRP Jacket
39 3.2.6.2.1 Longitudinal SMA Reinforcement
39 3.2.6.2.2 SMA Bar Size

39 3.2.6.3 Splicing of SMA Reinforcement

41 3.2.7 Construction of SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined Columns
41 3.2.8 References
43 3.3 Proposed Design and Construction of FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns
43 3.3.2 Application of FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns
44 3.3.3 Materials
44 3.3.3.1 Steel Tendons
44 3.3.3.2 FRP-Confined Concrete
46 3.3.4 Analysis of FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns
46 3.3.4.1 Selection of Analysis Procedure to Determine
Seismic Demand
47 3.3.4.6 Displacement Ductility Versus Drift Ratio
51 3.3.5 Design of FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns
55 3.3.6 Details for FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns
55 3.3.6.1 FRP Jacket
55 3.3.6.2.1 Longitudinal Reinforcing Steel Bars
56 3.3.6.2.2 Longitudinal Steel Tendons
56 3.3.6.2.3 Longitudinal Steel Tendon Initial Stresses
58 3.3.7 Construction of FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns


58 3.3.7.4 Ducts
59 3.3.8 References
60 Chapter 4 Summary and Conclusions

60 4.1 Summary
61 4.2 Conclusions
61 4.2.1 Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for Evaluation of Novel Columns
61 4.2.2 Seismic Design and Construction of Novel Columns
62 4.2.3 Key Conclusions from Appendix Documents
62 4.2.3.1 Literature Review
62 4.2.3.2 State DOT Survey
62 4.2.3.3 Literature Synthesis and Knowledge Gaps
62 4.2.3.4 Novel Column and Construction Concepts
62 4.2.3.5 Demonstration of Evaluation Guidelines
63 4.2.3.6 Design Examples of Select Novel Columns
63 4.2.3.7 Qualitative Benefits and Economic Impact
63 4.2.3.8 Drift Ratio Displacement Ductility Relationship
63 4.2.3.9 Modeling and Validation for Novel Columns
64 Appendices A–I
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

SUMMARY
Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns

with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms,
Standard reinforced concrete bridge columns are generally designed to dissipate earth-
quake energy through yielding of longitudinal reinforcing steel and spalling of concrete
that collectively cause large plastic deformations in columns. Even though bridge collapse is
expected to be prevented using current design specifications, excessive plastic hinge damage
and large post-earthquake permanent lateral deformations may cause decommissioning of
bridges for repair or replacement. The impact bridge closure has on access to the affected
area shortly after an earthquake, on the traveling public, and on the economy of the region is
significant. A new paradigm is emerging among bridge owners, requiring that bridges remain
functional with minimal interruption of the traffic flow after earthquakes. To materialize
this paradigm, bridge column construction practice would need to explore unconventional
materials and techniques that possess characteristics that make bridge columns resilient.
Despite the superior performance of columns with advanced materials reported in the
literature, design guidelines and methods of structural analysis are not addressed in the cur-
rent seismic bridge design specifications. NCHRP project 12-101 was initiated to achieve
two main objectives of developing (1) proposed AASHTO guidelines for the evaluation of
new techniques for the design and construction of bridge columns with energy dissipation
mechanisms to minimize bridge damage and replacement after a seismic event and (2) design
and construction concepts based on new materials and techniques [e.g., post-tensioning,
shape memory alloy (SMA), engineered cementitious composite (ECC), rubber pads, and
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping] and analytical techniques.
Several tasks were undertaken in this project to achieve the aforementioned objectives. A
state-of-the-art literature review was carried out to highlight the benefits of novel materials and
new technologies; to establish mechanical properties of novel materials; and to identify design,
construction, and performance knowledge gaps. A survey of state departments of transpor-
tation on past and future application of advanced materials in bridges was also conducted.
Thirty-nine new concepts, each with an improved energy dissipation system, were developed
for bridge columns incorporating SMA, ECC, FRP, ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC),
rubber, or rocking mechanisms. Of the 39 concept columns, only eight have been proof tested
at the time of this writing, but the remaining columns are believed also to be feasible.
Other novel column concepts are likely to emerge in the future, each aiming to improve the
seismic performance compared to conventional reinforced concrete columns. To assess any
existing or emerging novel columns, evaluation guidelines were developed using 14 param-
eters to determine suitability and performance of the columns. The parameters included in the
evaluation guidelines were (1) plastic hinge damage, (2) displacement capacity, (3) residual
displacement, (4) availability of proof test data, (5) availability of analysis tool, (6) availability of
design guidelines, (7) past field applications, (8) initial cost, (9) advanced material limitations,
1

2 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
(10) ease of construction, (11) inspectability, (12) maintenance, (13) post-earthquake repair
need, and (14) system performance. These parameters were quantified and scored with dif-
ferent weights. The overall evaluation result was converted to a five-star rating method to help
bridge owners and designers compare different alternatives and to make the final selection.
The current AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design uses displace-
ment ductility as the measure of deformability. However, this parameter may not be suitable
for novel columns since the yield mechanism in novel and conventional columns can be dif-
ferent. To address this difference, drift ratio was used as the design parameter in the present
report to evaluate deformability. A comprehensive parametric study was carried out to relate
the displacement ductility to the drift ratio for practical ranges of reinforced concrete bridge
column geometry and axial loading.
Three of the 39 novel columns were selected by the project panel for further investigation:
(1) SMA-reinforced ECC columns, (2) SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns, and
(3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. Comprehensive analysis, design, and construction
guidelines were developed for these three novel columns. Step-by-step comprehensive design
examples were developed for each of the three columns to better show the use of the proposed
guidelines. The framework used to develop these guidelines can be used by researchers to
develop guidelines for other existing or emerging novel columns.
The present document includes four main chapters and nine appendices (not printed
herein but available for download on TRB.org) summarizing the findings of the individual
tasks. The chapters address the main objectives of the project, and the appendices provide
background, summary of survey findings, modeling methods, and supporting information
that were utilized in the development of the proposed guidelines. Each chapter or appendix
may be used as a standalone document.
Overall, this report aims to draw the bridge engineering community’s attention to the
potential benefits of the use of advanced materials in bridge columns by providing introduc-
tory information, design guidelines and examples, and assessment of new bridge column
technologies.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement

Standard reinforced concrete bridge columns are generally designed to dissipate earthquake
energy through yielding of longitudinal reinforcing steel and spalling of concrete that collec-
tively cause large plastic deformations in columns. Even though bridge collapse is expected to
be prevented using current design specifications, excessive plastic hinge damage and large post-
earthquake permanent lateral deformations may cause decommissioning of bridges for repair
or replacement. The impact bridge closure has on access to the affected area shortly after an
earthquake, to traveling public, and to the economy of the region is significant. A new para-
digm is emerging among bridge owners, requiring that bridges remain functional with minimal
interruption of the traffic flow after earthquakes. To materialize this paradigm, bridge column
construction practice would need to explore unconventional materials and details that possess
characteristics that make bridge columns resilient.
1.2 Research Objectives

Despite the superior performance of columns with advanced materials reported in the lit-
erature, design guidelines and methods of structural analysis are not addressed in the current
seismic bridge design specifications. NCHRP project 12-101 was initiated to achieve two main
objectives, developing (1) proposed AASHTO guidelines for the evaluation of new techniques
for the design and construction of bridge columns with energy dissipation mechanisms meant
to minimize bridge damage and replacement after a seismic event, and (2) design and construc-
tion concepts based on new materials and techniques [e.g., post-tensioning, shape memory alloy
(SMA), engineered cementitious composite (ECC), rubber pads, and fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) wrapping] and analytical techniques.
Four phases and 13 tasks were completed in this project to achieve the aforementioned objec-
tives. The four phases of the project were (I) planning, (II) analytical approach, (III) guideline
development, and (IV) final products. Interim Report 1 included the activities of Phase I of the
project and consisted of five tasks: (1) review literature; (2) synthesize literature and identify
gaps; (3) identify concepts, pros and cons, and cost; (4) develop analytical approach for Phase II;
and (5) prepare Interim Report 1 (IR-1). Interim Report 2 described the work of Phase II of the
project, consisting of three tasks: (6) execute the approved work plan for the analytical approach;
(7) prepare a detailed outline with annotated description for the proposed guidelines in AASHTO
format (the proposed guidelines should include, as a minimum, analysis procedures, evaluation
criteria, design procedures, construction details, and detailed design examples for the identified
concepts); and (8) prepare Interim Report 2 that documents Tasks 6 through 7 and provides
an updated work plan for the remainder of the project. Interim Report 3 documented the work
3

conducted under Phase III of the project that consisted of three tasks: (9) develop guidelines with
detailed examples for each concept, (10) qualitatively identify the benefits and potential economic
impact of the proposed guidelines, and (11) prepare Interim Report 3. The proposed guidelines
and the design examples were updated based on the project panel comments under Task 12 of
Phase IV. A final report documenting the summary of all previous tasks was prepared under
Task 13 of the NCHRP 12-101 project.
1.3 Document Organization

This report is organized into four main chapters and nine appendices.
Chapter 1 summarizes the project objectives. Chapter 2 includes guidelines to quantitatively
assess any new or existing novel columns with improved seismic performance. The quantita-
tive evaluation results are further interpreted using a star-based rating system. Comprehensive
design and construction guidelines for three novel columns are presented in Chapter 3. Sum-
mary and conclusions are presented in Chapter 4. Appendices A through C address the potential
of advanced materials and familiarize the bridge engineering community with these materials.
Thirty-nine novel column concepts are presented in Appendix D, including those with test data
from large-scale model testing under seismic loading. Appendices E and F provide step-by-step
examples to show the application of the proposed guidelines. Qualitative benefits and economic
impacts of novel columns are presented in Appendix G. Appendices H and I provide a summary
of more than 2,000 nonlinear analyses carried out in this project to establish design equations
for three selected novel columns.
Chapters 2 and 3 and the appendices form the basis of potential AASHTO guidelines with a
possible title of “AASHTO Guidelines on the Design of Resilient Novel Columns.”

CHAPTER 2
Guidelines for Evaluation

of Novel Columns
A conventional reinforced concrete (RC) bridge column is generally designed to dissipate

earthquake energy through yielding of longitudinal reinforcing steel combined with cracking
and spalling of concrete that leads to large plastic deformations in columns. The performance
objective for conventional RC bridges in current bridge seismic design codes is collapse pre-
vention, while allowing for substantial damage in column plastic hinges. Even though this per-
formance objective is met, plastic hinge damage and large post-earthquake permanent lateral
displacements may render the bridge unusable, leading to the need for major repair or replace-
ment. The impact of a bridge closure shortly after an earthquake on the traveling public and
the economy of a region could be substantial. A new paradigm is emerging among bridge owners
requiring that bridges remain functional with minimal interruption to traffic after earthquakes.
Recent research has revealed that this paradigm can be realized by using unconventional materials
and techniques that possess characteristics that make bridge columns resilient.
Novel column designs hold the potential for greatly reducing the amount of damage sustained
during a seismic event when compared with conventional reinforced concrete columns. Subsequent
to strong earthquakes, a novel column is expected to exhibit minimal or no damage, and low or
no residual lateral displacement. The advantages of this behavior include eliminating the need for
total replacement as well as significant reductions to the economic impact of a seismic event due
to reduced repair costs as well as decreasing the return-to-service time for bridge structures.
Whereas the combination of steel reinforcement and conventional concrete provides only one
alternative for bridge columns with respect to materials, combining non-ferrous metallic and alter-
native cementitious materials, FRPs, rubber, etc., would lead to a large number of alternatives for
novel column design. Although some of these combinations have been investigated in recent years,
many more could emerge. Evaluation criteria and guidelines are essential to aid in determining the
suitability of these novel columns. As part of the NCHRP 12-101 project, guidelines were developed
to provide a framework for the evaluation and implementation of novel bridge column design
within the existing AASHTO design specification methodology. The guidelines are published as
NCHRP Research Report 864, Volume 2, and hence are not duplicated in this section.
5

CHAPTER 3
Guidelines for Seismic Design

and Construction of Bridge
Columns with Improved Energy
The project panel selected three novel columns for further studies: (1) SMA-reinforced ECC
columns; (2) SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete; and (3) FRP-confined concrete hybrid
rocking columns. More than 2,250 analyses in the form of moment-curvature, pushover, cyclic,
and dynamic simulations were carried out to investigate the behavior of the selected columns
and to develop design guidelines. The proposed guidelines for the design and construction of
the three selected columns are presented in this chapter.

Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 7
3.1 Proposed Seismic Design and Construction

of SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns
3.1.1 Introduction
The main objectives of this study were to develop (1) proposed AASHTO guidelines for the
evaluation of new techniques for the design and construction of bridge columns with energy dis-
sipation mechanisms meant to minimize bridge damage and replacement after a seismic event and
(2) design and construction concepts based on new materials, techniques, and analytical methods.
The first objective was addressed in Chapter 2, Guidelines for Evaluation of Novel Col-
umns. Three novel column concepts were selected by the panel for further study to address the
second objective of the project. The focus of this section is on the development of design and
construction guidelines for novel column Type 31 (Appendix D), columns with SMA-reinforced
ECC plastic hinges. Step-by-step design examples are presented in Appendix F. Economic impact
analysis of novel columns is presented in Appendix G.
The AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (AASHTO SGS) (2011)
serves as the baseline for the development of the present guideline. All limitations, consider-
ations, applicability, and analysis and design methods shall be according to AASHTO SGC
except those presented herein.
3.1.2 Application of SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns

Reinforcing superelastic shape memory alloy (SE SMA) bars is a viable alternative to reinforc-
ing steel bars. SE SMA residual strains are relatively small during cyclic actions ensuring that
SMA-reinforced members will regain their original positions after yielding. Engineered cementi-
tious composite (ECC) is a fiber-reinforced concrete that is expected to exhibit minimal dam-
age under cyclic loadings. The low damage in ECC helps keep the bridge in service after strong
earthquakes. The combination of SE SMA and ECC (SE SMA-reinforced ECC) in bridge column
plastic hinges results in minimal concrete and reinforcement damage after severe earthquakes
and reduces or eliminates the need for post-earthquake repair.
SMA-reinforced ECC bridge columns are proposed for sites in which the 1-second period
acceleration coefficient, SD1, is greater than 0.3, which is equivalent to the seismic design category
(SDC) C or D according to AASHTO SGS (2014). Conventional bridges located in these sites
are expected to exhibit severe inelastic deformations. While there is no adverse effect in using
SMA-reinforced ECC columns in bridges in SDC A and B and bridge owners may exploit the
enhanced durability of ECC and SMA, no benefit is gained from the seismic perspective because
of the relatively small seismic demand.
3.1.3 Materials
3.1.3.1 SMA
In absence of sufficient information about SMA with other alloys, only nickel-titanium
(NiTi) superelastic reinforcing SMA bars are proposed for use as bridge column longitudinal
bars at time of this writing. Nonlinear material model and mechanical properties for NiTi SE
reinforcing SMA bars should conform to Fig. 3.1.3.1-1 and Table 3.1.3.1-1. A symmetric stress-
strain material model based on the expected tensile properties is permitted for the design of
SMA-reinforced columns.
Currently, only plain undeformed SMA bars are available ranging from No. 4 (Ø13 mm) to
No. 18 (Ø57 mm). It is suggested that the austenite finish temperature (Af) (the temperature below
which the bar is no longer superelastic) of NiTi SE SMA be equal to or less than the smaller of 14°F

Stress
Nonlinear k3=a.k1
Model
b .fy
k2 k1
fy
k1
k2
Strain (%)
er eu
Source: Tazarv and Saiidi, 2014b
Figure 3.1.3.1-1. Superelastic SMA bar

stress-strain model.
(–10°C) and the “average low temperature” (a metrological measure) of the site of the structure less
9°F (5°C). The density and Poisson’s ratio of SMA may be considered as 405 lb/ft3 (6,500 kg/m3) and
0.33, respectively (McCormick, 2006). Coefficient of thermal expansion of SE SMA can be taken
as 6.1 × 10–6/°F (11 × 10–6/°C) (Otsuka and Wayman, 1998). Electrical resistivity of SE SMA is
32.3 µW-in. (820 µW-mm) (Faulkner et al., 2000). Research has shown that welding of NiTi SMA
should not be permitted since SMA may become brittle by reacting to oxygen, nitrogen, and hydro-
gen at high temperature (Schlossmacher et al., 1997). A recent study showed that steel will corrode
faster if coupled NiTi SMA steel bars are submerged in chloride solution (Alarab et al., 2016). There-
fore, in absence of extensive test data, the use of NiTi SMA bars coupled with steel bars in marine
environments (e.g., underwater columns) shall be avoided.
3.1.3.2 ECC
The stress-strain relationship for unconfined ECC is allowed to be the same as that utilized
in practice for the unconfined conventional concrete with no tensile strength (Fig. 3.1.3.2-1a).
The secant modulus of elasticity (EECC) shown in the figure should be used in the calculation of
uncracked properties of ECC sections. The confined compressive strength of ECC, f ′ce, shall be
calculated based on Motaref’s model as shown in Fig. 3.1.3.2-1b.
Table 3.1.3.1-1. Minimum and expected tensile NiTi superelastic SMA

bar mechanical properties.
Parameter Minimum(a) Expected(b)

Austenite modulus, 4500 ksi (31025 MPa) 5500 ksi (37900 MPa)
Post-yield stiffness, -- 250 ksi (1725 MPa)
1650 ksi (11370 MPa)
Strain hardening stiffness, --
Austenite yield strength, 45 ksi (310 MPa) 55 ksi (380 MPa)
Lower plateau stress factor, 0.45 0.65
Recoverable superelastic strain, 6% 6%
Secondary post-yield stiffness ratio, -- 0.3
Ultimate strain, 10% 10%
Note: (a)To be used in material production and for non-seismic design (e.g., service limit state).
(b)
To be used in seismic design of SMA-reinforced concrete members.
Source: Tazarv and Saiidi, 2014b.

Stress
Stress
Tension Tension
0.005 0.002 eue ef ece
Strain Strain
Compression
EECC
f 'ue
Compression
EECC=1400( f 'ECC)1/3(ksi)
f 'ECC
EECC=5100( f 'ECC)1/3(MPa) f 'ce
(a) Unconfined ECC (b) Confined ECC
Source: (b) Motaref et al., 2011.
Figure 3.1.3.2-1. ECC stress-strain model.
′ ( −1.25 + 2 1 + 10.5 f l′ f ECC

f ce′ = f ECC ′ )
′ − 2 f l′ f ECC (3.1.3.2-1)
′ is the compressive strength of the unconfined ECC and f ′l is

where f ECC
f l′= 2 Asp f yh ( sD ′ ) (3.1.3.2-2)
where Asp is the area of the transverse reinforcement, fyh is the yield strength of the transverse
reinforcement, s, is the spacing of the transverse reinforcement, and D′ is the core concrete
diameter measured from center to center of the transverse reinforcement. f ′ce shall be taken equal
′ when f ′l /f ECC
to f ECC ′ is less than 0.035.
f ue′ = 0.4 f ce′ (3.1.3.2-3)
ε ce = 0.0025[1 + 2.7 ( f ce′ f ECC

′ − 1)] (3.1.3.2-4)
εue = 0.004 + 1.4ρs f yh εsu f ce′ (3.1.3.2-5)
where rs is the volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement relative to the core and esu is the
transverse reinforcement strain at the peak stress (may use values presented in AASHTO SGS
Table 8.4.2-1).
A complete stress-strain relationship for confined ECC may conform to Eq. 3.1.3.2-6:
f ce′ Xn
f ECC = (3.1.3.2-6)
n −1+ Xn
where
ε
X= (3.1.3.2-7)
ε ce
n = 0.2 f ce′ + 2 (3.1.3.2-8)
ef is the strain in the descending branch where stress drops to f ′ue. ef may be calculated as:
εf = ε ce [ 9.5 − 0.8 Ln (1000 f ce′ )] (3.1.3.2-9)
f ′ce in Eq. 3.1.3.2-8 and 3.1.3.2-9 shall be in ksi.

3.1.4 Analysis of SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns

3.1.4.1 Selection of Analysis Procedure to Determine Seismic Demand
Analysis methods to obtain the seismic demands are according to AASHTO SGS (2011,
Article 4.2).
3.1.4.2 Effective Section Properties

The effective moment of inertia (Ieff) should be used for the modeling of SMA-reinforced ECC
columns. Ieff may be estimated by Fig. 3.1.4.2-1, or the slope of M – Ø curve between the origin
and the first SMA bar yield point as:
E ECC Ieff = My Ø y (3.1.4.2-1)
where My is yield moment and Øy is yield curvature.

All material mechanical properties are the expected values. Appendix I presents the derivation
and validation of the graphs.
0.35
Circular SMA-ECC Sections
Elastic Stiffness Ratio (Ieff / Ig)
0.3
ASMA /Ag =0.04
0.25 ASMA /Ag =0.03
ASMA /Ag =0.02

0.2
ASMA /Ag =0.01
0.15
0.1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Axial Load Index, P / ( f'ECC Ag)
(a) Circular Sections
0.35
Rectangular SMA-ECC Sections
0.3
ASMA /Ag =0.04
0.25 ASMA /Ag =0.03
0.2 ASMA /Ag =0.02
ASMA /Ag =0.01

0.15
0.1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Axial Load Index, P / ( f'ECC Ag)
(b) Rectangular Sections
Figure 3.1.4.2-1. Effective moment of

inertia for SMA-reinforced ECC columns
[Ieff is the effective moment of inertia, Ig is
the moment of intertia of gross section, P is
the axial load, Ag is the gross area of member
cross-section (in.2), ASMA is the column
longitudinal SMA reinforcement area (in.2)].

20 1
Hysteretic Damping (%)
0.8
15
yFlag-Shaped / y RC
0.6
10
Recommended
RC Columns 0.4
5 Dwairi et al. (2007) Dwairi et al. (2007)
Priestley et al. (2007) 0.2 Priestley et al. (2007)
Billah and Alam (2015) Billah and Alam (2015)
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ductility Ductility
(a) Hysteretic Damping (b) Flag-Shaped Damping (wFlag) over RC
Damping (wRC)
Figure 3.1.4.3-1. Damping for columns with flag-shaped hysteresis.
3.1.4.3 Damping Ratio for Dynamic Analysis

For elastic and nonlinear dynamic analyses of SMA-reinforced ECC columns, the damping
ratio should be taken as 3.2%, rather than the 5% used for RC. The lower damping ratio recom-
mended for SMA-reinforced ECC accounts for the lower hysteretic damping in columns with
flag-shaped behavior that could result in higher displacement demands.
Fig. 3.1.4.3-1a shows hysteretic damping ratio versus displacement ductility for bridge col-
umns with flag-shaped hysteresis. The study by Billah and Alam (2015) was specifically for SMA-
reinforced bridge columns. It can be seen that hysteretic damping of columns with flag-shaped
behavior is lower than that of conventional RC columns, as expected. Furthermore, the ratio
of the flag-shaped column damping to the RC column damping is approximately constant for
ductilities greater than 2 (Fig. 3.1.4.3-1b). Table 3.1.4.3-1 presents a summary of damping ratios.
The average ratio of flag-shaped hysteretic damping to that of RC columns was 63%. Based on
these findings, the damping ratio of SMA-reinforced columns is proposed to be 3.2%, which is
64% of the typical 5% damping.
3.1.4.4 Displacement Modification for Damping

The displacement demand for SMA-reinforced ECC columns (RD) calculated using equivalent
static or spectral analysis method shall be increased by 20% to account for the lower damping
ratio of SMA-reinforced ECC columns as:
0.4 0.4
0.05  0.05 
RD =  =  = 1.20 (3.1.4.4-1)
 ξ   0.032 
Table 3.1.4.3-1. Damping for SMA-reinforced columns.
References (Ave. for ) Flag-Shaped Damping RD

Dwairi et al. (2007) 0.72 3.60 1.14
Priestley et al. (2007) 0.56 2.80 1.26
Billah and Alam (2015) 0.62 3.12 1.21
Average of Three Refs 0.63 3.17 1.20
Recommended for SMA-
0.64 3.20 1.20
Reinforced Columns
Note: = flag-shaped damping, = RC damping, = displacement ductility, RD = displacement
demand for SMA-reinforced ECC columns.

An extensive nonlinear parametric study of more than 90 SMA-reinforced ECC columns

was conducted in this study. Details of the study are shown in Appendix I. Two aspect ratios,
4 and 6, were selected for 5-ft (1.52-m) diameter columns. Four longitudinal reinforcement
ratios (1%, 2%, 3%, and 4%) with one transverse steel ratio (1.07%) were assumed for col-
umns. To be able to cover a wide range of structural period, the axial load index (ALI) varied
from 0.0% to 20% at 2% increments. The ALI was subsequently converted to mass. The design
spectrum was the AASHTO spectrum for downtown, Los Angeles, which falls in the seismic
design category (SDC) D, and the ground motion (EQ1) was a synthetic motion generated
based on the full design spectral acceleration matching. The results were nearly the same for
another synthetic motion, EQ3, that was fully matched with the design acceleration spectrum.
Fig. 3.1.4.4-1a shows that the spectral displacements calculated based on 5% damping ratio are
approximately the same as the displacement demands calculated based on nonlinear dynamic
analyses with a 3.2% damping ratio. The suggested 20% increase in spectral displacement
(Fig. 3.1.4.4-1b) ensures that spectral displacements are always larger than the demands
obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis.
3.1.4.5 Displacement Modification for Short-Period Bridges

No modification is needed for short-period SMA-reinforced ECC columns since the 20%
increase in the spectral displacements due to lower damping ratio guarantees higher spectral
displacement for practical bridge columns including short-period columns.
25
Sd versus Nonlinear Displacement Demands
20 Results for 93 Columns under EQ1
Displacement (in.)
15
10
SDC-D (5%)
5 Sd for EQ1 (5%)
Disp. Demand (3.2%)
Short Period Limit
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (sec)
(a) Original Spectral Displacements
25
Sd versus Nonlinear Displacement Demands
20 Results for 185 Analyses (EQ1, EQ3)
Displacement (in.)
15
10
Amplified SDC-D (5%)
5 Disp. Demand (3.2%)
Short Period Limit
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (sec)
(b) Amplified Spectral Displacements
Figure 3.1.4.4-1. Spectral displacement (Sd ) vs.

nonlinear dynamic displacement demands for
SMA-reinforced ECC columns.

10
9 Practical
8 Range
7
Drift Ratio (%)

6 Proposed relationships
are the upper bound
5
4
3
2 Aspect Ratio= 4
Aspect Ratio= 6
1
Aspect Ratio= 8
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement Ductility
Figure 3.1.4.6-1. Drift-ductility relationships

for RC columns.
3.1.4.6 Displacement Ductility versus Drift Ratio

Displacement ductility demand, µD, for conventional columns is calculated as
∆ pd
µD = 1 + (3.1.4.6-1)
∆ yi
where Δpd is the plastic displacement demand and Δyi is the idealized yield displacement cor-
responding to the idealized yield curvature. This measure for SMA-reinforced columns usually
results in a misleading value since the yield strain of SMA bars is 5 times higher than that of steel
bars resulting in a higher idealized (effective) yield displacement and thus a lower calculated
ductility even though the displacement capacity of a SMA-reinforced column may substantially
exceed that of a comparable conventional column. Drift ratio, the ratio of column lateral displace-
ment to the column height, was proposed as an alternative measure to estimate the deformation
capacity and demand of novel columns, including SMA-reinforced ECC columns.
Because current bridge seismic codes utilize displacement ductility rather than the drift capac-
ity in design, it was important to determine the relationship between ductility and drift ratio so
that displacement ductilities for conventional columns in current codes can be translated to drift
ratios that may be utilized in novel column design. An extensive parametric study on conven-
tional RC columns was conducted to establish a relationship between the displacement ductility
and drift ratio for these columns (Appendix H). Fig. 3.1.4.6-1 shows the condensed result of the
parametric study. Equations were developed to relate drift ratio and ductility and are listed in
Table 3.1.4.6-1. Detailed results of the parametric study are presented in Appendix H. Linear
Table 3.1.4.6-1. Proposed relationships

between drift and ductility.
Parameters Proposed Equation
Column Aspect Ratio 4

Note: “ ” is the drift ratio (%) and “ ” is the displacement

ductility.

D
L
(a) Single-Column Bent (b) Multi-Column Bent with Fixed Ends
D
L
Pinned
Joint
(c) Multi-Column Bent with One-End-Pinned Joints
Figure 3.1.4.6-2. Aspect ratio definition [D is the diameter

of the column (or the largest side dimension) and L is the
column height from point of maximum moment to the point
of contraflexure].
interpolation is allowed for intermediate aspect ratios. Alternatively, the following equation can
be used for intermediate aspect ratios:
δ = 0.26 ( Ar )0.81 µ − 0.18 ( Ar )0.57 (3.1.4.6-2)
where µ is displacement ductility and Ar is the column aspect ratio (Fig. 3.1.4.6-2). For single-
column bents, the aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the column height to the column side
dimension parallel to the loading direction. For multi-column bents, the aspect ratio is the ratio of
a portion of the column length (length of column from point of maximum moment to the point
of contraflexure) to the column side dimension parallel to the loading direction. The full column
length is used if one end of the column is pinned.
3.1.4.7 Column Drift Demand Requirement

The recommended limits on drift ratio demand, dD, for novel columns are listed in Table 3.1.4.7-1.
The values are based on the displacement ductility demand limits for conventional columns
Table 3.1.4.7-1. Bridge column drift ratio demand

requirements.
Conventional
Member Novel Columns
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Single-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Aspect Ratio 4:
Multiple-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Note: “ ” is the drift ratio demand (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility demand.
Use linear interpolation for intermediate aspect ratios.

multiplied by the deformability factor, W, which should be taken as 1.2 for SMA-reinforced ECC
columns. Linear interpolation can be used for intermediate aspect ratios. Extrapolation for a col-
umn with a lower aspect ratio than 4 is valid if the column behavior is dominated by flexure.
Available test data on the SMA-reinforced ECC columns (Saiidi et al. 2009; Nakashoji and
Saiidi 2014; Tazarv and Saiidi 2015a) confirm that these columns even with a low aspect ratio
of 4.5 can withstand more than 10% drift ratio demand. The mode of failure for these columns
was SMA bar fracture at higher drifts.
3.1.4.8 Column Force Demand

Columns will ideally be designed to resist all internal forces developed during an earthquake
or those associated with a collapse mechanism.
3.1.4.8.1 Moment Demand. The column design moment is the smaller of that obtained
from (a) the demand at the design level earthquake and (b) the idealized plastic capacity of the
column cross-section. The column design moment obtained from (a) and (b) shall not be less
than the column failure moment (Mu) when the column failure moment is greater than 1.2 times
the idealized plastic moment (Mu ≥ 1.2Mp).
The general approach for conventional columns is that the plastic moment calculated using the
idealized method is approximately the same as the actual plastic moment capacity, thus the maxi-
mum possible moment demand is the plastic moment. This condition may not always be true
for novel columns. The SMA-reinforced member moment-curvature (or force-displacement)
relationship is usually tri-linear (Fig. 3.1.4.8.1-1). When the moment (or force) demand
calculated from linear analysis falls on the third branch, the plastic moment (or force) calculated
using the idealized method may be significantly lower than the demand. In this case, the column
failure moment should be used as specified.
3.1.4.8.2 Shear Demand. The column shear demand is the smaller of that obtained from
(a) the demand at design level earthquake and (b) the shear associated with 1.2 times the plastic
moment calculated using the idealized method. The column shear obtained from (a) and (b) shall
not be less than the shear associated with 1.44 times the idealized plastic moment when the calcu-
lated failure moment exceeds 1.2Mp (Mu ≥ 1.2Mp). All possible plastic hinge locations should be
considered in the determination of shear forces using (b).
3.1.4.8.3 Column Adjoining Member Force Demand. Column adjoining members (e.g.,
footings, cap beams, and connections) are designed to resist the overstrength plastic hinging
Mu
Mu Actual Actual
Mp Mp
My
Moment
Moment
My
Idealized Idealized
ØYi ØYi
Øy Øu Øy Øu
Curvature Curvature
(a) Conventional RC Sections (b) SMA-Reinforced Sections
Figure 3.1.4.8.1-1. Typical moment-curvature relationships (Mu is failure

moment, Mp is plastic moment, My is yield moment, �Y is yield curvature,
�Yi is idealized yield curvature, �u is ultimate curvature).

moment, see Sections 3.1.4.8.1 and 3.1.4.8.2, and the associated forces (e.g., shear and overturn-
ing axial forces) in an essentially elastic manner. This design approach is known as capacity
design and is outlined in the AASHTO SGS.
3.1.4.9 Residual Drift

The residual drift of SMA-reinforced ECC columns is insignificant for all practical cases due
to the superelastic effect of reinforcing SMA bars. Therefore, the residual drift for these columns
can be categorized as “low” (dr ≤ 1.0%).
Fig. 3.1.4.9-1 shows the residual drift-peak drift relationship for all practical SMA-reinforced
ECC columns (based on the limitations specified in this guideline such as minimum and maxi-
mum longitudinal reinforcement ratios, maximum aspect ratio). The analytical results are
shown up to the failure point (drift capacity) of each column. It can be seen that the residual
drift ratios for all SMA-reinforced ECC columns are less than 1.0%. The left cluster of the data
(solid black lines), mid-cluster of the data (solid gray lines), and the bottom-right cluster of
the data are respectively for columns with aspect ratios of 4, 6, and 8. The residual-peak drift
relationships measured in a conventional RC bridge column test (dashed gray line) as well as an
SMA-reinforced ECC column test (dashed black line) are also shown in the figure.
3.1.5 Design of SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns

SMA-reinforced ECC columns ideally will be designed conforming to requirements presented
in this section.
3.1.5.1 Analytical Plastic Hinge Length

The analytical plastic hinge length of SMA-reinforced ECC columns may be estimated using
L p = 0.08L + 0.15 f ye dbl ≥ 0.3 f ye dbl (3.1.5.1-1)
where fye (ksi) is the expected austenite yield strength of the longitudinal column-reinforcing
SMA bars and dbl (in.) is the nominal diameter of longitudinal-column reinforcing SMA bars.
Nakashoji and Saiidi (2014) showed utilizing all available test data that the plastic hinge length
of SMA-reinforced ECC columns can be conservatively estimated using the equation presented
in AASHTO SGS (2011).
1.4 Conv. Column Test Results for 56 columns

(Haber et al., 2013) (Practical Range)
1.2
Residual Drift Ratio (%)
1% Limit
1
(Low Residual)
0.8
SMA/ECC Column Test
0.6 (Tazarv and Saiidi, 2014b)
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Drift Ratio (%)
Figure 3.1.4.9-1. Residual drifts for all practical

SMA-reinforced ECC columns.

3.1.5.2 Column Drift Capacity

Column drift capacity (Δc) is defined as a displacement at fracture of the column longitudinal
bar or compressive failure of the column core concrete. Either moment-curvature or pushover
analyses may be used for the estimation of a SMA-reinforced ECC column displacement capac-
ity. However, a pushover analysis is preferred since it includes the entire bridge model, frame
actions, and geometric nonlinearities. When moment-curvature analysis is used, the displace-
ment capacity is
ØYi L2 Lp
∆c = + (Øu − ØYi ) L p  L −  (3.1.5.2-1)
3  2
where ØYi is the idealized yield curvature calculated using the idealized method (Appendix H,
Fig. H-1), Øu is the ultimate curvature associated with either SMA bar fracture or core ECC fail-
ure, L is the column height from point of maximum moment to the point of contraflexure, and
Lp is the analytical plastic hinge length.
Column drift capacity (dc) is defined as the ratio of the column displacement capacity to the
column height as
∆c
δc = (3.1.5.2-2)
L
3.1.5.2.1 Minimum Drift Capacity. The recommended minimum drift ratio capacity
for SMA-reinforced ECC columns is listed in Table 3.1.5.2.1-1. The drift ratios correspond
to the minimum displacement ductility capacity for conventional columns. Columns shall
be designed to provide at least this level of drift ratio. Linear interpolation can be used for
intermediate aspect ratios.
3.1.5.3 Shear Capacity

The shear capacity of SMA-reinforced ECC columns within the plastic hinge calculated based
on the nominal material strength properties should satisfy:
ØsVn ≥ Vu (3.1.5.3-1)
in which:
Vn = Vc + Vs (3.1.5.3-2)
Where the strength reduction factor, Øs, is 0.9, Vn is the nominal shear capacity of member,
Vs is the reinforcing steel contribution to shear capacity, and Vc is the ECC contribution to
shear capacity:
Vc = min (Vc1 , Vc 2 ) (3.1.5.3-3)
Table 3.1.5.2.1-1. Minimum bridge column drift ratio capacity

requirements.
Conventional
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Single- or multi-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Note: “ ” is the drift ratio capacity (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility capacity.

where Vc1 is based on AASHTO SGS (2011) and Vc2 is according to the JSCE Concrete Library 127
(2008) as
Vc1 = 0.8vc Ag (3.1.5.3-4)
vc is zero if the column is under tensile axial loads. Otherwise:
Pu 
v c = 0.032α ′  1 + ′ ≤ min ( 0.11 f ECC
f ECC ′ )
′ , 0.047α ′ f ECC (3.1.5.3-5)
 2 Ag 
For a circular column with spiral or hoop reinforcing:
fs
α′ = + 3.67 − µ D (3.1.5.3-6)
0.15
f s = ρs f yh ≤ 0.35 (3.1.5.3-7)
4 Asp
ρs = (3.1.5.3-8)
sD ′
where Ag is the gross area of the member cross-section (in.2), Pu is the ultimate compressive force
acting on the section (kips), Asp is the area of the spiral or hoop reinforcing bar (in.2), s is the pitch
of the spiral or spacing of hoops or ties (in.), D′ is the core diameter of the column measured from
′ is
center of spiral or hoop (in.), fyh is the nominal yield stress of transverse reinforcing (ksi), f ECC
the nominal ECC compressive strength (ksi), µD is the displacement ductility demand calculated
from drift demand, and a′ is the ECC shear stress adjustment factor.
Vc 2 = Vcd + V fd (3.1.5.3-9)
where Vcd and Vfd are, respectively, the contribution of ECC and fiber to shear capacity. The ECC
contribution to shear strength is as follows:
Vcd = βd .β p .βn. f vcd .bw .d γ b (3.1.5.3-10)
where
f vcd = 0.039 3 f ECC

′ ≤ 0.07 ksi
βd = 2.5 4 1 d ≤ 1.5d is in [ in.]
β p = 3 100 pw ≤ 1.5 (3.1.5.3-11)

Mo
βn = 1 + ≤ 2 ( Pu ≥ 0 )
Mu
Mo
βn = 1 + 2 ≥ 0 ( Pu < 0 )
Mu
where Pu is the design axial compressive force, Mu is the design bending moment, Mo is the bend-
ing moment necessary to cancel stress due to axial force at extreme tension fiber corresponding
to design bending moment Md , bw (in.) is the width of member (in the case of circular section
with diameter of D, bw = 0.55D), d (in.) is the distance from the extreme compression fiber to the
centroid of extreme longitudinal tension reinforcement, pw = ASMA/(bw.d) (in the case of circular
section, pw = ASMA/Ag), ASMA is the column longitudinal SMA reinforcement area (in.2), and gb is
a safety factor and may be taken as 1.3.

The contribution of fibers to shear strength is as follows:
f vd.bw. z
Vfd = (3.1.5.3-12)
γ b tan (βu )
where fvd is the design tensile strength of ECC (may be taken as 0.29 ksi) and must be taken as
zero when it is smaller than 0.2 ksi, z is the distance from location of compressive stress resultant
to the centroid of tensile steel and may generally be taken as 0.87d, bu is the angle of the diagonal
crack surface to the member axis and may be taken as 45°.
For members that are reinforced with circular hoops, spirals, or interlocking hoops or spirals,
the nominal shear reinforcement strength, Vs is:
π  nAsp f yh D ′ 
Vs = (3.1.5.3-13)
2  s 
where n is the number of individual interlocking spirals or hoops within the spacing s. Refer to
AASHTO SGS for the calculation of Vs for other types of cross-sections.
3.1.5.4 Axial Capacity

The axial capacity of an SMA-reinforced ECC column shall be calculated as
ØPn = 0.75 ( z1 f ECC

′ ( Ag − ASMA ) + ASMA f y ) (3.1.5.4-1)
where f ′ECC is the nominal ECC compressive strength (ksi), A g is the gross area of member
cross-section (in.2), ASMA is the column longitudinal SMA reinforcement area (in.2), fy is the
nominal austenite yield strength of SMA bars, and the upper limit strength modifier for
ECC is
z1 = 1 − 0.02 f ECC
′ ≤ 0.85 for f ECC
′ ≤ 11.6 ksi (3.1.5.4-2)
The axial load capacity for steel reinforced ECC sections was based on the JSCE Concrete
Library 127 (2008) and was modified in this section to include SMA bars.
3.1.5.5 Minimum Lateral Strength

Each bent shall have a minimum lateral flexural capacity to resist a lateral force of 0.1Pdl,
where Pdl is the tributary dead load applied at the center of gravity of the superstructure.
3.1.5.6 Other Loading and Strength Design

The estimation, analysis, and design of SMA-reinforced ECC columns for non-seismic loads
are based on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014) in which ECC can be
treated as the conventional concrete but with ECC properties (e.g., modulus of elasticity) and
reinforcing SMA bars can be treated as conventional steel bars but with SMA properties (the
austenite yield strength, the modulus of elasticity). Only for preliminary design under the load
combination of “Extreme Event I,” the AASHTO response modification factors (AASHTO
LRFD, Table 3.10.7.1-1) may be used to reasonably size the columns and the adjoining mem-
bers. Nevertheless, SMA-reinforced ECC columns should be analyzed and designed according
to the present guideline for seismic loads.
3.1.5.7 Serviceability Design

An SMA-reinforced ECC column will ideally be designed to withstand service loads during
the life of the bridge. Actions to be considered for these columns at the service limit state should

be short- and long-term deformations. Serviceability for conventional RC and ECC is addressed
through the minimum shrinkage and temperature reinforcement requirement. The relatively
high transverse reinforcement to satisfy seismic design requirements in novel columns exceeds
the minimum shrinkage and temperature reinforcement requirement AASHTO LRFD.
3.1.5.7.1 Shrinkage and Creep. In the absence of test data, the ECC shrinkage strain may
be assumed to be 0.00046 after 1 year of drying. Other shrinkage parameters can be based on
current AASHTO LRFD requirement for concrete. Creep coefficient of ECC may be assumed to
be 1.5. These recommendations are according to the JSCE Concrete Library 127 (2008). Sample
test data are shown in Fig. 3.1.5.7-1.
3.1.5.7.2 Axial Deformations. Instantaneous axial deformation due to loads and long-
term shortening due to shrinkage and creep should be determined for ECC columns only when
these columns are post-tensioned. Design of post-tensioned ECC columns is beyond the scope
of this report.
The estimation of deformations in SMA-reinforced ECC elements at a limit state of service-
ability should be based on two assumptions: (1) strain is proportional to the distance from the
neutral axis of the cross-section and (2) ECC and SMA are linear elastic materials with moduli
of elasticity specified in section 3.1.3. Analysis can be performed assuming perfect bond between
reinforcing SMA bars and ECC.
3.1.6 Details for SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns

SMA-reinforced ECC columns shall be detailed conforming to requirements presented in
this section.
3.1.6.1 Partially or Fully Cast ECC Columns

The incorporation of ECC only over partial length of columns should be permitted. The
length of the ECC portion of columns in the plastic hinge region shall be at least 1.5 times the
largest column cross-sectional dimension.
3.1.6.2 Reinforcement Details

3.1.6.2.1 Longitudinal SMA Reinforcement. The area of longitudinal reinforcing SMA
bars (ASMA) in the SMA-reinforced ECC columns should satisfy:
0.01Ag ≤ ASMA ≤ 0.04 Ag (3.1.6.2-1)
Test method: JIS A 1129

Shrinkage strain (x10-6)
Creep coefficient
CEP-FIP Ordinary concrete with the

same level of compressive strength
Drying shrinkage strain
of ordinary concrete ECC
Age (day) Age of loading (day)

(a) ECC Shrinkage (b) ECC Creep Coefficient
Source: JSCE Concrete Library 127, 2008.
Figure 3.1.5.7-1. ECC shrinkage and creep properties.

Table 3.1.6.2.2-1. Plain SMA bar dimensions.
Bar Size Nominal Diameter Cross-Sectional Area

No. (mm) in. (mm) in.2 (mm2)
#4 (Ø13) 0.500 (12.7) 0.20 (129)
#5 (Ø16) 0.625 (15.9) 0.31 (199)
#6 (Ø19) 0.750 (19.1) 0.44 (284)
#7 (Ø22) 0.875 (22.2) 0.60 (387)
#8 (Ø25) 1.000 (25.4) 0.79 (510)
#9 (Ø29) 1.128 (28.7) 1.00 (645)
#10 (Ø32) 1.270 (32.3) 1.27 (819)
#11 (Ø36) 1.410 (35.8) 1.56 (1006)
#14 (Ø43) 1.693 (43.0) 2.25 (1452)
#18 (Ø57) 2.257 (57.3) 4.00 (2581)
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2). Since the austenite yield strength of
SMA bars is usually lower than the steel bar yielding, higher longitudinal reinforcement than con-
ventional columns is expected, but the reinforcement area should be within the specified range.
3.1.6.2.2 SMA Bar Size. The available size of reinforcing SMA bars is presented in
Table 3.1.6.2.2-1.
3.1.6.3 Splicing of SMA Reinforcement

The incorporation of SMA bars over only a partial length of columns ideally will be permitted
and suggested to save cost. The length of SMA bars shall not be less than the analytical plastic hinge
length and 75% of the largest column cross-sectional dimension (0.75D). SMA bars are plain (with
smooth surfaces), behaving similarly to debonded bars under cyclic loading. When SMA bars are
used over the entire length of members, mechanical anchorage shall be used to anchor the bars in
the adjoining members. When SMA bars are utilized only in the plastic hinge region, reinforcing
SMA bars should be connected to reinforcing steel bars using mechanical bar splices approved by
the bridge owner. Threaded (only those with parallel threads but not those with tapered threads)
and headed bar couplers have exhibited satisfactory performance in large-scale tests. Splicing
should be permitted in the plastic hinge region of the columns pending owner approval.
A recent study by Tazarv and Saiidi (2015b) showed that the mechanical bar splices in the
column plastic hinges reduce the displacement ductility capacity as
µ sp Hsp  0.1β
= (1 − 0.18β )  (3.1.6.3-1)
µCIP  Lsp 
where µsp is the displacement ductility capacity of a mechanically spliced column, µCIP is the
conventional non-spliced cast-in-place column displacement ductility capacity, b is the cou-
pler rigid length factor obtained from the splice tensile tests or the coupler manufacturer
(a range from 0 to 1), Hsp is the distance between the coupler end to the column adjoining member
interface (Fig. 3.1.6.3-1), and Lsp is the splice length. Hsp should be taken 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) when
couplers are installed at the column to adjoining member interface. Fig. 3.1.6.3-1 is intended to
clarify the parameters in Eq. 3.1.6.3-1. SMA bars require two splices as shown in Fig. 3.1.7.2-1.
In this case, the coupler properties in Eq. 3.1.6.3-1 should be based on the coupler that is near
the column end.
Since there is a linear relationship between the displacement ductility and the drift ratio,
the ratio of the spliced to cast-in-place (CIP) column ductilities presented in the equation is
approximately the same as the ratio of the spliced to CIP column drift ratios. More information
can be found in the NCHRP Project 12-105 final report.

Cap Beam
Mechanically Spliced Column
Couplers
Lsp
Hsp
Footing
Figure 3.1.6.3-1. Mechanical bar splices.
3.1.6.4 Maximum Axial Load

The axial load acting on an SMA-reinforced ECC column, including gravity and seismic
demands (Pu) where a pushover analysis is not performed, should satisfy:
Pu ≤ 0.15 f ECC
′ Ag (3.1.6.4-1)
′ is the nominal ECC com-

where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2) and f ECC
pressive strength (ksi). A higher axial load value may be used provided that pushover analysis
including the P – Δ effect is performed to compute the maximum drift capacity of the column.
3.1.6.5 Maximum Aspect Ratio

The aspect ratio of SMA-reinforced ECC bents should not exceed 8. Columns with larger
aspect ratios may fail at low drift ratios due to the P – Δ effect.
Reinforcing Reinforcing
Steel Bar Steel Bar
Cast-in-Place Precast
Reinforcing Column Reinforcing
Column
SMA Bar SMA Bar
Grout
Steel Bar Steel Bar
Filled
Ducts
Not all
reinforcement Footing Footing
are shown for clarity
(a) Cast-in-Place Detailing (b) Precast Detailing
Source: Tazarv and Saiidi, 2014a.
Figure 3.1.7.2-1. Construction of SMA-reinforced ECC columns.

3.1.7 Construction of SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns

3.1.7.1 Quality Control Tests
ASTM F2516-07 (2007) should be utilized for tensile testing of NiTi SE SMA to compute the
mechanical properties according to the procedure presented in Tazarv and Saiidi (2014b). Only
reinforcing SMA bars satisfying the “minimum” material properties (sec. 3.1.3) shall be allowed
for the design and construction of SMA-reinforced bridge columns.
ECC testing method for the computation of compressive and tensile strengths, strain capacities,
workability, and durability should be according to the JSCE Concrete Library 127 (2008).
3.1.7.2 Construction Procedures

CIP and precast construction ideally will be permitted for SMA-reinforced ECC columns.
Fig. 3.1.7.2-1 shows one example for each construction method. The design of precast column
connections should be according to bridge-owner approved guidelines.
3.1.7.3 Construction Tolerance

Tolerance limits normally used for conventional RC construction are applicable to SMA/ECC
columns. Quality control for precast columns should be according to PCI MNL-116-99 (1999).
Construction tolerance for precast column connections should be according to bridge-owner
approved guidelines.
3.1.8 References
AASHTO. (2011). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO. (2014). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
Alarab, L. A., Ross, B. E., and Poursaee, A. (2016). Corrosion Assessment of Coupled Steel Reinforcement with
Ni-Ti–Based Shape Memory Alloy in Simulated-Concrete Pore Solution. ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 8, 6 pp. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001565.
ASTM. (2007). Standard Test Method for Tension Testing of Nickel-Titanium Superelastic Materials, F2516-07,
West Conshohocken, PA.
Billah, A. H. M. M., and Alam, M. S. (2015). Damping-Ductility Relationship for Performance Based Seismic
Design of Shape Memory Alloy Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier. Proceeding of Structures Congress 2015,
ASCE, 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479117.042.
Dwairi, H. M., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2007). Equivalent Damping in Support of Direct Displacement-
Based Design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11(4), 512–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601033884.
Faulkner, M. G., Amalraj, J. J., and Bhattacharyya, A. (2000). Experimental Determination of Thermal and
Electrical Properties of Ni-Ti Shape Memory Wires. Smart Materials and Structures, 9(5), 632–639.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/9/5/307.
Haber, Z. B., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. H. (2013). Precast Column-Footing Connections for Accelerated Bridge
Construction in Seismic Zones, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-08, 612 pp.
JSCE Concrete Library 127. (2008). Recommendations for Design and Construction of High Performance
Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites with Multiple Fine Cracks (HPFRCC). Japan Society of Civil
Engineers.
McCormick, J. P. (2006). Cyclic Behavior of Shape Memory Alloys Materials Characterization and Optimization,
PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, 351 pp.
Motaref, S., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. (2011). Seismic Response of Precast Bridge Columns with Energy Dis-
sipating Joints, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-11-01.
Nakashoji, B., and Saiidi, M. S. (2014). Seismic Performance of Square Nickel-Titanium Reinforced ECC Columns
with Headed Couplers, Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and
Otsuka, K., and Wayman, C. M. (1998). Mechanism of Shape Memory Effect and Superplasticity (pp. 27–48).
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

PCI MNL-116-99. (1999). Manual for Quality Control for Plants and Production of Structural Precast Concrete
Products, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 328 pp.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalski, M. J. (2007). Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures.
Pavia: IUSS press.
Saiidi, M. S., O’Brien, M., and Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. (2009). Cyclic Response of Concrete Bridge Columns
Using Superelastic Nitinol and Bendable Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 106(1), 69–77.
Schlossmacher, P., Haas, T., and Schüssler, A. (1997). Laser-Welding of a Ni-Rich TiNi Shape Memory Alloy:
Mechanical Behavior. Journal De Physique IV France, 07(C5, No. C5), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1051/
jp4:1997539.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2014a). Next Generation of Bridge Columns for Accelerated Bridge Construction in
High Seismic Zones, Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-14-06, 400 pp.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2014b). Reinforcing NiTi Superelastic SMA for Concrete Structures. In Journal of
Structural Engineering. ASCE; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001176.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2015a). Low-Damage Precast Columns for Accelerated Bridge Construction in High
Seismic Zones. In Journal of Bridge Engineering. ASCE; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000806.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2015b). Design and Construction of Bridge Columns Incorporating Mechanical Bar
Splices in Plastic Hinge Zones, Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and

3.2 Proposed Design and Construction of SMA-Reinforced

FRP-Confined Concrete Columns
3.2.1 Introduction
The main objectives of the present study was to develop (1) proposed AASHTO guidelines
for the evaluation of new techniques for the design and construction of bridge columns with
energy dissipation mechanisms meant to minimize bridge damage and replacement after a seis-
mic event and (2) design and construction concepts based on new materials and techniques and
analytical techniques.
The first objective was addressed in Chapter 2: Guidelines for Evaluation of Novel Columns.
Three novel column concepts were selected by the panel for further study to address the second
objective of the project. This section describes the development of design and construction
guidelines for novel columns (Type 8 in Appendix D) incorporating SMA reinforcement and
FRP-confined concrete in the plastic hinge region (Fig. 3.2.1-1). SMA longitudinal bars are con-
nected to steel bars via mechanical bar splices, and the column is encased with a hard FRP tube
or wrapped with FRP fabrics with fibers confining concrete and providing shear strength for the
column. Step-by-step design examples are presented in Appendix F. Economic impact analysis
of novel columns is discussed in Appendix G.
serves as the baseline for the development of the present guideline. All limitations, consider-
ations, applicability, and analysis and design methods shall be according to AASHTO SGS except
those presented herein.
3.2.2 Application of SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined

Concrete Columns
Reinforcing superelastic shape memory alloy (SE SMA) bars are viable alternative to reinforc-
ing steel bars. SE SMA residual strains are relatively small during cyclic loading ensuring that
SMA-reinforced members will regain their original positions after yielding. The concrete damage
is minimal when it is jacketed by fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets. The low damage in
FRP-confined concrete helps keep the bridge in service after strong earthquakes. The combina-
tion of SE SMA and FRP jacket (SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete) in bridge column plastic
hinges results in minimal concrete and reinforcement damage after severe earthquakes and
reduces or totally eliminates the need for post-earthquake repair.
Coupler
FRP Jacket
Concrete
Reinforcing
Gap
SMA Bars
Footing
Figure 3.2.1-1. SMA-reinforced
FRP-confined plastic hinge detail
at column base.

Stress
k3=a.k1
Nonlinear
Model
k2 ß.fy
k1
fy
k1
k2
Strain (%)
er eu
Figure 3.2.3.1-1. Superelastic SMA bar

stress-strain model.
SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete bridge columns are suggested for sites in which the 1-sec
period acceleration coefficient, SD1, is greater than 0.3, which is equivalent to the seismic design
category (SDC) C or D according to AASHTO SGS (2011). Conventional bridges located in these
sites are expected to undergo large inelastic deformations under strong earthquakes. While there is
no adverse effect in using SMA-reinforced FRP-confined columns in bridges under SDC A and B,
bridge owners may take advantage of the enhanced durability of SMA and the ease of construction
with FRP tubes that serve as permanent formwork, even though there is no benefit from the seismic
performance perspective because of the relatively small seismic demand in SDC A and B.
3.2.3 Materials
3.2.3.1 SMA
In the absence of sufficient information about other SMA with other alloys, only nickel-titanium
(NiTi) superelastic reinforcing-SMA bars are suggested for use as bridge column longitudinal
bars at time of this writing. The available NiTi bars are composed of approximately equal amount
of nickel and titanium. NiTi with other compositions meeting the requirements specified in
these guidelines shall be permitted. Nonlinear material model and mechanical properties for SE
NiTi reinforcing SMA bars should conform to Fig. 3.2.3.1-1 and Table 3.2.3.1-1. A symmetric
Table 3.2.3.1-1. Minimum and expected tensile NiTi superelastic

SMA bar mechanical properties.
(a) (b)
Parameter Minimum Expected
Austenite modulus, k1 4500 ksi (31025 MPa) 5500 ksi (37900 MPa)
Post-yield stiffness, k2 -- 250 ksi (1725 MPa)
Strain hardening stiffness, k3 -- 1650 ksi (11370 MPa)
Austenite yield strength, f y 45 ksi (310 MPa) 55 ksi (380 MPa)
Lower plateau stress factor, β 0.45 0.65
Recoverable superelastic strain, εr 6% 6%
Secondary post-yield stiffness ratio, α -- 0.3
Ultimate strain, εu 10% 10%
Note: (a)to be used in material production and for non-seismic design (e.g., service limit state).
(b)
to be used in seismic design of SMA-RC members.

stress-strain material model based on the expected tensile properties is permitted for the design
of SMA-reinforced columns.
Currently, only plain undeformed SMA bars are available ranging from No. 4 (Ø13 mm) to
No. 18 (Ø57 mm). It is proposed that the austenite finish temperature (Af) (the temperature below
which the bar is no longer superelastic) of NiTi SE SMA be equal to or less than the smaller of 14°F
(–10°C) and the “average low temperature” (a metrological measure) of the site of the structure
less 9°F (5°C). The density and Poisson’s ratio of SMA may be considered as 405 lb/ft3 (6500 kg/m3)
and 0.33, respectively (McCormick, 2006). The coefficient of thermal expansion of SE SMA can
be taken as 6.1 × 10–6/°F (11 × 10–6/°C) (Otsuka and Wayman, 1998). Electrical resistivity of SE
SMA is 32.3 µW-in. (820 µW-mm) (Faulkner et al., 2000). Research has shown that welding of NiTi
SMA should not be permitted since SMA may become brittle by reacting to oxygen, nitrogen, and
hydrogen at high temperature (Schlossmacher et al., 1997). A recent study showed that steel will
corrode faster if coupled NiTi SMA steel bars are submerged in chloride solution (Alarab et al.,
2016). Therefore, in absence of extensive test data, the use of NiTi SMA bars coupled with steel bars
in a marine environment (e.g., underwater columns) shall be avoided.
3.2.3.2 FRP-Confined Concrete

When a concrete member is encased by an FRP jacket intended to provide confinement,
the entire section should be considered to be confined. The confined properties of FRP jack-
eted concrete shall be calculated based on the ACI model (ACI 440.2R-08, 2008) as shown
in Fig. 3.2.3.2-1.
The maximum compressive strength of a FRP-confined concrete section (f cc′ ) is
f cc′ = f c′ + 3.135ka f l (3.2.3.2-1)
where f c′ is the unconfined cylinder compressive strength of concrete, ka is the section efficiency
factor, and fl is the confining pressure
f l = 2 E f nf t f εfe D (3.2.3.2-2)
where Ef is the modulus of elasticity of FRP, nf is the number of FRP layers, tf is the thickness of each
FRP layer, D is the section diameter (or the equivalent diameter for a non-circular section), and
0.58 ffu 0.58C E f fu

εfe = 0.58εfu = = (3.2.3.2-3)
Ef Ef
Stress
Tension
ecu e 't eco
Strain
Compression
unconfined
f 'c
E2 1
confined
f 'cc
Source: ACI 440.2R-08, 2008.
Figure 3.2.3.2-1. FRP-confined
concrete stress-strain model.

where f *fu is the guaranteed FRP design tensile strength reported by the manufacturer and CE is
the environmental reduction factor according to Table 3.2.3.2-1. The ratio of fl /f c′ shall not be
less than 0.08.
The maximum compressive strain (ecu) can be calculated as
 fl εfe 0.45 
ε cu = ε co 1.5 + 12kb    ≤ 0.01 (3.2.3.2-4)
 f c′  εco  
where unconfined strain, eco, can be taken as 0.002. ka and kb are the section efficiency factors
(1.0 for circular sections). For a rectangular section with a width of b and a depth of h,
Ae  b  2 Ae  h  0.5
ka = and k =
Ac  h  Ac  b 
b
 b ( h − 2r )2 + h (b − 2r )2  (3.2.3.2-5)
  − ρ
c c
1− h b g
Ae 3 Ag
=
Ac 1 − ρg
where rc is the radius of the corner of the effective confining area, rg is the longitudinal SMA
reinforcement ratio, and Ag is the cross-section area.
The complete stress-strain relationship of an FRP-confined concrete is calculated as
 ( E c − E 2 )2 2
 E c ε c − ε c 0 ≤ εc ≤ ε ′t
fc =  4 f c′ (3.2.3.2-6)

 f c′+ E2 ε c ε t′ < εc ≤ εcu
where ec is the FRP-confined concrete strain, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, which
for normal weight concrete is
Ec = 1820 f c′ ( ksi ) (3.2.3.2-7)
and
f cc′ − f c′
E2 =
εcu
(3.2.3.2-8)
2 f c′
ε t′ =
Ec − E 2
Table 3.2.3.2-1. Environmental reduction factor (CE)

for FRP.
Exposure Fiber Type CE

Carbon 0.85
Exterior exposure (bridges, piers, and
Glass 0.65
unenclosed parking garages)
Aramid 0.75
Aggressive environment (chemical Carbon 0.85
plants and wastewater treatment Glass 0.50
plants) Aramid 0.70
Source: ACI 440.2R-08 (2008).

Stress
Tension
Strain
Compression
confined #1
confined #2
Combined
Figure 3.2.3.2-2. Confinement by two

confining mechanisms.
The confinement provided by an FRP jacket alone may not be sufficient to achieve large displace-
ment capacities. Thus, supplementary transverse steel reinforcement may be needed in addition to
the FRP jacket. Note that the confinement effect by an FRP jacket may be added to the confinement
effect by the transverse steel reinforcement in a way that the confined concrete stress at each strain
is the summation of the stresses calculated with each method as shown in Fig. 3.2.3.2-2. The strain
capacity to be used in analysis is the greater of that from the two methods.
3.2.4 Analysis of SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined Concrete Columns

Article 4.2).

The effective moment of inertia (Ieff) should be used for modeling of the SMA-reinforced
FRP-confined concrete columns. Ieff may be estimated using Fig. 3.2.4.2-1, or the slope of M – Ø
curve between the origin and the first SMA bar yield point as:
Ec Ieff = My Øy (3.2.4.2-1)
All material mechanical properties are the expected values.

For elastic and nonlinear dynamic analyses of SMA-reinforced FRP-confined columns, the
damping ratio should be taken as 3.2%, rather than the 5% used for RC. The lower damping
ratio accounts for the lower hysteretic damping in columns with flag-shaped behavior that could
result in higher displacement demands.
Fig. 3.2.4.3-1a shows hysteretic damping ratio versus displacement ductility for bridge
columns with flag-shaped hysteresis. The study by Billah and Alam (2015) was specifically for
SMA-reinforced bridge columns. It can be seen that hysteretic damping of columns with flag-
shaped behavior is lower than that of conventional RC columns, as expected. Furthermore, the
ratio of the flag-shaped column damping to the RC column damping is approximately constant
for ductilities greater than 2 (Fig. 3.2.4.3-1b). Table 3.2.4.3-1 presents a summary of damping

0.2
Circular SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined

Concrete Sections
ASMA /Ag =0.04
0.15 ASMA /Ag =0.03
ASMA /Ag =0.02
ASMA /Ag =0.01

0.1
0.05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Axial Load Index, P / ( f'c Ag)
(a) Circular Sections
0.2
Rectangular SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined
Concrete Sections
ASMA /Ag =0.04

0.15 ASMA /Ag =0.03
ASMA /Ag =0.02
0.1 ASMA /Ag =0.01
0.05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Axial Load Index, P / ( f'c Ag)
(b) Rectangular Sections
Figure 3.2.4.2-1. Effective moment of

inertia for SMA-reinforced FRP-confined
columns.
20 1
0.8
15
yFlag-Shaped / y RC
0.6
10
Recommended
RC Columns 0.4
5 Dwairi et al. (2007) Dwairi et al. (2007)
Priestley et al. (2007) 0.2 Priestley et al. (2007)
Billah and Alam (2015) Billah and Alam (2015)
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 34 5 6 7
Ductility Ductility
(a) Hysteretic Damping (b) Flag-Shaped Damping (wFlag) over RC
Damping (wRC)
Figure 3.2.4.3-1. Damping for columns with flag-shaped hysteresis.
Table 3.2.4.3-1. Damping for SMA-reinforced columns.
References (Ave. for l ê 2) Flag-Shaped Damping RD

Dwairi et al. (2007) 0.72 3.60 1.14
Priestley et al. (2007) 0.56 2.80 1.26
Billah and Alam (2015) 0.62 3.12 1.21
Average of Three Refs 0.63 3.17 1.20
Recommended for SMA-
0.64 3.20 1.20
Reinforced Columns
Note: = flag-shaped damping, = RC damping, µ = displacement ductility, RD = displacement
demand for SMA-reinforced ECC columns.

ratios. The average ratio of flag-shaped hysteretic damping to that of RC columns was 63%. Based
on these findings, the damping ratio of SMA-reinforced columns is proposed to be 3.2%, which
is 64% of the 5% damping ordinarily used for RC columns.

The displacement demand for SMA-reinforced FRP-confined columns calculated using
equivalent static or spectral analysis method shall be increased by 20% to account for the lower
damping ratio of SMA-reinforced sections as:
0.4 0.4
0.05  0.05 
RD =  =  = 1.20 (3.2.4.4-1)
 ξ   0.032 
Note that the damping ratio and the modification factor for damping are based on the find-
ings of the parametric study presented in the SMA-reinforced ECC design guideline. The hys-
teretic behavior of an RC member is dominated by the longitudinal reinforcement behavior,
thus the damping of the SMA-reinforced ECC columns can be adopted for SMA-reinforced
FRP-confined concrete columns.

No additional modification is needed for short-period SMA-reinforced FRP-confined col-
umns since the 20% increase in the spectral displacements due to lower damping ratio guaran-
tees higher spectral displacement for practical bridge columns including short-period columns.
3.2.4.6 Displacement Ductility versus Drift Ratio

∆ pd
µD = 1 + (3.2.4.6-1)
∆ yi
where Δpd is the plastic displacement demand and Δyi is the idealized yield displacement correspond-
ing to the idealized yield curvature. The calculated ductility for SMA-reinforced columns from this
equation may be misleading because the yield strain of SMA bars is 5 times higher than that of steel
bars, resulting in a higher idealized yield displacement and thus a lower calculated displacement
ductility even though the displacement capacity of a SMA-reinforced column may substantially
exceed that of a comparable conventional column. Drift ratio, the ratio of column lateral top dis-
placement to the column height, is proposed as an alternative measure to estimate the deformation
capacity and demand of novel columns including SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns.
Because current bridge seismic codes utilize displacement ductility rather than drift capacity in
design, it is important to determine the relationship between ductility and drift ratio so that dis-
placement ductilities for conventional columns in current codes can be translated to drift ratios that
may be utilized in novel column design. An extensive parametric study on conventional RC columns
was conducted to establish a relationship between the displacement ductility and drift ratio for these
columns (Appendix H). Fig. 3.2.4.6-1 shows the condensed result of the parametric study. Equations
were developed to relate drift ratio and ductility and are listed in Table 3.2.4.6-1. Detailed results of
the parametric study are presented in Appendix. H. A linear interpolation is allowed for intermediate
aspect ratios. Alternatively, the following equation can be used for intermediate aspect ratios:
δ = 0.26 ( Ar )0.81 µ − 0.18 ( Ar )0.57 (3.2.4.6-2)
where Ar is the column aspect ratio (Fig. 3.2.4.6-2). For single-column bents, the aspect ratio is
defined as the ratio of the column height to the column side dimension parallel to the loading

10
9 Practical
8 Range
Drift Ratio (%)

7
6
Proposed relaonships
are the upper bound
5
4
3
2 Aspect Ratio= 4
Aspect Ratio= 6
1
Aspect Ratio= 8
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

for RC columns.
Table 3.2.4.6-1. Proposed relationships between drift

and ductility.

Note: “ ” is the drift ratio (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility.
D
L
D
L
Pinned
Joint

of contraflexure].

direction. For multi-column bents, the aspect ratio is the ratio of a portion of the column length
(length of column from point of maximum moment to the point of contraflexure) to the col-
umn side dimension parallel to the loading direction. The full column length is used if one end
of the column is pinned.

The recommended limits on drift ratio demand, dD, for novel columns are listed in
Table 3.2.4.7-1. The values are based on the displacement ductility demand limits for con-
ventional columns multiplied by the deformability factor, W, which should be taken as 1.2 for
SMA-reinforced FRP-confined columns. A linear interpolation can be used for intermediate
aspect ratios. Extrapolation for a column with a lower aspect ratio than 4 is valid if the column
behavior is dominated by flexure.
The available test data on the SMA-reinforced columns (Saiidi et al., 2009; Nakashoji and
Saiidi, 2014; Tazarv and Saiidi, 2015a) confirms that these columns even with a low aspect ratio
of 4.5 can withstand more than 10% drift ratio. The mode of failure for these columns was SMA
bar fracture at higher drifts.

Columns ideally will be designed to resist all internal forces developed during an earthquake
The general approach for conventional columns is that the plastic moment calculated using the
idealized method is approximately the same as the actual plastic moment capacity, thus the maxi-
mum possible moment demand is the plastic moment. This condition may not always be true for
novel columns. The SMA-reinforced member moment-curvature (or force-displacement) rela-
tionship is usually tri-linear (Fig. 3.2.4.8.1-1). When the moment (or force) demand calculated
from linear analysis falls on the third branch, the plastic moment (or force) calculated using the
idealized method might be significantly lower than the demand. In this case, the column failure
moment should be used as specified.
(a) the demand at design level earthquake and (b) the shear associated with 1.2 times the plastic
moment calculated using the idealized method. The column shear obtained from (a) and (b)
Table 3.2.4.7-1. Bridge column drift ratio

demand requirements.
Conventional
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Aspect Ratio 4:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Note: “ ” is the drift ratio demand (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility demand

Mu
Mu Actual Actual
Mp Mp
My
Moment
Moment
My
Idealized Idealized
ØYi ØYi
Øy Øu Øy Øu
Curvature Curvature
(a) Conventional RC Sections (b) SMA-Reinforced Sections

shall not be less than the shear associated with 1.44 times the idealized plastic moment when
the calculated failure moment exceeds 1.2Mp (Mu ≥ 1.2Mp). All possible plastic hinge locations
should be considered in the determination of shear forces using (b).
moment, see sections 3.2.4.8.1 and 3.2.4.8.2, and the associated forces (e.g., shear and overturn-
ing axial forces) in an essentially elastic manner. This design approach is known as capacity

The residual drift of SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns is insignificant for all
practical cases due to the superelastic effect of reinforcing SMA bars. Therefore, the residual drift
for these columns can be categorized as “low” (dr ≤ 1.0%).
Fig. 3.2.4.9-1 shows the residual drift-peak drift relationship for all practical SMA-reinforced
FRP-confined concrete columns (based on the limitations specified in this guideline such as
1.6 Conv. Column Test Results for 63 columns

(Haber et al., 2013) (Practical Range)
1.4
1.2
1% Limit
1
(Low Residual) SMA-Steel Confined
0.8 Concrete Column Test
0.6 (Saiidi et al., 2009)
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 3.2.4.9-1. Residual drifts for all practical

SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns.

minimum and maximum longitudinal reinforcement ratios, maximum aspect ratio). The ana-
lytical results are shown up to the failure point (drift capacity) of each column. The confining
effect of the transverse steel was ignored. Appendix I presents complete information regarding
material properties, modeling methods, and the variables. It can be seen that the residual drift
ratios for all columns are less than 1.0%. The left cluster of the data (solid black lines), mid-cluster
of the data (solid gray lines), and the bottom-right cluster of the data are respectively for columns
with aspect ratios of 4, 6, and 8. The residual-peak drift relationships measured in a conventional
RC bridge column test (dashed gray line) as well as an SMA steel-confined concrete column test
(dashed black line) are also shown in the figure.
3.2.5 Design of SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined Concrete Columns

SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns ideally will be designed conforming to
requirements presented in this section.

The analytical plastic hinge length of SMA-reinforced columns may be estimated using
L p = 0.08L + 0.15 f ye dbl ≥ 0.3 fye dbl (3.2.5.1-1)
where fye (ksi) is the expected austenite yield strength of the longitudinal column reinforcing
SMA bars and dbl (in.) is the nominal diameter of longitudinal column reinforcing SMA bars.
Nakashoji and Saiidi (2014) showed utilizing all available test data that the plastic hinge length
of SMA-reinforced columns can be conservatively estimated using the equation presented in
AASHTO SGS (2011). Nonetheless, transverse steel is needed to increase the FRP-confined column
displacement capacities in high seismic zones because of the low strain capacity of FRP-confined
concrete. Therefore, the ultimate displacement capacity is governed by steel confinement.

Column displacement capacity (Δc) is defined as a displacement at fracture of the column
longitudinal bar or compressive failure of the confined concrete. Either moment-curvature or
pushover analyses may be used for the estimation of a SMA-reinforced FRP-confined con-
crete column displacement capacity. However, a pushover analysis is preferred since it includes
the entire bridge model, frame actions, and geometric nonlinearities. When moment-curvature
analysis is used, the displacement capacity is
ØYi L2 Lp
∆c = + (Øu − ØYi ) L p  L −  (3.2.5.2-1)
3  2
Fig. H-1), Øu is the ultimate curvature associated with either SMA bar fracture or confined con-
crete failure, L is the column height from point of maximum moment to the point of contra
flexure, and Lp is the calculated plastic hinge length.
column height as
∆c
δc = (3.2.5.2-2)
L
3.2.5.2.1 Minimum Drift Capacity. The proposed minimum drift ratio capacity for
SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns is listed in Table 3.2.5.2.1-1. The drift ratios

Table 3.2.5.2.1-1. Minimum bridge column drift ratio

capacity requirements.
Conventional
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Aspect Ratio 8:
correspond to the minimum displacement ductility capacity for conventional columns. Col-
umns shall be designed to provide at least this level of drift ratio. A linear interpolation can be
used for intermediate aspect ratios.

The shear capacity of SMA-reinforced FRP-confined columns, within the plastic hinge, calcu-
lated based on the nominal material strength properties shall satisfy:
s n ≥ Vu
ØV (3.2.5.3-1)
in which:
Vn = Vc + Vs + 0.95Vf (3.2.5.3-2)
where the strength reduction factor, Øs, is 0.9, Vn is the nominal shear capacity of member,
Vs is the reinforcing steel contribution to shear capacity, Vc is the concrete contribution to
shear capacity, and Vf is the FRP contribution to the shear. Vc and Vs are computed according
to AASHTO SGS and are repeated here for circular columns:
Vc = 0.8vc Ag (3.2.5.3-3)
Pu 
v c = 0.032α ′  1 + f c′≤ min ( 0.11 f c′ , 0.047α ′ f c′) (3.2.5.3-4)
 2 Ag 
For circular column with spiral or hoop reinforcing:
fs
α′ = + 3.67 − µD (3.2.5.3-5)
0.15
f s = ρs f yh ≤ 0.35 (3.2.5.3-6)
4 Asp
ρs = (3.2.5.3-7)
sD ′
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2), Pu is the ultimate compressive force
acting on section (kips), Asp is the area of spiral or hoop reinforcing bar (in.2), s is the pitch of
spiral or spacing of hoops or ties (in.), D′ is the core diameter of column measured from center
of spiral or hoop (in.), fyh is the nominal yield stress of transverse reinforcing (ksi), f c′ is the nomi-
nal concrete compressive strength (ksi), µD is the displacement ductility demand calculated from
drift demand, and a′ is the concrete shear stress adjustment factor.

the nominal shear reinforcement strength, Vs, is:
Vs = (3.2.5.3-8)
2  s 
The contribution of FRP to shear strength is calculated according to ACI 440.2R-08 (2008)
as follows:
Vf = 2nf t f ffe ( sinα + cosα ) D (3.2.5.3-9)
where nf is the number of FRP layers, tf is the thickness of each FRP layer, a is the angle
between the direction of the FRP principal fibers and the longitudinal axis of the member,
D is the diameter of the column (or the largest side dimension), and
ffe = εfe Ef (3.2.5.3-10)
where Ef is the modulus of elasticity of the FRP, and
εfe = 0.004 ≤ 0.75 ffu Ef (3.2.5.3-11)
where ffu is the FRP design tensile strength including the environmental reduction factor.
The sum of shear strengths provided by the steel and FRP shall be limited to
Vs + Vf ≤ 0.25 f c′Ae (3.2.5.3-12)
where Ae is the effective area of the cross-section for shear resistance (0.8Ag).

The axial capacity of an SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete column shall be calculated
according to ACI 440.2R-08 (2008), modified for SMA bars as
ØPn = Ø( 0.85 fcc′ ( Ag − ASMA ) + ASMA f y ) (3.2.5.4-1)
where f cc′ is the maximum compressive strength of an FRP-confined concrete section (ksi), Ag is
the gross area of member cross-section (in.2), ASMA is the column longitudinal SMA reinforce-
ment area (in.2), fy is the nominal austenite yield strength of SMA bars, and Ø is 0.75 and 0.7 for
members with spirals and ties, respectively.

Each bent shall have a minimum lateral flexural capacity to resist a lateral force of 0.1Pdl, where
Pdl is the tributary dead load applied at the center of gravity of the superstructure.

The estimation, analysis, and design of SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns
for non-seismic loads are based on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014) in
which reinforcing SMA bars can be treated as conventional steel bars but with SMA proper-
ties (austenite yield strength, modulus of elasticity). The AASHTO response modification

factors (AASHTO LRFD, Table 3.10.7.1-1) may be used to reasonably size the columns and
their adjoining members, only for preliminary design under the load combination of “Extreme
Event I.” Nevertheless, SMA-reinforced FRP-confined columns should be analyzed and
designed according to the present guideline for seismic loads.

An SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete column ideally will be designed to withstand ser-
vice loads during the life of the bridge. Actions to be considered for these columns at the service
limit state should be short- and long-term deformations. Serviceability for conventional RC and
ECC is addressed through the minimum shrinkage and temperature reinforcement require-
ment. The relatively high transverse reinforcement to satisfy seismic design requirements in
novel columns exceeds the minimum shrinkage and temperature reinforcement requirement
in AASHTO LRFD.
3.2.5.7.1 Shrinkage and Creep. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014)
shall be used to compute shrinkage and creep of concrete. Service load stresses of an FRP
jacket shall not exceed the creep-rupture stress limit, which is 0.2ffu for glass FRP (GFRP),
0.3ffu for Aramid FRP (AFRP), and 0.55ffu for carbon FRP (CFRP). ffu is the FRP design ten-
sile strength including the environmental reduction factor. Note that the stress that has to be
checked for the creep-rupture is the section maximum tensile stress due to the interaction
of axial loads and bending moments in the axial direction of the member under service load
combinations.
3.2.5.7.2 Axial Deformations. Instantaneous axial deformation due to loads, and long-
term shortening due to shrinkage and creep, should be determined for concrete columns only
when these columns are post-tensioned. Design of post-tensioned FRP-confined concrete col-
umns is beyond the scope of this report.
The estimation of deformations in SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns at a limit
state of serviceability is based on two assumptions: (1) strain is proportional to the distance from
the neutral axis of the cross-section and (2) concrete and SMA are linear elastic materials with
moduli of elasticity specified in 3.2.3. The contribution of the FRP jacket to axial stiffness may
be neglected. Analysis can be performed assuming perfect bond between reinforcing SMA bars
and FRP-confined concrete.
3.2.6 Details for SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined Concrete Columns

SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns shall be detailed conforming to requirements
presented in this section.
3.2.6.1 FRP Jacket

FRP jacketing is through either wrapping the FRP sheets around the column or the uti-
lization of prefabricated FRP tubes, which are available with different diameters and wall
thicknesses. Furthermore, FRP tubes serve as permanent formwork, which can accelerate the
construction. Normally there is a 2-in. (50-mm) gap between the end of the jacket and the col-
umn adjoining member face. The jacket might extend to the entire length of column, except
the 2-in. (50-mm) gap at the column ends, if it serves the dual purpose of plastic hinge damage
control and stay-in-place form. In this case, only the column section outside the gap shall be
used for the analysis. If FRP is utilized only in the plastic hinge region, the FRP jacket height
shall be the greater of (a) the analytical plastic hinge length and (b) 1.5 times the column largest
side dimension.


3.2.6.2.1 Longitudinal SMA Reinforcement. The area of longitudinal reinforcing SMA
bars (ASMA) in SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns should satisfy:
0.01Ag ≤ ASMA ≤ 0.04 Ag (3.2.6.2-1)
where Ag is the gross area of the member cross-section (in.2). Since the austenite yield strength of
SMA bars is usually lower than the steel bar yielding, higher longitudinal reinforcement than con-
ventional columns is expected, but the reinforcement area should be within in the specified range.
3.2.6.2.2 SMA Bar Size. The available size of reinforcing SMA bars is presented in
Table 3.2.6.2.2-1.
3.2.6.3 Splicing of SMA Reinforcement

The incorporation of SMA bars over only partial length of columns ideally will be permitted and
suggested to save cost. The length of SMA bars shall not be less than the analytical plastic hinge
length and 75% of the largest column cross-sectional dimension (0.75D). SMA bars are plain (with
a smooth surface) behaving similarly to debonded bars under cyclic actions. When SMA bars are
used over the entire length of members, mechanical anchorage shall be used to anchor the bars in
the adjoining members. When SMA bars are utilized only in the plastic hinge region, reinforcing
SMA bars should be connected to reinforcing steel bars using mechanical bar splices approved by
the bridge owner. Threaded (only those with parallel threads and not those with tapered threads)
and headed bar couplers have exhibited satisfactory performance in large-scale tests. Splicing
should be permitted in the plastic hinge region of the columns.
A recent study by Tazarv and Saiidi (2015b) showed that the mechanical bar splices in the
column plastic hinges reduce the displacement ductility capacity as
µ sp Hsp  0.1β
= (1 − 0.18β )  (3.2.6.3-1)
µCIP  Lsp 
where µsp is the displacement ductility capacity of a mechanically spliced column, µCIP is the
conventional non-spliced CIP column displacement ductility capacity, b is the coupler rigid
length factor obtained from the splice tensile tests or the coupler manufacturer (a range from
0 to 1), Hsp is the distance between the coupler end to the column adjoining member interface
(Fig. 3.2.6.3-1), and Lsp is the splice length. Hsp should be taken as 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) when couplers
are installed at the column to adjoining member interface. Fig. 3.2.6.3-1 is intended to clarify
the parameters in Equation 3.2.6.3-1. SMA bars require two splices as shown in Fig. 3.2.7.2-1.
Table 3.2.6.2.2-1. Plain SMA bar dimensions.
Bar Size Nominal Diameter Cross-Sectional Area

No. (mm) in. (mm) in.2 (mm2)
#4 (Ø13) 0.500 (12.7) 0.20 (129)
#5 (Ø16) 0.625 (15.9) 0.31 (199)
#6 (Ø19) 0.750 (19.1) 0.44 (284)
#7 (Ø22) 0.875 (22.2) 0.60 (387)
#8 (Ø25) 1.000 (25.4) 0.79 (510)
#9 (Ø29) 1.128 (28.7) 1.00 (645)
#10 (Ø32) 1.270 (32.3) 1.27 (819)
#11 (Ø36) 1.410 (35.8) 1.56 (1006)
#14 (Ø43) 1.693 (43.0) 2.25 (1452)
#18 (Ø57) 2.257 (57.3) 4.00 (2581)

Cap Beam
Mechanically Spliced Column
Couplers
Lsp
Hsp
Footing
Figure 3.2.6.3-1. Mechanical bar splices.
In this case, the coupler properties in Eq. 3.2.6.3-1 should be based on the coupler that is near
the column end.
Since there is a linear relationship between the displacement ductility and the drift ratio, the
ratio of the spliced to CIP column ductilities presented in the equation is approximately the
same as the ratio of the spliced to CIP column drift ratios. More information can be found in
the NCHRP Project 12-105 final report.

The axial load acting on SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns, including gravity
and seismic demands (Pu) where a pushover analysis is not performed should satisfy:
Pu ≤ 0.15 f c′ Ag (3.2.6.4-1)
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2) and f ′c is the nominal concrete
compressive strength (ksi). A higher axial load value may be used provided that pushover
Steel Bar Steel Bar
Cast-in-Place
FRP Jacket FRP Jacket

Column
SMA Bar SMA Bar
2-in. Gap 2-in. Gap
Precast Column
Reinforcing
Steel Bar Pocket
Connection
Not all reinforcement Footing Footing

are shown for clarity
Figure 3.2.7.2-1. Construction of SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns.

analysis including the P – Δ effect is performed to compute the maximum drift capacity of
the column.

The aspect ratio of SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete bents should not exceed 8. Columns
with larger aspect ratios may fail at low drift ratios due to the P – Δ effect.
3.2.7 Construction of SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined Columns

ASTM F2516-07 (2007) should be utilized for tensile testing of NiTi SE SMA to compute the
mechanical properties according to the procedure presented in Tazarv and Saiidi (2014). Only
reinforcing SMA bars satisfying the “minimum” material properties (Section 3.2.3) shall be
allowed for the design and construction of SMA-reinforced bridge columns.
FRP testing method for the computation of mechanical properties, fire and life safety,
service temperature, and many other parameters should be according to Appendix H of the
ACI 440.2R-08 (2008).

IP and precast construction is permitted for SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete col-
umns. Fig. 3.2.7.2-1 shows one example for each construction method. The design of precast
column connections should be according to bridge-owner approved guidelines. When an FRP
tube is used in a precast detailing (e.g., pocket connection), the FRP shall not be extended into
the adjoining member. The primary role of FRP in this report is to reduce damage in the plastic
hinge regions. Natural roughness of the prefabricated FRP tubes should be preserved to ensure
the bond between the tube and concrete.

Tolerance limits normally used for conventional RC construction are applicable to SMA-
reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns. Quality control for precast columns should be
according to PCI MNL-116-99 (1999). Construction tolerance for precast column connections
should be according to bridge-owner approved guidelines.
3.2.8 References
Alarab, L. A., Ross, B. E., and Poursaee, A. (2016). Corrosion Assessment of Coupled Steel Reinforcement with
Ni-Ti–Based Shape Memory Alloy in Simulated-Concrete Pore Solution, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 8, 6 pp.
ACI 440.2R-08. (2008). Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening
Concrete Structures, Reported by American Concrete Institute Committee 440, 80 pp.
ASTM. (2007). Standard test method for tension testing of nickel-titanium superelastic materials, F2516-07, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Billah, A. H. M. M, and Alam, M. S. (2015) Damping-Ductility Relationship for Performance Based Seismic
Design of Shape Memory Alloy Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier. Proceeding of Structures Congress 2015,
ASCE, 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479117.042.
Dwairi, H. M., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2007). Equivalent Damping in Support of Direct Displacement-

Haber, Z. B., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. H. (2013). Precast Column-Footing Connections for Accelerated Bridge
Construction in Seismic Zones, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Faulkner, M. G., Amalraj, J. J., and Bhattacharyya, A. (2000). Experimental Determination of Thermal and
Electrical Properties of Ni-Ti Shape Memory Wires. Smart Materials and Structures, 9(5), 632–639. https://
doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/9/5/307.
McCormick, J. P. (2006). Cyclic Behavior of Shape Memory Alloys Materials Characterization and Optimization,
PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, 351 pp.
Nakashoji, B., and Saiidi, M. S. (2014). Seismic Performance of Square Nickel-Titanium Reinforced ECC Columns with
Headed Couplers, Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-14-05, 252 pp.
Otsuka, K., and Wayman, C. M. (1998). Mechanism of Shape Memory Effect and Superplasticity, 27–48.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalski, M. J. (2007). Displacement-based Seismic Design of Structures.
Pavia: IUSS press.
Saiidi, M. S., O’Brien, M., and Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. (2009). Cyclic Response of Concrete Bridge Columns
Using Superelastic Nitinol and Bendable Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 106(1), 69–77.
Schlossmacher, P., Haas, T., and Schüssler, A. (1997). Laser-Welding of a Ni-Rich TiNi Shape Memory Alloy:
Mechanical Behavior. Journal De Physique IV France, 07(C5, No. C5), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1051/
jp4:1997539.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2014). Reinforcing NiTi Superelastic SMA for Concrete Structures. In Journal of
Structural Engineering. ASCE; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001176.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2015a). Low-Damage Precast Columns for Accelerated Bridge Construction
in High Seismic Zones. In Journal of Bridge Engineering. ASCE; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.
1943-5592.0000806.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2015b). Design and Construction of Bridge Columns Incorporating Mechanical Bar
Splices in Plastic Hinge Zones, Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and

3.3 Proposed Design and Construction of FRP-Confined

Hybrid Rocking Columns
3.3.1 Introduction
The main objectives of this study were to develop (1) proposed AASHTO guidelines for the
evaluation of new techniques for the design and construction of bridge columns with energy
dissipation mechanisms meant to minimize bridge damage and replacement after a seismic
event and (2) design and construction concepts based on new materials and techniques as well
as analytical techniques.
The first objective was addressed in Chapter 2, Guidelines for Evaluation of Novel Col-
umns. Three novel column concepts were selected by the panel for further study to address
the second objective of the project. The focus of this section is on the development of design and
construction guidelines for novel column Type 3 (Appendix D), steel-reinforced FRP-confined
columns with unbonded steel tendons (Fig. 3.3.1-1). Since these columns are longitudinally
reinforced with both steel bars and steel tendons, they are referred to as “hybrid rocking” col-
umns in this study. Hard FRP tubes or FRP sheets wrapped around the column are meant to
confine the concrete and to reduce the damage close to the rocking interface. “Simple rocking”
columns, which are longitudinally reinforced with only tendons, were excluded from this guide-
line since experimental studies by Thonstad et al. (2016) showed that simple rocking column
drift demands can be 3 times larger than those measured for hybrid rocking columns exceeding
the AASHTO displacement ductility demand requirement by approximately a factor of 3. Step-
by-step design examples are presented in Appendix F. The economic impact of novel columns
is discussed in Appendix G.
serves as the baseline for the development of the present guidelines. All limitations, consider-
ations, applicability, and analysis and design methods shall be according to AASHTO SGS except
those presented herein. The proposed guidelines for FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns are
general and may be used for the design of other hybrid rocking columns incorporating reinforc-
ing steel bars and unbonded steel tendons.
3.3.2 Application of FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns

Columns can be pre-stressed or post-tensioned using tendons to reduce column lateral
residual displacements after severe earthquakes. Tendon restoring forces help bring the struc-
ture back to its original position. Rocking columns usually suffer from significant damage
Concrete
Steel Tendon
FRP Jacket
Reinforcing
Gap
Steel Bars
Footing
Figure 3.3.1-1. FRP-confined hybrid

rocking columns.

in the vicinity of the rocking interface. The concrete damage can be minimized when it is
jacketed by FRP sheets. The low damage in FRP-confined concrete helps keep the bridge in
service after strong earthquakes. The combination of the rocking mechanism and the FRP
jacket (FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns) in bridge columns results in minimal concrete
damage and small residual displacements after severe earthquakes, and reduces or eliminates
the need for post-earthquake repair.
FRP-confined hybrid rocking bridge columns are recommended for sites in which the 1-sec
period acceleration coefficient, SD1, is greater than 0.3, which is equivalent to SDC C or D accord-
ing to AASHTO SGS. Conventional bridges located in these sites are expected to undergo large
inelastic deformations under strong earthquakes. While there is no adverse effect in using
FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns in bridges under SDC A and B, bridge owners may take
advantage of the ease of construction with FRP tubes that serve as permanent formwork, even
though there is no benefit from the seismic performance perspective because of the relatively
small seismic demand in SDC A and B.
3.3.3 Materials
3.3.3.1 Steel Tendons
Steel tendon mechanical properties and material model shall be according to AASHTO SGS
(AASHTO, 2011, Article 8.4.3). Yielding of tendons shall not be allowed for hybrid rocking col-
umns at the design level earthquake to minimize residual displacements (section 3.3.6.2). There-
fore, the use of Grade 270 strands is preferred over Grade 250 strands. The initial linear elastic
stress-strain relationship for Grade 270 steel strands with a yield strength of 245 ksi according
to AASHTO is
fps = 28500εps εps ≤ 0.0086 (3.3.3.1-1)
where fps is the tendon stress (ksi) and eps is the tendon strain.
3.3.3.2 FRP-Confined Concrete

When a concrete member is encased by an FRP jacket intended to provide confinement, the
entire section should be considered to be confined. The confined properties of FRP-jacketed
concrete shall be calculated based on the ACI model (ACI 440.2R-08, 2008) as shown in
Fig. 3.3.3.2-1.
Stress
Tension
ecu e 't eco
Strain
Compression
unconfined
f 'c
E2 1
confined
f 'cc
Source: ACI 440.2R-08, 2008.
Figure 3.3.3.2-1. FRP-confined
concrete stress-strain model.

The maximum compressive strength of a FRP-confined concrete section (f cc′ ) is

f cc′ = f c′ + 3.135ka fl (3.3.3.2-1)
where f c′ is the unconfined cylinder compressive strength of concrete, ka is the section efficiency
factor, and fl is the confining pressure
fl = 2 E f nf t f εfe D (3.3.3.2-2)
where Ef is the modulus of elasticity of FRP, nf is the number of FRP layers, tf is the thickness of
each FRP layer, D is the section diameter (or the equivalent diameter for a non-circular section), and
0.58 ffu 0.58C E f fu

εfe = 0.58εfu = = (3.3.3.2-3)
Ef Ef
where f *fu is the guaranteed FRP design tensile strength reported by the manufacturer and CE is
the environmental reduction factor according to Table 3.3.3.2-1. The ratio of fl /f c′ shall not be
less than 0.08.
The maximum compressive strain (ecu) can be calculated as
 f l εfe 0.45 
ε cu = ε co 1.5 + 12kb    ≤ 0.01 (3.3.3.2-4)
 f c′  εco  
where eco can be taken as 0.002. ka and kb are the section efficiency factors (1.0 for circular sections).
For a rectangular section with a width of b and a depth of h,
Ae  b  2 Ae  h  0.5
ka = and k =
Ac  h  Ac  b 
b
 b ( h − 2r )2 + h (b − 2r )2  (3.3.3.2-5)
  − ρ
c c
1− h b g
Ae 3 Ag
=
Ac 1 − ρg
where rc is the radius of the corner of the effective confining area, rg is the longitudinal reinforcing
steel bar ratio, and Ag is the cross-section area.
The complete stress-strain relationship of an FRP-confined concrete section is calculated as
 ( Ec − E 2 ) 22
 E c εc − 4 f c′
ε c 0 ≤ εc ≤ ε ′t
fc =  (3.3.3.2-6)

 f c′ + E2 ε c ε t′ < εc ≤ εcu
Table 3.3.3.2-1. Environmental reduction factor (CE)

for FRP.
Exposure Fiber Type CE

Carbon 0.85
Exterior exposure (bridges, piers, and
Glass 0.65
unenclosed parking garages)
Aramid 0.75
Carbon 0.85
Aggressive environment (chemical
Glass 0.50
plants and wastewater treatment plant)
Aramid 0.70
Source: ACI 440.2R-08 (2008).

Stress
Tension
Strain
Compression
confined #1
confined #2
Combined
Figure 3.3.3.2-2. Confinement by two

confining mechanisms.
where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, which for normal weight concrete is
Ec = 1820 f c′ ( ksi ) (3.3.3.2-7)
and
fcc′ − f c′
E2 =
εcu
(3.3.3.2-8)
2 fc′
ε t′ =
Ec − E 2
The confinement provided by FRP jacket alone may not be sufficient to achieve large displace-
ment capacities. Thus, supplementary transverse steel reinforcement may be needed in addition to
the FRP jacket. Note that the confinement effect by an FRP jacket may be added to the confinement
effect by the transverse steel reinforcement in a way that the confined concrete stress at each strain
is the summation of the stresses calculated with each method as shown in Fig. 3.3.3.2-2.
3.3.4 Analysis of FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns

Article 4.2).

The effective moment of inertia (Ieff) should be used for modeling of hybrid rocking columns
including the FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. Ieff shall be estimated using the slope of
the M – Ø curve between the origin and the idealized yield point as:
Ec Ieff = My Øy (3.3.4.2-1)
where My and Øy are the yield moment and curvature, respectively.

For elastic and inelastic dynamic analysis of hybrid rocking columns, including the FRP-
confined hybrid rocking columns, the damping ratio should be taken as 5% unless otherwise

stated (Section 3.3.6.2). These columns dissipate a significant amount of energy through yielding
of reinforcing steel bars.

The displacement modification for hybrid rocking columns, including the FRP-confined
hybrid rocking columns, accounting for different damping ratios is according to AASHTO SGS
(AASHTO, 2011, Article 4.3.2).

The displacement modification for hybrid rocking columns, including the FRP-confined
hybrid rocking columns, accounting for the short-period effect is according to AASHTO SGS
(AASHTO, 2011, Article 4.3.3). The displacement ductility demand required in the short-period
displacement modification factor can be estimated using the drift-ductility relationship pre-
sented in the next section.
3.3.4.6 Displacement Ductility Versus Drift Ratio

∆ pd
µD = 1 + (3.3.4.6-1)
∆ yi
where Δpd is the plastic displacement demand and Δyi is the idealized yield displacement corre-
sponding to the idealized yield curvature. Generally, the calculated ductility for novel columns
from this equation may be misleading. Drift ratio, the ratio of column lateral top displacement
to the column height, is proposed as an alternative measure to estimate the deformation capacity
and demand of novel columns. Both the ductility-based design (according to the AASHTO SGS)
and the drift-based design (according to the present guideline) shall be permitted for the design
of hybrid rocking columns, including the FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns.
Because current bridge seismic codes utilize displacement ductility rather than drift capacity
in design, it is important to determine the relationship between ductility and drift ratio so that
displacement ductilities for conventional columns in current codes can be translated to drift
and drift ratio for these columns (Appendix H). Fig. 3.3.4.6-1 shows the condensed result of the
parametric study. Equations were developed to relate drift ratio and ductility and are listed in
10
9 Practical
8 Range
7
Drift Ratio (%)
6 Proposed relationships
are the upper bound
5
4
3
2 Aspect Ratio= 4
Aspect Ratio= 6
1
Aspect Ratio= 8
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

for RC columns.

Table 3.3.4.6-1. Proposed relationships between drift

and ductility.

Note: “ ” is the drift ratio (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility.
Table 3.3.4.6-1. Detailed results of the parametric study are presented in Appendix H. Linear
interpolation is allowed for intermediate aspect ratios. Alternatively, the following equation can
be used for intermediate aspect ratios:
δ = 0.26 ( Ar )0.81 µ − 0.18 ( Ar )0.57 (3.3.4.6-2)
where Ar is the column aspect ratio (Fig. 3.3.4.6-2). For single-column bents, the aspect ratio
is defined as the ratio of the column height to the column side dimension parallel to the load-
ing direction. For multi-column bents, the aspect ratio is the ratio of a portion of the column
length (length of column from point of maximum moment to the point of contraflexure) to the
column side dimension parallel to the loading direction. The full column length is used if one
end of the column is pinned.

The proposed limits on drift ratio demand, dD, for novel columns are listed in Table 3.3.4.7-1.
The values are based on the displacement ductility demand limits for conventional columns
D
L
D
L
Pinned
Joint

of contraflexure].

Table 3.3.4.7-1. Bridge column drift ratio

demand requirements.
Conventional
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Aspect Ratio 4:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Note: “ ” is the drift ratio demand (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility demand.
multiplied by the deformability factor, W, which should be taken as 1.0 for hybrid rocking col-
umns, including the FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. Linear interpolation may be used
for intermediate aspect ratios. Extrapolation for a column with a lower aspect ratio than 4 is valid
if the column behavior is dominated by flexure.

Columns ideally will be designed to resist all internal forces developed during an earthquake
The general approach for conventional RC columns is that the plastic moment calculated
using the idealized method is approximately the same as the actual plastic moment capacity, thus
the maximum possible moment demand is the plastic moment. This condition may not always
be true for novel columns (Fig. 3.3.4.8.1-1). Hybrid rocking columns with minimal reinforcing
steel bars may gain strength after the bar yielding due to rocking. In this case, the column failure
moment should be used as specified.
Mu
Actual
Mu
Actual Mp
Mp
My
Moment
Moment
My Idealized
Idealized
ØYi ØYi
Øy Øu Øy Øu
Curvature Curvature
(a) Conventional RC Sections (b) Hybrid Rocking Columns w/ Low Steel Bars


The moment-curvature analysis of a hybrid rocking column section is the same as that for a
conventional column with an additional axial load representing the post-tensioning force after
all losses.
(a) the demand at design level earthquake and (b) the shear associated with 1.2 times the plas-
tic moment calculated using the idealized method. The column shear obtained from (a) and
(b) shall not be less than the shear associated with 1.44 times the idealized plastic moment when
the calculated failure moment exceeds 1.2Mp (Mu ≥ 1.2Mp). All possible plastic hinge locations
should be considered in the determination of shear forces using (b).
moment, see Sections 3.3.4.8.1 and 3.3.4.8.2, and the associated forces (e.g., shear and overturn-
ing axial forces) in an essentially elastic manner. This design approach is known as the capacity

An extensive parametric study was carried out to establish a relationship between the residual
and peak drift ratios (Appendix I). It was found that the tendon initial stress ratio ( fpi /fpy) and
the column longitudinal reinforcing steel bar ratio are the most important parameters to control
the residual drifts, and the effect of other column parameters such as the aspect ratio and the
axial load is minimal.
In the absence of nonlinear dynamic analyses, the residual drift ratio (dr, the ratio of column
lateral residual displacement to the column height in %) for hybrid rocking columns, including
the FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns, with a reinforcing steel bar ratio (As/Ag) of 1.0% or
greater, can be conservatively calculated (Appendix I) as:
δ r = aδ 2 + bδ + c (3.3.4.9-1)
where d is the peak drift ratio (%), As is total area of longitudinal reinforcing steel bars, Ag is the
gross area of the member cross-section, and the polynomial constraints are
a = 0.026 ( f pi f py ) + 0.047
b = −0.55 ( f pi f py ) + 0.32 (3.3.4.9-2)
c = 0.36 ( f pi f py ) − 0.27
where fpi is the tendon initial stress after all losses and fpy is the yield strength of the tendon.
Fig. 3.3.4.9-1a shows the residual drift–peak drift relationship for a wide range of initial tendon
stresses. The analysis leading to this figure is presented in Appendix I. It can be seen that the
residual drift ratio of the hybrid rocking columns exceeds the 1% drift limit when the peak drift
ratio demand exceeds 4% in all practical cases.
The residual drift ratio (dr in %) for hybrid rocking columns with a reinforcing steel bar ratio
(As/Ag) between 0.5% and 1.0% is 80% of that calculated using Eq. 3.3.4.9-1. The residual drift
ratio for hybrid rocking columns with a reinforcing steel bar ratio (As/Ag) of 0.5% or smaller is
negligible (dr ≤ 1.0%). Table 3.3.4.9-1 presents a summary of the residual drift ratio estimation
for hybrid rocking columns.
Fig. 3.3.4.9-1b and c show the measured and calculated (using Equation 3.3.4.9-1) residual-peak
drift ratio relationships for 2 half-scale hybrid rocking columns tested by Larkin et al. (2012). Good
correlation between the measured and calculated results was observed for both columns.

7
fpi/fpy = 0.0
6 fpi/fpy = 0.15

fpi/fpy = 0.30
5 fpi/fpy = 0.45
2
1% Limit
1
(Low Residual)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(a) Proposed Equation for As/Ag > 0.01
5 5
PTHL-Larkin et al. (2012) PTLL-Larkin et al. (2012)
4.5 4.5
Calculated for PTHL Calculated for PTLL
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1% Limit 1% Limit
1 1
(Low Residual) (Low Residual)
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Drift Ratio (%) Peak Drift Ratio (%)
(b) Proposed Equation vs. Measured Data (c) Proposed Equation vs. Measured Data
(As/Ag = 0.013 and fpi/fpy = 0.23) (As/Ag = 0.007 and fpi/fpy = 0.18)
Figure 3.3.4.9-1. Residual drifts for hybrid rocking columns.
3.3.5 Design of FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns

FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns ideally will be designed conforming to the require-
ments presented in this section.

The analytical plastic hinge length of hybrid rocking columns shall be according to AASHTO
SGS (AASHTO, 2011):
L p = 0.08L + 0.15 f ye dbl ≥ 0.3 fye dbl (3.3.5.1-1)
where fye (ksi) is the expected yield strength of the longitudinal column reinforcing steel bars and
dbl (in.) is the nominal diameter of longitudinal column reinforcing steel bars.
Table 3.3.4.9-1. Residual drift ratio for hybrid rocking columns.
Longitudinal Reinforcing Steel Damping Ratio (%)

Bar Ratio (As /Ag) (See Sec. 3.3.6.2)
/ 3.2
/ 3.2
/ 5
Note: “ ” is the peak drift ratio (%) and “ ” is the residual drift ratio (%).

The AASHTO analytical plastic hinge length for RC columns is suggested for the design of
hybrid rocking columns because the plastic hinge length is controlled by longitudinal reinforcing
steel that is common to both RC and hybrid rocking columns.

Column displacement capacity (Δc) is defined as a displacement at fracture of the column
longitudinal bar or compressive failure of the confined concrete. Minimum requirements of the
present guideline ensure that steel tendons remain linear-elastic at the fracture of steel bars or the
failure of confined concrete (section 3.3.6.2). Either moment-curvature or pushover analysis may
be used for the estimation of a hybrid rocking column displacement capacity. However, a push-
over analysis is preferred since it includes the entire bridge model, frame actions, and geometric
nonlinearities. When moment-curvature analysis is used, the displacement capacity is
ØYi L2 Lp
∆c = + (Øu − ØYi ) L p  L −  (3.3.5.2-1)
3  2
Fig. H-1), Øu is the ultimate curvature associated with either steel bar fracture or confined
concrete failure, L is the column height from point of maximum moment to the point of contra
flexure, and Lp is the calculated plastic hinge length.
column height as
∆c
δc = (3.3.5.2-2)
L
3.3.5.2.1 Minimum Drift Capacity. The suggested minimum drift ratio capacity for hybrid
rocking columns is listed in Table 3.3.5.2.1-1. The drift ratios correspond to the minimum dis-
placement ductility capacity for conventional columns. Columns shall be designed to provide
at least this level of drift ratio. Linear interpolation may be used for intermediate aspect ratios.

The shear capacity of FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns, within the plastic hinge, calcu-
lated based on the nominal material strength properties shall satisfy:
ØsVn ≥ Vu (3.3.5.3-1)
in which:
Vn = Vc + Vs + 0.95Vf (3.3.5.3-2)
Table 3.3.5.2.1-1. Minimum bridge column drift ratio

capacity requirements.
Conventional
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Aspect Ratio 8:

Where the strength reduction factor, Øs, is 0.9, Vn is the nominal shear capacity of member,
Vs is the reinforcing steel contribution to shear capacity, Vc is the concrete contribution to shear
capacity, and Vf is the FRP contribution to the shear. Vc and Vs are computed according to
AASHTO SGS and are repeated here for circular columns:
Vc = 0.8vc Ag (3.3.5.3-3)
Pu 
v c = 0.032α ′  1 + f c′≤ min ( 0.11 f c′ , 0.047α ′ f c′) (3.3.5.3-4)
 2 Ag 
For circular columns with spiral or hoop reinforcing:
fs
α′ = + 3.67 − µD (3.3.5.3-5)
0.15
f s = ρs f yh ≤ 0.35 (3.3.5.3-6)
4 Asp
ρs = (3.3.5.3-7)
sD ′
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2), Pu is the ultimate compressive force
acting on section (kips), Asp is the area of the spiral or hoop reinforcing bar (in.2), s is the pitch
of spiral or spacing of hoops or ties (in.), D′ is the core diameter of column measured from cen-
ter of spiral or hoop (in.), fyh is the nominal yield stress of transverse reinforcing (ksi), f ′c is the
nominal concrete compressive strength (ksi), µD is the displacement ductility demand calculated
from drift demand, and a’ is the concrete shear stress adjustment factor.
the nominal shear reinforcement strength, Vs, is:
Vs = (3.3.5.3-8)
2  s 
The contribution of FRP to shear strength is calculated according to ACI 440.2R-08 (2008)
as follows:
Vf = 2nf t f ffe ( sinα + cosα ) D (3.3.5.3-9)
where nf is the number of FRP layers, tf is the thickness of each FRP layer, a is the angle between
the direction of the FRP principal fibers and the longitudinal axis of the member, D is the diameter
of the column (or the largest side dimension of the column section), and
ffe = εfe Ef (3.3.5.3-10)
where Ef is the modulus of elasticity of the FRP, and
εfe = 0.004 ≤ 0.75 f fu E f (3.3.5.3-11)
where ffu is the FRP design tensile strength including the environmental reduction factor.

The sum of shear strengths provided by the steel and FRP shall be limited to
Vs + Vf ≤ 0.25 f c′Ae (3.3.5.3-12)
where Ae is the effective area of the cross-section for shear resistance (0.8Ag).

The axial capacity of an FRP-confined hybrid rocking column shall be calculated according
to ACI 440.2R-08 (2008) as
ØPn = Ø( 0.85 f cc′ ( Ag − As ) + As f y ) (3.3.5.4-1)
where f ′cc is the maximum compressive strength of an FRP-confined concrete section (ksi), Ag is
the gross area of member cross-section (in.2), As is the column longitudinal reinforcing steel bar
area (in.2), fy is the nominal yield strength of the column longitudinal reinforcing steel bars, and
Ø is 0.75 and 0.7 for members with spirals and ties, respectively.

Each bent shall have a minimum lateral flexural capacity to resist a lateral force of 0.1Pdl,
where Pdl is the tributary dead load applied at the center of gravity of the superstructure.

The load estimation, analysis, and design of FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns
for non-seismic loads are based on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
(2014). Only for preliminary design under the load combination of “Extreme Event I,” the
AASHTO response modification factors (AASHTO LRFD, Table 3.10.7.1-1) may be used to
size the columns and their adjoining members. Nevertheless, FRP-confined hybrid rocking
columns ideally will be analyzed and designed according to the guidelines presented in this
document.

An FRP-confined hybrid rocking column ideally will be designed to withstand service loads
during the life of the bridge. The service limit state for these columns should include short- and
long-term deformations.
Serviceability for conventional RC and ECC is addressed through the minimum shrinkage
and temperature reinforcement requirement. The relatively high transverse reinforcement to
satisfy seismic design requirements in novel columns exceeds the minimum shrinkage and
temperature reinforcement requirement in AASHTO LRFD.
3.3.5.7.1 Shrinkage and Creep. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014)
shall be used to compute shrinkage and creep of concrete. Service load stresses of an FRP jacket
shall not exceed the creep-rupture stress limit, which is 0.2ffu for glass FRP (GFRP), 0.3ffu for
Aramid FRP (AFRP), and 0.55ffu for carbon FRP (CFRP). ffu is the FRP design tensile strength
including the environmental reduction factor. Note that the stress that has to be checked for the
creep-rupture is the section maximum tensile stress under combined axial loads and bending
moments due to service loads.
3.3.5.7.2 Axial Deformations. Instantaneous axial deformation due to loads and long-
term shortening due to shrinkage and creep should be determined according to the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014).

The estimation of deformations in FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns at a limit state of

serviceability is based on two assumptions: (1) strain is proportional to the distance from the
neutral axis of the cross-section and (2) concrete and steel bars are linear elastic materials with
moduli of elasticity specified in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014). The
contribution of the FRP jacket to axial stiffness may be neglected.
3.3.6 Details for FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns

FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns shall be detailed conforming to requirements pre-
sented in this section.
3.3.6.1 FRP Jacket

FRP jacketing is through either wrapping the FRP sheets around the column or the utilization of
prefabricated FRP tubes, which are available with different diameters and wall thicknesses. FRP tubes
are advantageous in many cases because they could serve as permanent formwork, thus expediting
the construction. Normally there is a 2-in. (50-mm) gap between the end of the jacket and the column
adjoining member face. The jacket might extend over the entire length of column, except the 2-in.
(50-mm) gap at the column ends, if it serves the dual purpose of plastic hinge damage control and
stay-in-place form. If FRP is utilized only in the plastic hinge region, the FRP jacket height shall be the
greater of (a) the analytical plastic hinge length and (b) 1.5 times the column largest side dimension.

3.3.6.2.1 Longitudinal Reinforcing Steel Bars. The total area of longitudinal reinforcing
steel bars (As) in hybrid rocking columns should satisfy
0.0025 Ag ≤ As ≤ 0.025 Ag (3.3.6.2.1-1)
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2). Hybrid rocking columns with As < 0.0025Ag
tend to exhibit inadequate energy dissipation and those with As > 0.025Ag tend to exhibit signifi-
cant residual displacements comparable to those in conventional columns. When As < 0.01Ag, the
damping ratio for dynamic analyses shall be taken as 3.2% since a flag-shaped hysteretic behavior
is expected. Consequently, the displacement demand for hybrid rocking columns with As < 0.01Ag
calculated using equivalent static or spectral analysis method shall be increased by 20% to account
for the lower damping ratio. The modification factor for short-period structures when As < 0.01Ag
may be taken as 1.0.
Fig. 3.3.6.2.1-1a shows hysteretic damping ratio versus displacement ductility for bridge
columns with flag-shaped hysteresis curves. It can be seen than hysteretic damping of col-
umns with flag-shaped behavior is lower than that of conventional RC columns, as expected.
20 1
0.8
15
yFlag-Shaped / y RC
0.6
Recommended
10
0.4
RC Columns
5 Dwairi et al. (2007)
Dwairi et al. (2007) 0.2 Priestley et al. (2007)
Priestley et al. (2007) Recommended
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 4 3 5 6 7
Ductility Ductility
(a) Hysteretic Damping (b) Flag-Shaped Damping over RC Damping
Figure 3.3.6.2.1-1. Damping for columns with flag-shaped hysteresis.

Table 3.3.6.2.1-1. Damping for hybrid rocking columns with As < 0.01Ag.
References (Ave. for ) Flag-Shaped Damping RD

Dwairi et al. (2007) 0.72 3.60 1.14
Priestley et al. (2007) 0.56 2.80 1.26
Average of Two Refs 0.64 3.20 1.20
Recommended 0.64 3.20 1.20
Furthermore, the ratio of the flag-shaped column damping to the RC column damping is
approximately constant for ductilities greater than 2 (Fig. 3.3.6.2.1-1b). Table 3.3.6.2.1-1
presents a summary of damping ratios. The average ratio of flag-shaped hysteretic damp-
ing to that of RC columns was 64%. Based on these findings, the damping ratio of hybrid
rocking columns with As < 0.01Ag is proposed to be 3.2%, which is 64% of the typical
5% damping.
3.3.6.2.2 Longitudinal Steel Tendons. The total area of longitudinal steel tendons (Ap) in
hybrid rocking columns should satisfy:
Ap ≥ 0.004 Ag (3.3.6.2.2-1)
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2). This requirement ensures that steel
tendon yielding is avoided.
Parametric studies of more than 650 hybrid rocking columns (Appendix C) showed that steel
tendon stress at the ultimate displacement of the column may exceed the tendon yield strength if
the column aspect ratio is high, the axial load level is low, and the longitudinal steel ratio is small.
For example, Fig. 3.3.6.2.2-1 shows tendon stresses at the ultimate displacement of a hybrid
rocking column with extreme properties (axial load = 0.02f ′c Ag, aspect ratio = 8, As = 0.0025Ag,
and fpi = 0.3fpy) that increases the tendon stress at the column failure. The only variable in this
figure is the area of the column longitudinal steel tendons. It can be seen that when the tendon
area exceeds 0.004Ag, the tendon does not yield and the column fails either due to the steel bar
fracture or the confined concrete failure.
3.3.6.2.3 Longitudinal Steel Tendon Initial Stresses. The initial stress of longitudinal steel
tendons in hybrid rocking columns after all losses (fpi) shall satisfy:
f pi ≤ 0.3 f py (3.3.6.2.3-1)
1.1
Tendon Steel Stress Ratio (fps / fpy)
Tendon Yielding
1
P / f'c Ag = 0.02
fpi / fpy = 0.30
Minimum
Recommended
0.9
As / Ag = 0.0025
AR = 8
0.8
0.7

0.6
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Tendon Steel Ratio (Ap / Ag)
Figure 3.3.6.2.2-1. Hybrid rocking column tendon

stress at column failure.

1.1
Steel Tendon Stress Ratio (fps / fpy)

Tendon Yielding
1
0.9
Maximum
Recommended
P / f'c Ag = 0.02
0.8
As / Ag = 0.01
Ap / Ag = 0.004
0.7
AR = 8
0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Initial Steel Tendon Stress Ratio (fpi / fpy)
Figure 3.3.6.2.3-1. Hybrid rocking column initial

tendon stresses.
where fpy is the yield strength of steel tendons. The calculation of steel tendon stress losses shall
be according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014, Article 5.9.5).
Parametric studies (Appendix C) showed that when steel tendon initial stress (after all losses)
is large, tendon yields before reinforcing steel bar fractures or the confined concrete fails result-
ing in small displacement capacities. For example, Fig. 3.3.6.2.3-1 shows tendon stresses at
the ultimate displacement of a hybrid rocking column with extreme properties (axial load =
0.02f c′ Ag, aspect ratio = 8, As = 0.0025Ag, and Ap = 0.004Ag). The only variable in this figure is
the initial steel tendon stress. It can be seen that when the tendon initial stress is more than
0.35fpy, the tendon yields before the reinforcing steel bar fractures or the confined concrete fails.
Eq. 3.3.6.2.3-1 is more stringent that the analytical results due to uncertainty in the estimation
of tendon stress losses.

The axial load acting on a hybrid rocking column with As ≥ 0.01Ag including gravity and seis-
mic demands (Pu), but excluding the prestress force, when a pushover analysis is not performed
should satisfy:
Pu ≤ 0.15 f c′ Ag (3.3.6.3-1)
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2) and f ′c is the nominal concrete
compressive strength (ksi). The axial load may exceed this limit provided that pushover
analysis, including the P – Δ effect, is performed to compute the maximum drift capacity of
the column.
For a hybrid rocking column with As < 0.01Ag,
Pu ≤ 0.1 f c′ Ag (3.3.6.3-2)
The P – Δ effect is more significant for hybrid rocking columns compared to conventional
columns specifically when the longitudinal steel ratio is relatively small.

The aspect ratio of hybrid rocking columns, including the FRP-confined hybrid rocking col-
umns, should not exceed 8. Columns with larger aspect ratios may fail at low drift ratios due to
the P – Δ effect.

3.3.7 Construction of FRP-Confined Hybrid Rocking Columns

FRP testing method for the computation of mechanical properties, fire and life safety, ser-
vice temperature, and many other parameters should be according to Appendix H of the ACI
440.2R-08 (2008).

CIP and precast construction is permitted for FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns.
Fig. 3.3.7.2-1 shows one example for each construction method. The design of precast col-
umn connections should be according to bridge-owner approved guidelines. When FRP tube
is used in precast construction (e.g., pocket connections for precast columns), FRP shall not
be extended into the adjoining member. Recall that the role of FRP-confined rocking col-
umns is to reduce damage in the plastic hinge regions. Natural roughness of the prefabricated
FRP tubes should be preserved to ensure bond between the tube and concrete.

Tolerance limits normally used for conventional RC construction are applicable to FRP-
confined hybrid rocking columns. Quality control for precast columns should be according to
PCI MNL-116-99 (1999). Construction tolerance for precast column connections should be
according to bridge-owner approved guidelines.
3.3.7.4 Ducts
Minimum requirements for ducts are according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifi-
cations (2014). Ducts shall not be grouted.
Several tendons are needed for large-diameter columns. In this case, the number and the size
of tendons per duct should be maximized and the number of ducts per column section should
be minimized. There is currently a 37-strand anchorage available in the U.S. for 0.6-in. (15-mm)
diameter steel strands. If multiple ducts cannot be avoided, the minimum number of ducts should
be taken as 3 to be radially distributed in the section close to the column center. The minimum
spacing of ducts in any direction of a section shall not be smaller than 1.5 times the largest aggre-
gate size of the column concrete mix.
Tendon and Duct
Steel Bar Steel Bar

FRP Jacket FRP Jacket
Tendon and Duct
Precast Column
2-in. Gap Cast-in-Place

2-in. Gap
Column
All reinforcement
not shown
Pocket
Connection
Footing Footing
Figure 3.3.7.2-1. Construction of FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns.

3.3.8 References
ACI 440.2R-08. (2008). Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening
Concrete Structures, Reported by American Concrete Institute Committee 440, 80 pp.
Dwairi, H. M., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. S. (2007). Equivalent Damping in Support of Direct Displacement-
Larkin, A. S., Sanders, D., and Saiidi, M. S. (2012). Unbonded Prestressed Columns for Earthquake Resistance, Center
for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-12-02, 256 pp. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412367.048.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalski, M. J. (2007). Displacement-based Seismic Design of Structures.
Pavia: IUSS press.
Thonstad, T., Mantawy, I., Stanton, J., Eberhard, M., and Sanders, D. (2016). Shaking Table Performance of
a New Bridge System with Pretensioned Rocking Columns, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 14 pp.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000867, 04015079.

CHAPTER 4
Summary and Conclusions
4.1 Summary
Standard RC bridge columns are generally designed to dissipate earthquake energy through
yielding of longitudinal reinforcing steel and spalling of concrete that collectively cause large
plastic deformations in columns. Even though bridge collapse is expected to be prevented using
current design specifications, excessive plastic hinge damage and large post-earthquake perma-
nent lateral deformations may cause the decommissioning of bridges for repair or replacement.
The impact of bridge closure on access to the affected area shortly after an earthquake, traveling
public, and economy of the region is significant. A new paradigm is emerging among bridge
owners, requiring that bridges remain functional with minimal interruption of the traffic flow
after earthquakes. To materialize this paradigm, bridge column construction practice would
need to explore unconventional materials and techniques that possess characteristics that make
bridge columns resilient.
The objectives of the study were to develop (1) proposed AASHTO guidelines for the evalu-
ation of new techniques for the design and construction of bridge columns with energy dis-
sipation mechanisms meant to minimize bridge damage and replacement after a seismic event
and (2) design and construction concepts based on new materials and techniques [e.g., post-
tensioning, shape memory alloy (SMA), engineered cementitious composite (ECC), rubber
pads, and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping] and analytical techniques. The objectives
were accomplished through four phases encompassing 13 tasks. A literature review on the state-
of-the-art was carried out to highlight the benefits of novel materials and new technologies, to
establish mechanical properties of novel materials, and to identify design, construction, and
performance knowledge gaps. A survey of state departments of transportation on past and future
application of advanced materials in bridges was also conducted. Thirty-nine new bridge col-
umn concepts, each with an improved energy dissipation system, were developed incorporating
SMA, ECC, FRP, ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), rubber, or rocking systems. Of
the 39 concepts, only eight have been proof tested at the time of this writing but the remaining
columns are believed also to be feasible.
Other novel column concepts are likely to emerge in the future, each aiming to improve seismic
performance compared to conventional RC columns. To assess any existing or emerging novel
column, evaluation guidelines were developed using 14 parameters to determine suitability and
performance of the columns. The parameters included in the evaluation guidelines were (1) plas-
tic hinge damage, (2) displacement capacity, (3) residual displacement, (4) availability of proof
test data, (5) availability of analysis tools, (6) availability of design guidelines, (7) past field appli-
cations, (8) initial cost, (9) advanced material limitations, (10) ease of construction, (11) inspect-
ability, (12) maintenance, (13) post-earthquake repair need, and (14) system performance. These
parameters were quantified and scored with different weights. The overall evaluation result was
60

Summary and Conclusions 61
converted to a five-star rating method to help bridge owners and designers compare different
alternatives and make the final selection.
The current AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design uses displacement
ductility as a measure of column deformability. However, this parameter may not be suitable
for novel columns since the yield mechanism in the novel and conventional columns can be dif-
ferent. To address this difference, drift ratio was used in this study to evaluate deformability. A
comprehensive parametric study was carried out to relate the displacement ductility to the drift
ratio for practical ranges of RC bridge column geometry and axial loading.
Three of the 39 novel columns were selected by the project panel for further investigation:
(1) SMA-reinforced ECC columns, (2) SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns, and
(3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. Comprehensive analysis, design, and construction
guidelines were developed for these three novel columns. Step-by-step comprehensive design
examples were developed for each of the three columns to better show the use of the proposed
guidelines. The framework used to develop these guidelines can be used by researchers to develop
guidelines for other existing or emerging novel columns.
4.2 Conclusions
The study presented in this report consisted of many tasks all aimed at accomplishing the two
primary objectives of the project, which were development of (1) AASHTO guidelines for the
evaluation of novel bridge columns and (2) design, construction, and analytical techniques for
bridge columns utilizing advanced materials. The request for proposals (RFP) called for addi-
tional tasks to address other aspects of novel columns. The deliverables addressing the primary
objectives were presented in the main body of this document. Documents describing the work
on other tasks stated in the RFP and the supporting studies related to the primary objectives are
presented in the appendices.
4.2.1 Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for Evaluation of Novel Columns

With the new paradigm of requiring infrastructure to be resilient to serve the public effec-
tively, novel bridge columns utilizing unconventional construction material are likely to emerge.
The proposed AASHTO guidelines identified 14 parameters to consider in assessing any novel
column. These parameters encompass structural seismic performance, damage tolerance, seis-
mic design tools, construction, cost, maintenance, and post-earthquake repair among others.
Qualitative metrics to assess these parameters were provided. A flow chart integrating all the
parameters was developed and was found to be an effective tool to help determine the suitability
of a given novel column. It was found that the analysis procedure in the AASHTO Guide Speci-
fications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (AASHTO SGS) could generally be used for novel col-
umns with adjustments to address the particular characteristics of various novel columns. The
work leading to the guidelines also concluded that drift ratio rather than displacement ductility
is an appropriate measure of deformability of novel columns.
4.2.2 Seismic Design and Construction of Novel Columns

The common features of resilient bridge columns are the ability to recover lateral displace-
ments (recentering) and resistance to damage in plastic hinges. The three novel columns that
were selected for detailed studies address these features using different techniques. It was found
that recentering might be successfully implemented in design methods by either the use of
superelastic SMA longitudinal bars in the plastic hinge or prestressing. Controlling damage to

the cementitious material in the plastic hinge could be achieved by the use of damage tolerant
materials or through external FRP jackets. The study showed that many of the provisions of
the AASHTO SGS are applicable to analysis and design of novel columns, but the design has to
also incorporate recent research results that address the characteristics of the particular advanced
materials used in the columns. Furthermore, it was found that peculiarities of advanced materials
could affect the method by which design forces are determined.
4.2.3 Key Conclusions from Appendix Documents

The most important observations and conclusions from the documents presented in the
appendices are as follows:
4.2.3.1 Literature Review

The literature review was focused on materials that provide recentering and that control plastic
hinge damage. Past work on superelastic SMA was reviewed to address recentering. The results
indicated that nickel-titanium SMA bars are the only feasible SMAs at the time of this writing.
The existing specifications for SMAs are conservative by necessity due to a lack of extensive test
data. To address plastic hinge damage reduction, the literature on cementitious low-damage
materials (ECC UHPC), rubber, and FRPs was reviewed. It was concluded that, although design
provisions for cementitious materials are still emerging, there are sufficient guidelines to pro-
ceed with preliminary design recommendations for these materials. It was also found that exist-
ing guidelines for rubber and FRPs are sufficiently developed and are ready for adoption.
4.2.3.2 State DOT Survey

The purpose of the survey was to determine familiarity, past deployment, and possible future
application of advanced materials in bridges. Thirty-four states participated in the survey. Not
surprising was the finding that many states are familiar with FRPs and have used FRPs due to
its relatively long history of application in bridge engineering. Other novel materials such as
SMA and ECC were known only to a limited number of participants. The survey results were
encouraging and demonstrated the receptiveness of the bridge engineering community to new
concepts.
4.2.3.3 Literature Synthesis and Knowledge Gaps

Based on the literature review, key attributes of novel materials were compiled and major
knowledge gaps were identified. The attributes included various consideration such as past
application, commercial availability, durability, constructability, knowledge gaps, cost, etc. It
was concluded that climatic consideration may limit the suitability of certain advanced materi-
als, and a lack of specifications could pose a barrier to preventing widespread application of
these materials.
4.2.3.4 Novel Column and Construction Concepts

The literature review of novel materials and the seismic performance of novel columns led to
the conclusion that 39 combinations of materials may be made to form details of plausible novel
columns. This assessment was made based on the material, large drift capacity, minimizing
damage, and recentering. Of the 39 novel column types, only eight have been proof tested.
4.2.3.5 Demonstration of Evaluation Guidelines

The proposed AASHTO evaluation guidelines that were developed to address the first objec-
tive of the project were applied to the 39 novel column types identified in Appendix D. The

Summary and Conclusions 63
star rating discussed under the guidelines was applied to both seismic performance and other
considerations and were combined into a single star rating. It was concluded that non-seismic
considerations could offset a higher star rating given to seismic performance for some of
the columns, leading to a relatively low overall number of stars for these columns.
4.2.3.6 Design Examples of Select Novel Columns

Four design examples, one on a reference conventional RC bridge and three each incorporat-
ing one of the three novel columns selected by the project panel, were prepared to demonstrate
the application of the design guidelines developed to address the second objective of NCHRP
Project 12-101. It was concluded that, to satisfy the design guidelines, column cross-sectional
dimensions and reinforcement may have to vary depending on the type of the novel column.
The examples also pointed out the need for refinement of some of the provisions in the guide-
lines, which were subsequently revised and presented in the main body of this document.
4.2.3.7 Qualitative Benefits and Economic Impact

Although the RFP called for a qualitative estimate of the benefits and cost impact, a somewhat
detailed quantitative evaluation was made for two versions of a five-span bridge, one with a con-
ventional RC column and the other with a column incorporating SMA/ECC in plastic hinges. It
was concluded that the combined initial and repair cost of the bridge with novel columns could
exceed that of a conventional bridge by 5% to 10%. However, the novel bridge might cost less
than the conventional bridge when the user cost, right of way, traffic control, and impact on
other aspects of prolonged repair of conventional RC bridges are considered. For example, the
saving by using SMA/ECC instead of RC could exceed 10% of the total cost when the user cost
is considered in addition to the initial and repair cost.
4.2.3.8 Drift Ratio Displacement Ductility Relationship

Because novel columns could be more flexible than RC columns, their yield displacement
is relatively large, which could lead to an erroneous conclusion that the displacement ductility
capacity of novel columns is lower than that of RC columns despite the higher overall displace-
ment capacity of novel columns. It was concluded that the deformability of novel columns is
best represented by the drift ratio instead of displacement ductility. The study summarized in
Appendix H led to the development of formulas relating the drift ratio to displacement ductility
to help designers to convert one to the other.
4.2.3.9 Modeling and Validation for Novel Columns

Background analytical work leading to some of the provisions in the three novel column
design guidelines (Objective 2 of NCHRP Project 12-101) is summarized in Appendix I. The
modeling methods were verified against the available test data. The analytical results demon-
strated the strong recentering capability of the three novel columns regardless of the recentering
mechanism.

Appendices A–I
Appendices A through I are not printed herein but are available for download from the TRB
website (trb.org) by searching for “NCHRP Research Report 864.” The appendices include the
following:
Appendix A: Literature Review
Appendix B: Survey of State Departments of Transportation
Appendix C: Synthesis of Literature
Appendix D: Novel Column and Construction Concepts
Appendix E: Demonstration of Evaluation Guidelines
Appendix F: Detailed Design Examples for Three Novel Columns
Appendix G: Benefits and Economic Impact of Novel Columns
Appendix H: Relationship Between Drift Ratio and Displacement Ductility
Appendix I: Modeling Methods and Validation for Novel Columns
64

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

NCHRP
NATIONAL
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
RESEARCH REPORT 864
Volume 2: Guidelines

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2017 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

OFFICERS
Chair: Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento
Vice Chair: Katherine F. Turnbull, Executive Associate Director and Research Scientist, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station
Executive Director: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board
MEMBERS
Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental
Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock
Jennifer Cohan, Secretary, Delaware DOT, Dover
James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations (retired), Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, TX
Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Executive Director–CEO, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, FL
A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe
John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix
Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA
Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA
Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Power, Energy, and Infrastructure Group, BMO Capital Markets Corporation, New York
S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson Professor of Manufacturing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, MI
Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Melinda McGrath, Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Patrick K. McKenna, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City
James P. Redeker, Commissioner, Connecticut DOT, Newington
Mark L. Rosenberg, Executive Director, The Task Force for Global Health, Inc., Decatur, GA
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Davis
Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX
Pat Thomas, Senior Vice President of State Government Affairs, United Parcel Service, Washington, DC
James M. Tien, Distinguished Professor and Dean Emeritus, College of Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
Dean H. Wise, Vice President of Network Strategy, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Fort Worth, TX
Charles A. Zelle, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT, Saint Paul
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Michael Berube, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy
Mary R. Brooks, Professor Emerita, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and Chair, TRB Marine Board
Mark H. Buzby (Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy), Executive Director, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT
Steven Cliff, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento
Howard R. Elliott, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Audrey Farley, Executive Director, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. DOT
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
Heath Hall, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT
Brandye Hendrickson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT
Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT
Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Heidi King, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Bevan B. Kirley, Research Associate, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, and Chair, TRB Young
Members Council
Wayne Nastri, Acting Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA
Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL
Todd T. Semonite (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC
Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Richard A. White, Acting President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
K. Jane Williams, Executive Director, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT
Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Paul F. Zukunft (Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
* Membership as of October 2017.

N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 864

Volume 2: Guidelines
M. Saiid Saiidi
Mostafa Tazarv
Sebastian Varela
Infrastructure Innovation, LLC
Reno, NV
Stuart Bennion
M. Lee Marsh
Iman Ghorbani
BergerABAM
Seattle, WA
Thomas P. Murphy
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
Mechanicsburg, PA
Subscriber Categories
Bridges and Other Structures
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2017

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 864, VOLUME 2

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve Project 12-101
many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state ISBN 978-0-309-44668-6
universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway Library of Congress Control Number 2017959576
transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter-
© 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a
coordinated program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by published or copyrighted material used herein.
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
United States Department of Transportation. understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies
or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and NOTICE
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer-
The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an
according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
directly to those in a position to use them. researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transporta- program sponsors.
tion departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are proposed to the do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
AASHTO Board of Directors and the National Academies. Research solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified
research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administra-
tion and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the
National Academies and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published research reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 864, VOLUME 2

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Scott E. Hitchcock, Senior Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 12-101 PANEL

Field of Design—Area of Bridges
Elmer E. Marx, Alaska DOT and Public Facilities, Juneau, AK (Chair)
Anne M. Rearick, Indiana DOT, Indianapolis, IN
Ronald J. Bromenschenkel, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
David W. Fish, Rhode Island DOT, Providence, RI
Jugesh Kapur, Burns and McDonnell, Kansas City, MO
Jamshid Mohammadi, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL
Amgad F. Morgan-Girgis, eConstruct USA, LLC, Omaha, NE
Sheila Rimal Duwadi, FHWA Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 12-101 by Infrastructure Innovation,
LLC in collaboration with BergerABAM and Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
The principal investigator (PI) on this project was M. Saiid Saiidi. M. Lee Marsh of BergerABAM and
Thomas P. Murphy of Modjeski and Masters, Inc. were the co-PIs of the project. Senior research associate,
Mostafa Tazarv, and research associate, Sebastian Valera, performed the research under the supervision
of the PI. Stuart Bennion and Iman Ghorbani developed the design examples under the supervision of
M. Lee Marsh (Co-PI).
The research team is indebted to Dr. Amir Mirmiran of the University of Texas at Tyler for his feedback
on concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer tube columns.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Scott Arnold of FYFE Co. LLC, Mr. Dominique Corvez and
Mr. Paul White of Lafarge North America Inc., Mr. Kevin Friskel of Dynamic Isolation Systems Inc.,
Mr. Rich LaFond of Saes Smart Materials, and Mr. Edward Little of FiberMatrix Inc. for providing cost
estimates, for novel materials.
Dr. Toutlemonde of Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, de l’Aménagement
et des Réseaux (IFSTTAR) is thanked for sharing UHPC design recommendations.

FOREWORD
By Waseem Dekelbab
Staff Officer
This report describes the evaluation of new materials and techniques for design and
construction of novel bridge columns meant to improve seismic performance. These
techniques include shape memory alloy (SMA), engineered cementitious composite (ECC),
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), and rocking mechanisms. The report includes two volumes:
Volume 1: Research Overview and Volume 2: Guidelines. The guidelines cover a quantita-
tive evaluation method to rate novel columns as well as design and construction methods
for three specific novel columns: (1) SMA-reinforced ECC columns, (2) SMA-reinforced
FRP-confined concrete/columns, and (3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. More
than 2,250 analyses in the form of moment-curvature, pushover, cyclic, and dynamic simu-
lations were carried out to investigate the behavior of the selected columns and to develop
proposed design guidelines according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
and the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. The material in this
report will be of immediate interest to bridge owners.
The primary objective of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the
AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design is to prevent bridge collapse
in the event of earthquakes. Reinforced concrete bridge columns are designed to dissipate
earthquake energy through considerable ductile nonlinear action that is associated with
severe spalling of concrete and yielding of reinforcement. Proven detailing procedures have
been developed for reinforced concrete bridge columns that provide this type of behavior
and are intended to prevent bridge collapse. However, for columns to successfully dissipate
energy, they have to behave as nonlinear elements subject to substantial damage and possibly
permanent drift to the point that the bridge would have to be decommissioned for repair
or replacement. The impact of bridge closure on the traveling public and the economy is
significant. Therefore, alternative design approaches using advanced materials and uncon-
ventional seismic techniques are needed to improve current practice. Despite the superior
performance of columns with the innovative materials reported in the literature, design
guidelines and methods of structural analysis are not addressed in the current seismic
bridge design specifications. Research was needed to develop proposed AASHTO guidelines
to help bridge owners incorporate innovative seismic energy dissipation principles into
practice.
Research was performed under NCHRP Project 12-101 by Infrastructure Innovation, LLC
to develop (1) proposed guidelines for the evaluation of new techniques for the design and
construction of bridge columns with energy dissipation mechanisms meant to minimize
bridge damage and replacement after a seismic event and (2) design and construction concepts
based on new materials and techniques (e.g., post-tensioning, SMA, ECC, rubber pads, and

FRP wrapping) and analytical techniques (e.g., current design practice, direct displacement
based design, and substitute structure design method). The guidelines included analysis
procedures, evaluation criteria (e.g., constructability, serviceability, inspectability, seismic
and non-seismic system performance, and post-event repair), design procedures, construction
details, and detailed design examples.
A number of deliverables, provided as appendices, are not published but are available on
the TRB website (trb.org) by searching for “NCHRP Research Report 864.” These appendices
are titled as follows:
• Appendix A: Literature Review

• Appendix B: Survey of State Departments of Transportation
• Appendix C: Synthesis of Literature
• Appendix D: Novel Column and Construction Concepts
• Appendix E: Demonstration of Evaluation Guidelines
• Appendix F: Detailed Design Examples for Three Novel Columns
• Appendix G: Benefits and Economic Impact of Novel Columns
• Appendix H: Relationship Between Drift Ratio and Displacement Ductility
• Appendix I: Modeling Methods and Validation for Novel Columns

CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Section 1 General
4 Section 2 Purpose
5 Section 3 Philosophy
6 Section 4 Definitions
8 Section 5 Characteristics of Novel Columns
8 5.1 Plastic Hinge Damage
9 5.2 Displacement Capacity
11 5.3 Residual Displacements
13 Section 6 Non-seismic and Seismic Design Considerations
13 6.1 Non-seismic Design Consideration
13 6.2 Seismic Design Considerations
15 Section 7 Construction and Maintenance Considerations
16 Section 8 Evaluation and Selection Criteria
20 Section 9 Analysis and Design Procedure Development
20 9.1 Analysis Procedure Requirements
21 9.2 Design Procedure Requirements
23 Section 10 Conclusions
24 References
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

SUMMARY
Seismic Evaluation of Bridge

Columns with Energy Dissipating
Mechanisms, Volume 2: Guidelines
Standard reinforced concrete bridge columns are generally designed to dissipate earth-
quake energy through the yielding of longitudinal reinforcing steel and spalling of concrete
that collectively causes large plastic deformations in columns. Even though bridge collapse is
expected to be prevented using current design specifications, excessive plastic hinge damage
and large post-earthquake permanent lateral deformations may cause the decommissioning
of bridges for repair or replacement. The impact bridge closure has on access to the affected
area shortly after an earthquake, on the traveling public, and on the economy of the region is
significant. A new paradigm is emerging among bridge owners, requiring that bridges remain
functional with minimal interruption of the traffic flow after earthquakes. To materialize this
paradigm, the bridge column construction practice would need to explore unconventional
materials and techniques that possess characteristics that make bridge columns resilient.
Despite the superior performance of columns with advanced materials reported in the
literature, design guidelines and methods of structural analysis are not addressed in the
current seismic bridge design specifications. NCHRP Project 12-101 was initiated to
achieve two main objectives of developing (1) proposed AASHTO guidelines for the evalu-
ation of new techniques for the design and construction of bridge columns with energy
dissipation mechanisms, meant to minimize bridge damage and replacement after a seismic
event and (2) design and construction concepts based on new materials and techniques [e.g.,
post-tensioning, shape memory alloy (SMA), engineered cementitious composite (ECC),
rubber pads, and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping] and analytical techniques.
Several tasks were undertaken in this project to achieve the aforementioned objectives.
A state-of-the-art literature review was carried out to highlight the benefits of novel materials
and new technologies; to establish mechanical properties of novel materials; and to identify
design, construction, and performance knowledge gaps. A survey of state departments of
transportation on past and future application of advanced materials in bridges was also
conducted. Thirty-nine new concepts, each with an improved energy dissipation system,
were developed for bridge columns incorporating SMA, ECC, FRP, ultra-high performance
concrete (UHPC), rubber, or rocking mechanisms. Of the 39 concept columns, only eight
have been proof tested at the time of this writing, but the remaining columns are believed
also to be feasible. Three of the 39 novel columns were selected by the project panel for fur-
ther investigation: (1) SMA-reinforced ECC columns, (2) SMA-reinforced FRP-confined
concrete columns, and (3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. Comprehensive analysis,
design, and construction guidelines, detailed design examples for these columns, and overall
results of the project were published in NCHRP Research Report 864, Volume 1, and hence
are not duplicated in the present report.
Other novel column concepts are likely to emerge in the future, each aiming to improve
the seismic performance compared to conventional reinforced concrete columns. To assess
1

2 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 2: Guidelines
any existing or emerging novel columns, evaluation guidelines were developed in this docu-
ment using 14 parameters to determine suitability and performance of the columns. The
parameters included in the evaluation guidelines were (1) plastic hinge damage, (2) displace-
ment capacity, (3) residual displacement, (4) availability of proof test data, (5) availability of
analysis tool, (6) availability of design guidelines, (7) past field applications, (8) initial cost,
(9) advanced material limitations, (10) ease of construction, (11) inspectability, (12) main-
tenance, (13) post-earthquake repair need, and (14) system performance. These parameters
were quantified and scored with different weights. The overall evaluation results were con-
verted to a five-star rating method to help bridge owners and designers compare different
alternatives and to make the final selection. The present report presents the proposed evalu-
ation guidelines for resilient bridge columns with improved seismic performance.

SECTION 1
General
A conventional reinforced concrete (RC) bridge column is generally designed to dissipate

earthquake energy through yielding of longitudinal reinforcing steel combined with cracking
and spalling of concrete that leads to large plastic deformations in columns. The performance
objective for conventional RC bridges in current bridge seismic design codes is collapse prevention,
while allowing for substantial damage in column plastic hinges. Even though this performance
objective is met, plastic hinge damage and large post-earthquake permanent lateral displacements
may render the bridge unusable, leading to the need for major repair or replacement. The impact
of a bridge closure shortly after an earthquake on the traveling public and the economy of a region
could be substantial. A new paradigm is emerging among bridge owners requiring that bridges
remain functional with minimal interruption to traffic after earthquakes. Recent research has
revealed that this paradigm can be realized by using unconventional materials and techniques that
possess characteristics that make bridge columns resilient.
Novel column designs hold the potential for greatly reducing the amount of damage sustained
during a seismic event when compared with conventional RC columns. Subsequent to strong
earthquakes, a novel column is expected to exhibit minimal or no damage, and low or no residual
lateral displacement. The advantages of this behavior include eliminating the need for total replace-
ment as well as significant reductions to the economic impact of a seismic event due to reduced
repair costs as well as decreasing the return-to-service time for bridge structures.
3

SECTION 2
Purpose
A variety of resilient novel columns are emerging. Uniform assessment tools are needed to
assist bridge owners and designers in selecting the columns that meet various constraints. The
purpose of these guidelines is to provide a framework for the evaluation and implementation
of novel bridge column designs within the existing AASHTO design specification methodology.
They are not intended to provide detailed design specifications, but rather general guidance to
aid in the evaluation and potential adoption of novel bridge columns.
The guidelines take 14 parameters into account:
1. Plastic hinge damage,
2. Displacement capacity,
3. Residual displacement,
4. Availability of proof test data,
5. Availability of analysis tool,
6. Availability of design guidelines,
7. Past field applications,
8. Initial cost,
9. Advanced material limitations,
10. Ease of construction,
11. Inspectability,
12. Maintenance,
13. Post-earthquake repair need, and
14. System performance.
These parameters are quantified and scored with different weights. Finally, the overall evalu-
ation result is presented using a five-star rating system for novel columns to help bridge owners
and designers compare different alternatives and make the final selection.
Before a novel column is implemented in the field, the guidelines ideally will be used in
combination with analysis, design, and detailing specifications for that column. Examples of
such specification for detailed analysis, design, and construction are presented in this document
for three novel columns (1) shape memory alloy (SMA)-reinforced engineered cementitious
(ECC) columns, (2) SMA-reinforced fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)-confined concrete columns,
and (3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. Novel column design guidelines are presented
in the following chapter and detailed design examples are presented in Appendix F of this
present project [available for download from the TRB website (trb.org) by searching for “NCHRP
Research Report 864”].

SECTION 3
Philosophy
Treatment of specific novel column concepts are avoided in these guidelines, as they are
intended to apply to a broad range of concepts, both existing and those yet to be developed. This
has led to certain modifications of existing seismic design provisions, such as the use of drift
ratios in place of ductility.
Displacement-based methodology is generally a better design approach for novel columns
because these columns may exhibit completely different behavior and capacities compared to
conventional columns. Constitutive materials of a ductile member can be accounted for directly
using the displacement-based method while force-based design relies on the overall load-
carrying capacities of the member. Furthermore, the amount of available test data for existing
novel columns is not yet sufficient to reliably establish the response modification (R) factor that is
needed in the force-based method. Emerging novel column concepts need to undergo extensive
laboratory testing before establishing R-factors. Therefore, the use of “force-based design” methods
such as those presented in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO LRFD)
(AASHTO, 2014) shall not be used for resilient novel columns at this time.
The evaluation methodologies contained in these guidelines were developed to assess quanti-
tatively the suitability and feasibility of existing or emerging novel columns for seismic application.
Many key parameters are included in the evaluation. The weight that is assigned to each parameter
is intended to provide flexibility to designers and owners to emphasize the parameters of their
choice. For example, one owner might consider eliminating damage of paramount importance
with cost being a secondary consideration, whereas another owner might be tolerant of some
level of damage as long as the cost of the novel column is within budget. In these cases, designers
can adjust the seismic performance and cost weights to accommodate different needs.
5

SECTION 4
Definitions
Definitions of the terms that may not be commonly understood as they pertain to novel
column design, construction, behavior, and evaluation are presented herein.
Advanced Material: An existing or emerging material that is not commonly used in bridge
construction but is used in the design of a novel column.
Aspect Ratio (Ar): The ratio of the length of a column (L) to its diameter (D).
Design Guideline: A discretionary set of analysis, design, and construction requirements.
Displacement Capacity (ΔC): The displacement at which one of the limiting criteria is met,
such as a maximum material strain.
Displacement Demand (ΔD): The maximum displacement expected to occur at a given
seismic hazard level, as determined by analysis.
Displacement Ductility (µ): A measure of the displacement of an element in relation to the
effective (or idealized) yield displacement.
Drift Ratio (δ): The ratio of the displacement of a column divided by the column height,
or length.
Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC): A cementitious material designed to exhibit
large tensile strain capacity, usually through the use of polyvinyl alcohol fibers.
Evaluation Guideline: A methodology that may be used to aid in the evaluation of potential
novel column designs for field deployment.
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP): A material consisting of a type of fiber embedded in a polymer
matrix, generally characterized by its lightweight, high tensile strength and linear behavior.
Hybrid Rocking Column: A rocking column that includes a type of energy dissipating
mechanism (e.g., reinforcing bars).
Jacket: A structural element on the exterior of a column intended primarily to confine the
column concrete, often made of steel or FRP.
Mechanical Bar Splice: A mechanical device used to couple two reinforcing bars together in
tension and compression.
Resilient Novel Column (or Novel Column): A column that has large displacement capacity
and exhibits one or both of (1) no or minimal damage and (2) low residual lateral displacements.
Rocking Column: A pre- or post-tensioned column intended to exhibit large localized rotations
at one or both ends during a seismic event.

Definitions 7
Rubber: A natural or fabricated material that can undergo large deformations without failure.
Shape Memory Alloy (SMA): An advanced metallic material that exhibits large inelastic
deformations without significant permanent deformations upon heating or unloading.
Superelastic Shape Memory Alloy (SE SMA): An advanced metallic material that exhibits large
inelastic deformations without significant permanent deformations upon unloading.
Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC): A cementitious material characterized by
substantially higher compressive and tensile strengths and ductility compared to conventional
concrete.
The reader is referred to Appendices A through D for the state-of-the-art review of advanced
materials and new technologies viable for incorporation in novel columns. The appendices are
available for download from the TRB website (trb.org) by searching for “NCHRP Research
Report 864.”

SECTION 5
Characteristics of Novel Columns
A general definition of novel columns was presented in the previous section. For seismic
applications, any novel column should minimize plastic hinge damage and residual lateral
displacements, while having sufficient lateral displacement capacity.
5.1 Plastic Hinge Damage

A conventional RC bridge column designed according to current bridge codes can exhibit sig-
nificant inelastic deformations without losing its lateral strength under severe earthquakes. This
is achieved by mandating a ductile failure through significant yielding of longitudinal reinforce-
ment and confining the column core concrete using sufficient transverse reinforcement.
Earthquake damage to column plastic hinges can be generally categorized into four levels:
“no damage,” “low,” “moderate,” and “severe” (Fig. 5.1-1). For a conventional standard RC
column under high seismic loading conditions, the expected damage is severe when strains in
steel bars substantially exceed the yield strain, and for sustained strong ground motions, steel
bars may buckle or fracture accompanied with spalling of unconfined concrete or even com
pression failure of the core concrete (the bottom layer in the pyramid in Fig. 5.1-1). Severe
damage of bridge columns may result in closure of affected bridges to emergency vehicles and
the public, which will impose extra social and economic costs in addition to the repair or replace-
ment cost of these bridges. The economic losses could be unacceptably high if the closed bridges
are the only routes to access the affected zone
Advanced materials that can be used in novel column designs include among others: SMA,
ECC, UHPC, FRP, and rubber. Feasible combinations of these and conventional materials can
lead to the development of practical novel columns. The damage level could be reduced to
“moderate” in a novel column by replacing either steel bars or concrete with these or other
emerging advanced materials. For example, if SMA bars are used in lieu of reinforcing steel bars,
permanent residual strains will be significantly reduced due to the superelastic behavior of SMA
bars. Similarly, if FRP rather than steel longitudinal bars are used, no reinforcement yielding is
expected because of the linear elastic behavior of FRP bars. Either modification may improve the
column damage level from “severe” to “moderate.” Another means to reduce the damage level to
“moderate” is by replacing the conventional concrete in the plastic hinge with high-performance
materials such as ECC or UHPC.
Damage can be further mitigated by simultaneous incorporation of advanced materials. For
example, the combination of reinforcing SMA or FRP bars with ECC or UHPC can limit the
damage to the cover material only, which is considered to be a “low” level of damage. When
steel reinforcement is used and concrete in the plastic hinge is confined by FRP or replaced
with rubber, the damage is limited to only yielding of steel reinforcement, which may also be

Characteristics of Novel Columns 9
No Damage: Several combinations of advanced materials:

No plastic hinge damage, no permanent bar yielding.
Low Damage: Several combinations of advanced

materials:
Only cover failure or only steel bar yielding.
Moderate Damage: Example: When SMA/FRP bars are

used:
Cover failure, concrete core failure.
Moderate Damage: Example: When ECC or UHPC is

used:
Cover failure, large steel bar inelastic strains.
Severe Damage: Conventional columns:

Cover failure, concrete core failure, large steel bar inelastic
strains, bar buckling or fracture.
Figure 5.1-1. Column plastic hinge damage under seismic loading.
considered to be “low.” When the plastic hinge of a novel column is composed entirely of high-
performance, low-damage materials (e.g., FRP jackets or rubber with SMA or FRP bars), seismic
damage can be essentially eliminated, which is categorized as the “no-damage” level (the top
layer in the pyramid in Fig. 5.1-1).
5.2 Displacement Capacity

Conventional bridges are designed to exhibit substantial nonlinear deformations in plastic
hinge zones, and this leads to large lateral displacements. Displacement ductility is considered to
be a common measure of deformability of the bridge. The AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD
Seismic Bridge Design (AASHTO SGS) (2011) require that the displacement ductility demand (µD)
under the design seismic load should not exceed 5 for single-column bents and 6 for multi-
column bents. The calculated minimum column displacement ductility capacity (µc) specified
by Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) (2013) is 3. To categorize displacement capacity of a
novel column, 3 levels of displacement ductility were considered based on the current codes and
practice as shown in Fig. 5.2-1: “low,” “normal,” and “high.” Displacement ductility capacity of
3 or less is categorized as “low,” 3 to 5 is considered to be “normal” (expected of a conventional
RC column meeting current seismic codes), and more than 5 is considered to be “high.”
Displacement ductility is not necessarily a suitable measure to evaluate deformation capacity
of novel columns since the effective “yield” displacement in many novel columns may be much
higher than conventional columns, or there may be no true yielding behavior in a novel column
(e.g., columns reinforced with FRP bars). For the same displacement capacity (the numerator),
the larger yield displacement (the denominator) leads to a smaller calculated displacement
ductility. In the case where no yielding occurs, displacement ductility becomes a meaningless
quantity. A more universal measure of the deformation capacity of novel columns is the drift ratio
capacity, which is the ratio of the column lateral displacement at failure to the column height.
Because current bridge seismic codes, such as the AASHTO SGS, utilize displacement ductility
rather than the drift capacity in design, it is important to determine the relationship between
ductility and drift ratio so that displacement ductilities in current codes can be translated to drift

High Displacement Capacity: Example: When high

performance materials such as SMA bars, debonded steel
bars, ECC, FRP jackets, or rubber pads are used:
µ c ≥ 5.
Normal Displacement Capacity: Typical conventional

columns:
3 ≤ µ c < 5.
Low Displacement Capacity: When linear-elastic

materials are used as reinforcement:
µ c < 3.
Figure 5.2-1. Calculated column displacement capacity under seismic loading.
and drift ratio for these columns. Details of the study and the results are included in Appendix H.
A total of 696 conventional RC columns were designed based on the AASHTO SGS (2011) using
pushover analyses (including the P-D effect).
It was found that the column aspect ratio is the major factor that affects the relationship
between the drift ratio and the displacement ductility. The results showed that a linear relation-
ship exists between drift and ductility for each aspect ratio. Fig. 5.2-2 shows a summary of the
parametric study. Equations were developed to relate drift ratio and ductility. The equations are
listed in Table 5.2-1 (also see Section 9.2: Design Procedure Requirements). Linear interpolation
is allowed for other aspect ratios. The proposed equations were developed so that the equivalent
drift ratio of conventional columns may be used in novel column design. As a result, these
equations were developed to represent the upper bound of the data from the parametric studies.
The threshold was set so that the drift capacity from the equations exceeds the average data by
at least 15% with a probability of 95%. In other words, a novel column has to exhibit larger drift
capacity than a conventional column to be considered equally ductile. This was done to inclusively
cover a wide range of RC columns with different parameters.
10
9
Practical
8 Range
7
Drift Ratio (%)
6 Proposed relaonships
n
are the upper bound
u
5
4
3
2 Aspect Ratio = 4
Aspect Ratio = 6
1
Aspect Ratio = 8
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Figure 5.2-2. Drift-ductility relationships

for conventional RC columns.

Characteristics of Novel Columns 11
Table 5.2-1. Proposed relationships between

drift and ductility for RC columns.
Parameters Proposed Equaon
Column Aspect Ratio 4 δ = 0.8µ – 0.40

Note: “δ” is the drift ratio (%), “µ” is the displacement ductility, and
“A r = L/D ” is the column aspect ratio.
Use linear interpolation for other aspect ratios.
5.3 Residual Displacements

Excessive lateral residual displacements after a severe earthquake can result in delays in
reopening the bridge to traffic or even the need to replace the bridge. Currently, there is no limit
on the residual displacement in the U.S. bridge design codes, but FEMA P-58 (2012) proposed
four damage states associated with the residual drift to be used as a tool for seismic assessment of
buildings. One percent residual drift was considered as damage state of 3 (DS3) in which a major
structural realignment is needed to restore the building. A simple method was also proposed to
estimate the residual drift based on the peak story drift. Japan’s Design Specifications for Highway
Bridges (Japan Road Association, 2002) limits the bridge column residual drift ratio to 1% to
keep the bridge in service after earthquakes.
Three levels were considered in the present guideline for residual drifts (Fig. 5.3-1): “low,”
“moderate,” and “high.” A 1% residual drift ratio (shown as dr) or less for a bridge column at
the design level earthquake is categorized as “low.” This limit is expected from novel columns
utilizing superelastic reinforcing SMA bars or rocking connections since residual strain in SMA
bars under cyclic loading is minimal and prestressing tendons bring the column back to its original
position. The maximum residual drift that could be potentially recovered subsequent to an
earthquake is expected to be 1.5%. This limit depends highly on the specific bridge and is based
on engineering judgment rather than scientific studies. However, a study by Ardakani and Saiidi
(2013) determined that the majority of bridge columns meeting current standards are safe even
with a residual drift ratio of 1.5%. Therefore, a “moderate” level of residual drift is assumed to be
Low Residual Displacement: Example: When SMA

bars, FRP bars, or post-tensioning tendons are used:
Lower or negligible residual displacement compared to
conventional columns is expected
δ r ≤ 1.0%
Moderate Residual Displacement: Example: When FRP

jacket or hybrid rocking are used:
Residual displacement may not be significant and may be
mitigated
1.0% < δ r ≤ 1.5%.
High Residual Displacement: Conventional columns:

Residual displacement is significant due to extensive
yielding of steel bars
δ r > 1.5%.
Figure 5.3-1. Column residual displacement under seismic loading.

between 1.0% to 1.5%. A residual drift exceeding 1.5% may lead to bridge closure and replace-
ment after a severe earthquake and must be treated as “high.” Conventional columns are usually
susceptible to high residual drifts even for design level earthquakes when they are near an active
fault. Near-fault earthquakes are known to lead to high residual displacements due to the high
velocity pulse (Choi et al., 2010).
Nonlinear response history analysis is the most appropriate method for the estimation of
residual displacements. However, simple methods may be used to estimate the residual displace-
ment (or drift) for conventional columns such as the equations developed by Ardakani and
Saiidi (2013) as follows:
δ r = βδ y (5.3-1)
where δr is the residual drift ratio, δy is the yield drift ratio, and
0.04 ( µ D ) + 0.14µ D µ D > 1.0

2
β= (5.3-2)
0 µ D ≤ 1.0
where µD is the displacement ductility demand. Simple equations for estimating residual dis-
placements for the three select novel columns are presented in the guidelines for each column.
Equations for other column concepts have yet to be developed.

SECTION 6
Non-seismic and Seismic

Design Considerations
Many parameters need to be considered for each novel column before field deployment.
These parameters can be categorized as (1) seismic performance, (2) design considerations, and
(3) construction and other considerations. Parameters pertaining to the seismic performance
were presented in the previous section. The design considerations including non-seismic and
seismic issues are discussed herein followed by description of construction considerations.
6.1 Non-seismic Design Considerations

The estimation, analysis, and design of novel columns for non-seismic loads should be based
on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO LRFD) (2014). Only for preliminary
design under the load combination of “Extreme Event I,” the AASHTO response modification
factors (AASHTO LRFD, Table 3.10.7.1-1) may be used to reasonably size the columns and their
adjoining members. All of the applicable strength and service limit states need to be investigated.
For the purposes of non-seismic design, high performance materials such as SMA reinforcing
bars can be treated as conventional materials, and the design methodologies for them contained
in the specifications applied. When existing ASTM standards or AASHTO specifications do not
sufficiently address testing of a particular novel material, new testing methods are required to
ensure that the novel material satisfies the design assumptions.
For those novel column concepts that introduce significant flexibility when compared to
conventional design, extra attention should be paid to displacements under service loading.
Bridges incorporating these columns may exhibit displacements under wind and braking loads
well in excess of past designs, and the engineer will need to confirm that this will not negatively
impact the serviceability or service life of the bridge.
6.2 Seismic Design Considerations

The design of novel columns for seismic events follows the procedures described in the
AASHTO SGS. An analysis is performed to determine the displacement demand: The displace-
ment capacity of a bridge with novel columns needs to be determined based on the structural
arrangement of the column and the materials used. Maximum and minimum limits on how
much displacement ductility, or in the case of novel columns, drift ratio, is required and provided
in the column design.
There are two general seismic design methodologies: force-based and displacement-based.
Forces are the target in the force-based design method (e.g., AASHTO LRFD). In this method,
ultimate axial, shear, and flexural capacities are calculated and are compared with corresponding
factored force demands under different load combinations using response modification factors.
13

Linear-elastic analysis is usually conducted to calculate the demand in the force-based design
method.
In the displacement-based design, the displacement is the target (e.g., AASHTO SGS). In this
method, the displacement demands are calculated from a suitable analysis, and capacity can be
calculated using nonlinear moment-curvature or pushover analysis. The ultimate force capacities
can also be accurately estimated in this method as a secondary check.
The displacement-based method is a better approach for novel columns since they may exhibit
completely different behavior and capacities compared to conventional columns. For example,
SMA-reinforced columns may exhibit displacement capacities as high as twice the capacity of
the corresponding steel-reinforced columns. Furthermore, the amount of available test data for
novel columns is not yet sufficient to reliably establish the response modification factor that is
needed in the force-based method. Therefore, the use of “force-based design” methods such as
those presented in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) shall be
avoided for novel columns.

SECTION 7
Construction and
Maintenance Considerations
In addition to the seismic performance and design considerations, many other parameters
may affect an owner’s decision in selecting a novel column for field deployment. These param-
eters include: (1) initial cost, (2) material limitations, (3) ease of construction, (4) inspectability,
(5) maintenance, (6) post-earthquake repair, and (7) system performance.
Because novel columns may incorporate materials not commonly used in bridge construction,
estimating costs will require additional effort to obtain accurate unit cost values. As the volume
of a specific material used in construction increases, the costs will decrease, and this needs to be
kept in mind when making programmatic decisions.
In addition to cost, each material has its own limitations, which must be taken into consider-
ation for different bridge sites. One example is that FRP jacket should not be used in salt water
since the resin in FRP, as well as glue between the FRP and concrete, may dissolve. Each novel
column must be sufficiently easy to construct with a minimum of components that might require
extra construction steps (e.g., mechanical bar couplers, post-tensioning, and rubber pads). Based
on the material limitations, some novel columns may require regular inspection to ensure func-
tionality of the columns during earthquakes. For example, FRP jackets require UV protection as
well as a fire resistant coating. These coatings need to be regularly inspected. For post-tensioned
columns, the prestressing system needs to be detailed to limit corrosion potential. Viewing ports
to allow for inspection may be incorporated in post-tensioned columns. Rocking connections
built with unbonded post-tensioning steel tendons must be detailed to be waterproof. After
identifying any issues in the routine inspection, the affected components must be maintained
to ensure adequate performance. For instance, coatings used for exposed steel and FRP must be
renewed based on the manufacturer’s suggested schedule. Advanced materials usually exhibit
better durability and life span compared to conventional materials.
The need for post-earthquake repair can be directly related to the plastic hinge damage.
Furthermore, the seismic performance levels suggested in the present guideline for novel columns
are to ensure minimal plastic hinge damage and thus minimal need for post-earthquake repairs.
Nevertheless, based on the selected performance level, the repair costs will vary across the various
types of novel columns. Finally, the seismic performance of novel columns may affect design
and construction of other bridge components (system performance). For example, if rubber
pads and reinforcing SMA bars are used in column plastic hinges, the overall bridge lateral dis-
placement demand may be increased because of the relatively small stiffness of these columns.
Therefore, larger movement is anticipated that may require greater support length than that of
conventional bridges.
15

SECTION 8
Evaluation and Selection Criteria
Figure 8-1 illustrates a flowchart for comprehensive evaluation of existing or emerging novel
columns. A quantitative evaluation technique developed to compare different alternatives to
facilitate the decision-making process in choosing among novel column concepts is presented
in Table 8-1. Three categories are individually evaluated and rated: (1) seismic performance,
(2) design considerations, and (3) construction and other considerations. The seismic perfor-
mance evaluation includes (1) plastic hinge damage, (2) displacement capacity, and (3) residual
displacement. The design consideration evaluation includes (1) proof testing, (2) analysis tools,
(3) design guideline, and (4) prior field applications. The construction consideration is evaluated
based on (1) initial cost, (2) material limitation, (3) constructability, (4) inspectability, (5) main-
tenance, (6) post-earthquake repair need, and (7) system performance.
It is expected that a novel column will ultimately be selected by the bridge owner based on
the seismic performance. Novel column concepts are expected to emerge using novel materials
and/or innovative connections or could be selected from the novel column inventory identified
in the present project (Appendix D). In either case, the selected column is expected to address
the owner’s needs with respect to the seismic performance, but its suitability will be evaluated
through the guidelines in this document, which include design and construction considerations
in addition to the seismic performance. The proposed quantitative evaluation method is intended
to guide the designer or developer. It is suggested that the evaluation results be condensed into
a simple, star-based rating system to be easily understood by the owner who might have limited
knowledge of design requirements for novel columns. The star-based rating system has been
widely used in marketing, traveling, health care, and entertainment businesses to demonstrate
quickly the relative merit of different alternatives. This rating method was also utilized by the
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) to communicate infor-
mation about seismic risk of buildings to the general public (SEAONC Existing Buildings
Committee, 2011).
A score between 0.0 to 1.0 at increments of 0.25 can be assigned to each parameter with
unity (maximum possible score) indicating full readiness, desired performance, and substantial
improvement compared to conventional columns. Table 8-1 includes general conditions that
lead to quantification of each parameter.
The damage level can be accurately estimated after the column has been designed based on
the seismic demands. If none of the plastic hinge materials exceeds its strength under the design
earthquake, the damage is categorized as “no-damage” and a score of 1.0 can be assigned to the
column. A score of 0.75, 0.25 and 0.0 can be given to a column with low-damage, moderate,
and severe-damage level, respectively. The displacement capacity and the residual displacement
of a novel column under the design earthquake can be accurately evaluated after the design is
completed according to the limitations shown in the table.
16

Evaluation and Selection Criteria 17
Goal: Minimize Bridge Column Seismic

Damage and Enhance Serviceability Performance
after Earthquakes
Plastic Hinge Displacement Residual

Damage Capacity Displacement
Plastic Hinge Damage:

• Severe
Try a Novel Column
• Moderate
• Low
• None
Displacement Capacity:
• Low Disp. Capacity Design Construction and
• Normal Disp. Capacity Considerations other Considerations
• High Disp. Capacity
Residual Displacement:
• High Residual Displacement Evaluate/Rate
• Moderate Residual Displacement
• Low Residual Displacement
Design Considerations:
• Proof Tests Owner No
• Analysis Tool Availability Approval
• Design Guideline Availability
• Past Field Application “Owner” is the bridge owner who can be a
federal or state/county/city agency, a private
Construction and other Yes company, or an individual
Considerations:
Evaluate/Rate:
• Initial Cost
• Quantitative Evaluation by Designer/Developer
• Material Limitations
Select the Novel • Star-Based Rating for Owner
• Ease of Construction
• Inspectability Column
• Maintenance
• Post-Earthquake Repair Need
• System Performance
Figure 8-1. Evaluation of novel columns.
A score of 1.0 is given to the “Proof Test” parameter if the concept has been experimentally
evaluated with sufficient test data. “Analysis Tools” are given a score of 1.0 if existing modeling
methods can estimate the overall behavior with reasonable accuracy. If there is neither proof test
nor published analytical studies of the concept, no design guidelines are expected to be available
for the concept. In this case, the highest penalty can be assigned to “Guideline Readiness” parameter.
If there are past field applications of the concept or any are anticipated in the subsequent three
years, the “Field Application” parameter can be a score of unity.
A score of 1.0 can be given to “Initial Cost” when the initial cost is comparable to the conven-
tional RC column cost. This can be accurately calculated after the design, and the ratio of RC
column cost to novel column cost will be the score, but not to exceed unity. Material limitations
may completely prevent application of a novel column in a certain climate or site conditions.
For example, rubber shows brittle behavior in cold weather, thus it should not be used in a
novel column located in cold region. The long-term performance of novel materials is another
important consideration in evaluation of novel columns. Sufficient data should be available to
demonstrate that the material can withstand the field environmental effects that are normally
expected without any adverse effect on serviceability and performance of the bridge. Construc-
tability is evaluated considering the ease of construction and the need for skilled labor. Some
of the advanced materials or novel connections require more extensive field quality control

Table 8-1. General quantification of novel column evaluation parameters.

(a)
Parameter Quantification (deduction form unity unless stated otherwise) Weight
Seismic Performance
Based on demands of column materials and engineering judgment comment on the
score as:
Plastic Hinge 1.0 for no-damage (Figure 5.1-1).
1.0
Damage 0.75 for low damage (Figure 5.1-1).
0.25 for moderate damage (Figure 5.1-1).
0.0 for severe damage (Figure 5.1-1).
1.0 for high displacement capacity: µc 5.
Displacement
0.5 for normal displacement capacity: 3 ≤ µc 5. 1.0
Capacity
0.0 for low displacement capacity: µc 3.
1.0 for low residual displacement: δr 1.0%.
Residual
0.5 for moderate residual displacement: 1.0% δr 1.5%. 1.0
Displacement
0.0 for high residual displacement: δr 1.5%.
Design Considerations
1.0 when laboratory test data is available.
Proof Test 1.0
0.0 when there is no test data.
1.0 when material models and all analysis tools are available for accurate estimation of
demands and capacities.
Analysis Tools 0.75
Penalize by a factor of 0.25 when more information is needed for accurate estimation of
demands and capacities (e.g., UHPC steel-confined properties are unknown).
1.0 when sufficient number of test data leading to development of design guideline, or a
design guideline is available.
Guidelines
Penalize for other conditions as: 0.25
Readiness
0.25 when the concept was tested, but there are no guidelines.
0.50 when there is no concept test and there are no guidelines.
Field 1.0 when novel system has been used in actual bridges,
0.25
Application 0.0 when there is no field application.
Construction and other Considerations
Estimate the cost, then the ratio of the RC column cost to the novel column cost will be
Initial Cost 0.25
the score, but not to exceed 1.
Material A novel column cannot be used in an environment where its constituents have significant Pass/
(b)
Limitation limitations in that environment (e.g., rubber in cold weather). Fail
1.0 when construction of a novel column is similar to conventional column construction.
Constructability Penalize by a factor of 0.25 when construction of a novel column is tedious, requires 1.0
skilled labor, and needs special tools (e.g., post-tensioning or coupler installation).
1.0 when inspection of a novel column is similar to conventional column inspection.
Inspectability Penalize by a factor of 0.25 when a novel column constituents require special inspection 0.75
program or tighter schedule (e.g., corrosion of steel tendons).
1.0 when maintenance of a novel column is similar to conventional column maintenance.
Maintenance Penalize by a factor of 0.25 when novel column constituents require special maintenance 0.75
program (e.g., providing UV protection for exposed FRP).
1.0 when overall performance of a novel bridge is similar to the conventional bridge
performance.
System
Penalize by a factor of 0.25 when novel column constituents impose extra design 1.0
Performance
considerations on other bridge elements (e.g., increase in seat width when rubber
pad is used).
(a)
Note: Deductions are additive for each parameter. Post-earthquake repair is needed when column is built with materials
susceptible to damage. This parameter is implicit in the plastic hinge damage. µc is the displacement ductility capacity and
δr is the residual drift ratio.
(b)
The evaluation process shall be stopped and the column shall be prohibited for field application if the bridge column
incorporates a material that does not meet the minimum requirements due to the bridge site environment.

Evaluation and Selection Criteria 19
measures than conventional columns to ensure their functionality during earthquakes. A novel
column may incorporate a material or mechanism that affects inspectability by limiting access
to the column components. Alternative inspection procedures would be needed in such cases.
Maintenance need is evaluated based on the need of constituent materials for inspection and
repair. Concepts with less maintenance requirement earn the highest score. Post-earthquake
repair is implicit in the plastic hinge damage and is eliminated in the evaluation process to avoid
double counting. System performance may be important when stiffness of the novel column is
lower than conventional column stiffness, resulting in larger displacement demands.
The rightmost column in the table is the weight of the parameters for overall evaluation.
These weights are suggested values and could be changed according to the owner’s preference.
For example, the cost of a novel column may be as important as the seismic performance for an
owner, thus the cost weight may be increased to 1.0. Appendix E demonstrates the use of the
proposed quantitative guidelines for 39 novel columns as well as conventional RC columns.

SECTION 9
Analysis and Design

Procedure Development
Analysis and design of novel columns is based on the provisions of the AASHTO SGS.
Force-based design procedures such as those presented in AASHTO LRFD should not be used
for the design of novel columns since these methods are not intended for advanced materials:
the seismic force modification factors (R-factors) and the overstrength factors are currently
unknown for columns with advanced materials. The same forms of analysis that are used for
conventional columns also apply to novel columns. Adjustments are required to account for the
different behaviors of novel columns, and the calculation of capacities will vary depending on
the specific novel column design utilized.
9.1 Analysis Procedure Requirements

Analysis procedures provided in AASHTO SGS (Section 4) can be used for bridges incorpo-
rating novel columns. Equivalent static, response spectrum, and time history analyses can be
used. The stiffness of the column used in the analysis should account for the expected behavior
of the column. An effective moment of inertia, which accounts for cracking in the concrete,
should be used in the analysis. This does not account for the yielding and/or inelastic behavior,
but rather the reduction in stiffness of the concrete prior to the yield point in the reinforcing.
The stiffness of novel columns may be lower than that of conventional columns. In this case, the
effect of P-D is significant. Therefore, more stringent limitations should be used to avoid column
geometric failure (excessive strength degradation at low displacements).
Because of differences in the behavior of novel columns, it may be necessary to adjust the level
of damping assumed in the analysis. Bridges with conventional columns are typically assumed to
have a damping level of 5%, to which the response spectra used in seismic analysis are calibrated.
For columns that dissipate less energy through yielding and plastic material behavior, such as
those including SMA reinforcing bars or other self-centering mechanisms, a reduction in the
assumed damping level is needed. This can be accomplished by either adjusting the design-level
response spectrum prior to analysis or by modifying the resulting displacements after the analysis
is conducted. The following equation may be used in the latter approach:
0.4
 0.05 
RD =  (9.1-1)
 ξ 
where RD is the displacement modification factor and x is the target damping level in decimal
format.
The remaining aspects of the analysis proceed as for conventional bridges.
20

Analysis and Design Procedure Development 21
9.2 Design Procedure Requirements

The application of capacity design principles for novel columns is the same as that for con-
ventional columns. Once the displacement demands have been determined through an analysis,
the column displacement capacity must be checked, as well as minimum and maximum drift
limits. Shear demands are determined and checked against shear capacity. Axial demands and
capacities are then also checked. Residual drift is checked, although this is more of a “deemed to
satisfy” check unless a nonlinear time-history analysis has been conducted, as simplified estimates
of residual drifts suitable for use with equivalent static or response spectra analysis are not available
for most novel columns.
The displacement capacity of a novel column equipped bridge can be determined by the
moment-curvature method or using pushover analysis. In either method, the ultimate curvature
will depend on the specifics of the novel column design and the limiting strains in the reinforcing,
prestressing, concrete, and other constitutive materials. Determination of the plastic hinge length
in a novel column may be significantly different than in a conventional column and will depend
on the specifics of the column design. In place of a minimum displacement ductility, novel
columns should satisfy a minimum drift ratio to ensure adequate capacity even if the calculated
demands are small. The conversion of displacement ductility to drift ratio is provided by the
equation:
δ = 0.26 ( Ar )0.81 µ − 0.18 ( Ar )0.57 (9.2-1)
where Ar is the aspect ratio of the column defined as the ratio of the column length, L, to the
column diameter, D, as shown in Fig. 9.2-1, µ is the displacement ductility, and δ is the drift
D
L
(a) Single-Column Bents (b) Multi-Column Bents with Fixed Ends
D
L
Pinned
Joint
(c) Multi-Column Bents with One-End-Pinned Joints
Figure 9.2-1. Aspect ratio definition [D is the diameter of the column

(or the largest side dimension) and L is the column height from point
of maximum moment to the point of contraflexure].

Mu
Mu Actual Actual
Mp Mp
My
My
Idealized
Moment
Moment
Idealized
ØYi ØYi
Øy Øu Øy Øu
Curvature Curvature
(a) Conventional RC Sections (b) A Novel Column Section
Figure 9.2-2. Typical moment-curvature relationships (Mu is failure

moment, Mp is plastic moment, My is yield moment, £Y is yield
curvature, £Yi is idealized yield curvature, £u is ultimate curvature).
ratio in percent. This equation relates displacement ductility to drift ratio in conventional RC
columns. It is intended to help compare the drift ratio of a novel column to that of an equivalent
RC column and estimate the displacement ductility of the RC column used in current code design
equations.
The estimation of novel column design forces is the same as that for conventional columns.
However, for shear design of novel columns, the design shear is based on the smaller of an
amplified plastic moment (e.g., lmo Mp where lmo is the overstrength factor for novel columns
in a rage of 1.2 to 1.44 and Mp is the plastic moment) calculated for the plastic hinge and
the moment demand at the design level earthquake. This is because novel columns may have
moment-curvature (or force-displacement) relationships that significantly deviate from the
idealized elasto-plastic curves (Fig. 9.2-2), thus the conventional column overstrength factor
may not be sufficient.

SECTION 10
Conclusions
With the new paradigm of requiring infrastructure to be resilient to serve the public effectively,
new novel bridge columns utilizing unconventional construction material are likely to emerge.
The proposed AASHTO guidelines identified 14 parameters to consider in assessing any novel
column. These parameters encompass structural seismic performance, damage tolerance, seis-
mic design tools, construction, cost, maintenance, and post-earthquake repair, among others.
Qualitative metrics to assess these parameters were provided. A flowchart integrating all the
parameters was developed and was found to be an effective tool to help determine the suitability
of a given novel column. It was found that the analysis procedure in the AASHTO SGS could
generally be used for novel columns with adjustments to address the particular characteristics of
various novel columns. The work leading to the guidelines also concluded that drift ratio rather
than displacement ductility is an appropriate measure of deformability of novel columns.
The guidelines would potentially form the basis for AASHTO guidelines on the design of
resilient novel columns.
23

References
AASHTO. (2014). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State
Ardakani, S. M. S., and Saiidi, M. S. (2013). Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns for Near-Fault
Earthquakes. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-13, 393 pp.
Caltrans. (2013). Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), version 1.7. Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Transportation.
Choi, H., Saiidi, M. S., Somerville, P., and El-Azazy, S. (2010). An Experimental Study of RC Bridge Columns
Subjected to Near-Fault Ground Motions. American Concrete Institute, ACI Structural Journal 107 (1): 3–12.
FEMA P-58. (2012). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: FHWA.
Japan Road Association. (2002). Tokyo, Japan: Design Specifications for Highway Bridges.
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee. (2011). SEAONC Rating System for the Expected Earthquake Perfor-
mance of Buildings. Proceedings of Annual Convention of the Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC 2011), 11 pp.
24

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

NCHRP864Main PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NCHRP864Main PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24985 SHARE

Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating

108 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

RESEARCH REPORT 864

Volume 1: Research Overview

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2017 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

* Membership as of October 2017.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 864

Volume 1: Research Overview

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 864, VOLUME 1

Published research reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 864, VOLUME 1

NCHRP PROJECT 12-101 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

• Appendix A: Literature Review

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

5 Chapter 2 Guidelines for Evaluation of Novel Columns

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

20 3.1.6 Details for SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

39 3.2.6.3 Splicing of SMA Reinforcement

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

58 3.3.7.3 Construction Tolerance

60 Chapter 4 Summary and Conclusions

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.1 Problem Statement

1.2 Research Objectives

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.3 Document Organization

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Guidelines for Evaluation

A conventional reinforced concrete (RC) bridge column is generally designed to dissipate

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Guidelines for Seismic Design

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

3.1 Proposed Seismic Design and Construction

3.1.2 Application of SMA-Reinforced ECC Columns

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.1.3.1-1. Superelastic SMA bar

Table 3.1.3.1-1. Minimum and expected tensile NiTi superelastic SMA

Parameter Minimum(a) Expected(b)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.1.3.2-1. ECC stress-strain model.

′ ( −1.25 + 2 1 + 10.5 f l′ f ECC

′ is the compressive strength of the unconfined ECC and f ′l is

f l′= 2 Asp f yh ( sD ′ ) (3.1.3.2-2)

3.1 Proposed Seismic Design and Construction