Quasi-Static Testing of Posttensioned Nonemulative

Column-Footing Connections for Bridge Piers

Samuel White1 and Alessandro Palermo, M.ASCE2

Abstract: Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) is gaining popularity because it offers a number of advantages over conventional methods
of construction. Prefabrication of bridge components for rapid on-site assembly is a highly effective ABC approach. Bridge substructures are
traditionally cast in place with columns that form plastic hinges during earthquake events. Recent studies have explored new precast column-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

footing connections that either emulate the seismic performance of monolithic construction (emulative) or show improved seismic perform-
ance with the use of rocking connections (nonemulative). This paper presents findings from half-scale experimental testing of one emulative
and two nonemulative precast column-footing connections. The two nonemulative connections were designed and detailed to sustain limited
damage that can be rapidly and cost-effectively repaired using predefined methodologies. The tested connections showed promising results for
use in regions of moderate to high seismicity; however, further developments of the proposed construction and repair methodologies are
required for their full potential to be realized. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000872. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Precast; Concrete; Column; Footing; Nonemulative; Posttensioned.

Introduction Palermo et al. 2007). A combination of energy dissipation and

Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) is gaining popularity
because it offers a number of advantages over conventional
methods of construction. ABC is intended to reduce construction
time, disruptions to public transportation, and overall costs of
bridge construction, and improve quality, durability, and work-
zone safety, among other factors (Culmo 2011; Kapur et al.
2012). Prefabrication of bridge components for rapid on-site as-
sembly is a highly effective ABC approach and has been used for
a number of decades in the construction of bridge superstruc-
tures. Prefabricated bridge substructures are growing in popularity
but are mainly used in regions of low seismicity (Billington et al.
1999). The use of precast substructures in regions of moderate to
high seismicity has been limited, in part because of the lack of
widely accepted, well-developed, and proven precast connection
details and design specifications (Kapur et al. 2012; Restrepo et al.
2011; Stanton et al. 1992).
In the development of precast substructure systems for seismic
regions, much focus has been placed on developing robust precast
column-footing connections that emulate the performance of mono-
lithic cast-in-place (CIP) construction (Marsh et al. 2011).
More recent research has explored the use of nonemulative col-
umn-footing connections that use controlled rocking between pre-
cast elements at the connection interface to improve seismic per-
formance (Hieber et al. 2005; Marriott 2009; Palermo 2004;
recentering components forms a connection that dissipates suffi-
cient energy while sustaining little damage or residual deformation.
This paper presents findings from experimental testing of one
emulative precast column-footing connection that is used as a
benchmark and two nonemulative precast column-footing connec-
tions. Socket connections, in which the precast column is embedded
into the footing, were used for the emulative and one of the nonemu-
lative test models. The third test model used replaceable energy dis-
sipaters with threaded bar couplers to connect the column to the
footing. Each test model was constructed at half scale and was sub-
jected to biaxial quasi-static cyclic loading.
The nonemulative connections were designed with a con-
trolled damage philosophy allowing for rapid post-earthquake
repair using predetermined repair methodologies. Connection
damage was not necessarily avoided completely, but was local-
ized and constrained for easy access and rapid repair that would
minimize structure downtime, while not requiring extensive con-
nection confinement or external dissipation devices, which increase
initial construction costs (Marriott 2009; Marriott et al. 2009). The
proposed repair methodologies are aimed at being straightforward
and cost-effective and are intended for rapid implementation fol-
lowing seismic events. Such methodologies would avoid the need
for potentially costly and time-consuming post-earthquake struc-
tural investigation and assessment processes (Lehman et al. 2001;
Palermo et al. 2011).

1
Bridge Engineer, Opus International Consultants, 100 Beaumont St.,
Auckland 1010, New Zealand (corresponding author). E-mail: sam
.white@opus.co.nz
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Natural Resources
Engineering, College of Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, 20 Kirkwood
Ave., Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand. E-mail:
alessandro.palermo@canterbury.ac.nz
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 2, 2015; approved on
October 5, 2015; published online on February 3, 2016. Discussion period
open until July 3, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, ©
ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
Categories of Precast Column-Footing Connections
Columns with emulative precast connections behave in a similar
manner as traditional monolithic CIP columns that are designed to
form plastic hinges in seismic events, undergoing inelastic flexural
deformation to dissipate seismic energy.
Numerous emulative connections that are potentially suitable
for column-footing connections were summarized by Marsh et al.
(2011). These include grouted (Brenes et al. 2006; Steuck et al.
2007), socket (Haraldsson et al. 2013; Osanai et al. 1996), and
coupled connections (Ameli et al. 2013; Haber et al. 2014).

© ASCE 04016025-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025

 Experimental testing has shown these connection types to be effec- Moment
MPT + MN
tive at emulating the seismic behavior of CIP connections. MTOTAL =
Moment
Although the formation of plastic hinges in column elements in MPT + MN + ME

large seismic events aligns with the life-safety performance objec-

Rotation
tive of avoiding collapse, significant damage to the plastic hinge
region of the column elements may occur, including major spalling
of concrete, crushing of core concrete, yielding of reinforcing bars,
and residual displacement of the structure (AASHTO 2015). In Hysteresis response for
extreme cases, buckling or fracture of the reinforcement may occur, recentering components Rotation

often requiring bridge replacement (Priestley et al. 1996). Moderate Moment

plastic hinge damage was encountered in a number of structures fol- ME
lowing the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 in Christchurch, New
Zealand. Assessment and development of repair methodologies for
Rotation
these structures took many months, during which time the function-
ality of the bridges was reduced, resulting in significant disruption
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to traffic and economic loss (Palermo et al. 2011). hysteresis response

Hysteresis response for
Nonemulative column-footing connections are designed to dissipating components
provide sufficient energy dissipation through controlled rocking
at specially detailed joints located at the column ends (Restrepo Fig. 1. Flag-shaped hysteresis response
et al. 2011). Improved seismic performance results from use of
such connections, with significantly reduced damage and post-
earthquake residual displacement resulting from avoidance of
the formation of plastic hinges (Priestley et al. 1999). This Transverse
leads to lower repair costs and improved post-earthquake func- seismic load East-West
Gravity load actuator
tionality of the bridge (Lee and Billington 2011; Marriott et al.
2009). North-South
Posttensioned bars or tendons are often used in ABC to Longitudinal actuator
seismic load
clamp segmental precast units together, allowing for rapid con-
struction (Billington et al. 1999; Ou et al. 2013) . Unbonded
5m Post-tensioning 2.5m
posttensioning can also improve the seismic performance of Post-tensioning load
precast columns, as explored by Hewes and Priestley (2002) load
and Sideris et al. (2010). These research projects investigated
segmental pier systems with posttensioned, nonemulative con-
nections to form a recentering column that sustains minimal
damage under seismic loading. No supplementary energy dissi-
(a) (b)
pation components were used, meaning large peak displace-
ments are expected during earthquake events. The use of post-
Fig. 2. (a) Prototype structure; (b) test model
tensioned bars or tendons in regions of moderate to high
seismicity is not limited to nonemulative piers. Ou et al. (2013)
proposed a pier system that used a CIP column base to form an
emulative column-footing connection with posttensioned precast (Christopoulos 2004; Marriott 2009). Advanced forms of energy
segments above the base to facilitate rapid column assembly. dissipation are explored by Motaref et al. (2014) and Tazarv (2014),
Energy dissipation in nonemulative posttensioned column-footing including carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRPs), engineered
connections can be improved through the addition of supplemental cementitious composites (ECCs), rotational elastomeric dampers,
energy dissipaters to form a hybrid or dissipative controlled rocking and shape memory alloys.
(DCR) connection; such connections were first developed for building The present research explores the development of nonemula-
structures (Priestley 1991; Priestley et al. 1999; Stanton et al. 1997) tive connections that use controlled rocking and aim for con-
and then extended to bridge structures (Hieber et al. 2005; Marriott trolled damage during seismic events. This approach uses con-
2009; Palermo 2004; Palermo et al. 2007). The combination of recen- ventional materials and is intended to provide solutions for
tering and dissipating components usually results in a flag-shaped hys- precast column-footing connections that can be constructed and
teresis response (Fig. 1). repaired in a rapid and cost-effective manner using predeter-
The main design parameter for the nonemulative connections is mined methodologies.
the recentering ratio (λ), which is defined as λ ¼ MPT þ MN =ME ,
where MPT is the contribution to connection strength provided by
the axial load attributable to prestressed tendons or bars; MN is the Prototype Structure
contribution provided by the axial load attributable to gravity loads;
and ME is the contribution of the energy dissipation components. A prototype structure was developed with geometry, axial load,
When using steel yielding dissipaters with elastoplastic behavior, a and reinforcement ratio selected to be representative of a typical
recentering ratio exceeding 1.15–1.25 will generally satisfy the reinforced concrete highway bridge structure in a region of
requirements for full recentering (Palermo et al. 2007). moderate to high seismicity (Fig. 2). For the purposes of this
Energy dissipation in DCR or hybrid connections can be pro- investigation, only the pier of the prototype structure, which
vided through a number of mechanisms, including hysteretic consists of a single column acting in single curvature, was con-
(Marriott 2009), friction (Kurama 2004), and viscous damping sidered. The axial load in the pier column of the prototype

© ASCE 04016025-2 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025

 structure was 1,800 kN, with a base shear that varied between
connection types of 560–860 kN per column, giving a seismic
acceleration coefficient of 0.31–0.48. A section depth of 1 m
and height from the base of the column to the center of mass
of the superstructure of 5 m was used, giving an aspect ratio of
5. Half-scale models of the column-footing joint of the structure
were used for experimental testing (Fig. 2).
Test Models
Three half-scale test models (SC-E, SC-N, CC-N) were con-
structed and tested with different column-footing connection
details, as summarized in Fig. 3 and Table 1. The nonemulative
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
500 mm and was supported by a precast concrete footing with
dimensions of 2.1  2.1  0.5 m.
Emulative Socket Connection (SC-E)
The emulative socket connection (Fig. 3) was formed by embedding
a precast column into a socket that was formed in a precast footing
(Marsh et al. 2011). Both the inside of the void and base of the col-
umn were roughened during precasting to improve the bond. After
placement of the column, grout was poured to close the gap between
the two precast elements.
Similar socket connection types have been investigated by
Nelson et al. (2008), Motaref et al. (2011), and Haraldsson et al.

connections were repaired following initial testing and retested (2013). Socket connections have also been used in actual construc-
(SC-N* and CC-N*). Each test model had a section depth of tion (Khaleghi et al. 2012).

500 Longitudinal Longitudinal

reinforcement Armoured precast
reinforcement core
Lateral
force Transverse Threaded
reinforcement anchorage CIP grout
for repair Replaceable
Transverse dissipaters
reinforcement
Unbonded
All dims.
Axial force

Unbonded post-tensioned
in mm post-tensioned bar
bar
2700

Plastic hinge Armoring

2500

Armoring Couplers

Naturally formed Replaceable

Bonded rocking interface dissipaters
longitudinal
reinforcement CIP grout

Dissipating Non-yielding
Socket longitudinal reinforcement
connection reinforcement -
500

debonded at Rocking interface

joint

2100
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 3. Summary of test models: (a) test model dimensions; (b) emulative socket connection (SC-E); (c) nonemulative socket connection (SC-N); (d)
nonemulative coupled connection (CC-N)

Table 1. Test Model Design Parameters

Design parameter SC-E SC-N SC-N* CC-N CC-N*

Connection category Socket Socket Coupled
Seismic behavior Emulative Nonemulative Nonemulative
Cross-sectional shape Circular Circular Square
Posttensioned No Yes Yes
Design drift ratio (%) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Yield drift ratio (%) 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.80
Design displacement ductility 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.8
Axial load (kN) 450 900 1,100
Axial load ratio (%) 5.1 8.3 8.8
Dissipating steel grade (MPa) 500 300 300
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio (%) 1.7 1.3 0.8 1.6
Transverse reinforcement ratio (%) 0.60 1.6 1.6
Moment capacity (kN·m) 350 390 420 540
Dissipating contribution (kN·m) 290 150 180 300
Axial load contribution (kN·m) 60 240 240 240
Recentering ratio 0.21 1.6 1.3 0.80
Note: Axial load ratio = axial load/(gross cross-sectional area  measured concrete strength).

© ASCE 04016025-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025

 Mounting
collar
Saw-cut
Saw-cut 24mm dia.
through epoxy or chemically
bars grout anchored
threaded bars
External
dissipater
Threaded
anchorage
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. SC-N proposed and experimental repair methodologies: (a) proposed repair methodology; (b) experimental repair methodology; (c) mounting
collar
A 40-mm-diameter unbonded posttensioned bar was used in the
test model to apply an axial load of constant magnitude to the column,
simulating gravity load in the structure. Theposttensioned bar wasnot
intendedforuseinactualapplicationsofthisconnection.
In the emulative test (SC-E), the load on the posttensioned bar was
continually monitored using a load cell, and the hydraulic pressure
was manually regulated to maintain a constant axial load of 450 kN.
Nonemulative Socket Connection (SC-N)
SC-N featured a nonemulative posttensioned variant of the socket
connection to improve seismic performance (Fig. 3). A natural
rocking interface occurred as a result of the formation of a single
wide crack at the base of the column. The formation of a single
crack was encouraged by the addition of connection confinement at
the base of the column, which terminated above the rocking inter-
face and the debonding of the longitudinal bars at the rocking inter-
face over a length of 50 mm in the half-scale test column. Regular
reinforcement was used for energy dissipation, with no reduction in
bar diameter at the rocking interface, and thus strain penetration
was expected to occur. This means that inelastic deformation was
not limited to just the debonded length, but extended for some dis-
tance on either side of the debonded region. The columns were
designed with a recentering ratio of 1.6 for the SC-N test column
and 1.3 for the repaired SC-N* connection.
In an actual structure using posttensioned nonemulative connec-
tions, axial load resulting from both posttensioning forces and gravity
load would provide recentering capabilities to the connection. The
gravity load would remain approximately constant, whereas the post-
tensioning load would increase with column displacement as a result
of elongation of the posttensioned bar or tendon. Testing limitations
meant that the constant and increasing axial loads could not be sepa-
rated, and thus a posttensioned bar of 50 mm was used to represent
both the gravity and posttensioning loads in the nonemulative connec-
tions. The load in the bar was not regulated during testing and
increased with column displacement.
The initial posttensioning force in the bar was such that at the
design drift, the posttensioning load would approximately equal the
expected sum of the posttensioning and gravity loads, had the loads
been separated. The limitation of this approach is that the axial load
in the test model is underrepresented at drifts smaller than the
design drift and overrepresented at drifts larger than the design drift.
The difference between observed and expected axial load was esti-
mated to be up to 11% at the maximum column displacement,
© ASCE 04016025-4
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025
170
290 20
100
110
All dims. 80
in mm
(c)
which was expected to have increased the overall moment capacity
of the nonemulative connections by up to 6%.
This connection is similar to nonemulative socket connections
that are currently being investigated at the University of
Washington (Davis et al. 2012; Finnsson 2013; Schaefer 2013).
These projects investigate a number of methods for reducing con-
nection damage and maximizing recentering capabilities, with
promising results, but don’t directly address methods and effective-
ness of repair, which is a focus of the present research.
The test specimen was reused from a previous test, in which it
was tested to a 2% drift ratio with no supplementary connection
confinement. Moderate spalling occurred in the column. Damaged
concrete was removed and the column was repaired using structural
repair mortar. The column was then wrapped with fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) fabric over a height of 600 mm to target a confined
concrete compressive strength of 1.3 times the unconfined compres-
sive strength. Although yielding of the longitudinal bars occurred, it
was assumed that the residual strength and ductility of the bars had
not been significantly altered, and thus the damage was considered
to have no significant influence on the results of subsequent tests.
The FRP wrap provided connection confinement to the test
model. Alternative methods of connection confinement include
FRP tube (ElGawady et al. 2010; Nelson et al. 2008) or steel pipe
(Restrepo et al. 2011).
The proposed repair methodology for this connection is illustrated
in Fig. 4. A saw cut was made at the base of the column to intention-
ally sever the existing damaged reinforcement. The saw cut was filled
with grout or epoxy to reinstate a bearing pad for transfer of axial force
and to prevent corrosion. A steel collar and external dissipaters were
then mounted to the connection using preinstalled threaded inserts.
The anchorages, footing, and column were all designed as capacity
protected members with strength that exceeded the overstrength
capacity of the connection. It should be noted that further research
into the use of threaded inserts, particularly in damaged concrete, is
required before this system can be considered for implementation in
the field (ACI 2014).
Because of space constraints during casting of the half-scale col-
umn and reuse of the footing from a previous test, the intended repair
method of dissipater anchorage into preinstalled threaded inserts was
not used for the repair of SC-N. Chemically anchored bars were used
instead (Figs. 4 and 5).
Nonemulative Coupled Connection (CC-N)
CC-N used replaceable dissipating reinforcing bar segments (dis-
sipaters) with mechanical couplers to form a connection between
J. Bridge Eng.
 295 260 85
24 30 24

80 150 80
(b)
Overlap of grooved and
threaded regions 24mm equivalent
24 diameter

20 220 20 16mm equivalent 30

diameter
8mm thick tube
80 150 80 All dims.
(a) (c) in mm

Fig. 5. Energy dissipaters for SC-N*, CC-N, and CC-N*: (a) grooved dissipater for SC-N*; (b) turned dissipater for CC-N; (c) grooved dissipater for CC-N*
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Column placed
Upper couplers and aligned with Couplers attached Stirrups
wound back onto couplers to upper studs spaced
dissipater
CIP grout
cast
Stirrups Grout bed poured
Post-tensioning
Lower couplers bar connected
attached to anchorage
to footing Bar tensioned

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 6. CC-N construction methodology

Damage Damaged
limited to CIP Couplers
grout and wound back onto dissipaters
dissipaters Stirrups and dissipaters removed
CIP grout
removed or or
No damage to any
other conection Damaged Couplers
components dissipaters cut and ends of
dissipaters
removed
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 7. Methodology for removal of damaged dissipaters

column and footing (Figs. 3, 5, and 6). The dissipaters were enclosed
in CIP grout that was cast during column assembly. The connection
was designed to behave in a rocking manner during a seismic event,
with damage limited to yielding of the dissipaters and spalling of the
CIP grout. All other connection components were designed to remain
essentially elastic. The dissipaters and CIP grout are intended to be
removed and replaced following a seismic event to provide a rapid
and cost-effective method of repair.
Similar connection types have been investigated by Haber et al.
(2014), who examined the use of mechanical splices in an emulative
column-footing connection, and Tazarv (2014), who investigated
the use of advanced shape memory alloys to form a nonemulative
recentering connection without the requirement for posttensioning.
In the present research, a nonemulative coupled connection using
conventional materials was targeted, which would allow for cost-
effective construction and repair.
A 50-mm-diameter unbonded posttensioned bar provided some
recentering capabilities to the connection; however, the connection
had a recentering ratio of only 0.8, meaning full recentering was not
expected to occur. Although full recentering was not expected,
residual drifts in the connection were expected to be smaller than
those of an emulative connection, such as SC-E.
The connection featured a recess in which the eight replaceable
dissipaters were positioned around a precast core. The precast core
was designed to resist the full axial and shear actions in the connec-
tion. The dissipaters were connected with parallel threaded couplers
to studs extending from the precast column and footing. Stirrups pro-
vided confinement to the CIP grout and buckling restraint to the
dissipaters.
The couplers used in the test model produced a full-strength con-
nection that exceeded the breaking strength of the Grade 500 rein-
forcing bar. The ends of the bars to be joined were cut square and
enlarged by cold forging to increase their core diameter and thus
ensure that the joint was stronger than the bar.
The dissipaters used in the test model are shown in Fig. 5. The dis-
sipaters used for initial assembly of the test model were fabricated
from Grade 300 steel and had a diameter of 24 mm, which was
increased to 30 mm for connection to the couplers. The strength of
the couplers allowed for reinforcing bar stresses exceeding 650 MPa.
Under overstrength design actions of the Grade 300 dissipaters using

© ASCE 04016025-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025

 an overstrength factor of 1.25, the couplers were subjected to only
53% of their capacity, giving a high degree of confidence to the ex-
pectation that damage to the couplers will not occur. This differs
from other research in which couplers are subjected to their full
design capacity during plastic hinging of the connection (Haber et al.
2014).
Regular deformed reinforced bar was intended for use in the
connection; however, the half-scale dissipaters used in the test were
too short for the cold-forging process to be undertaken. As an alter-
native, Grade 300 steel bars that were turned down to a smaller di-
ameter over the yielded region were used as dissipaters. This was
expected to provide equivalent performance to the use of Grade 300
reinforcing bars.
The repair methodology for removal of damaged dissipaters is
outlined in Fig. 7. Installation of replacement dissipaters followed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the construction methodology outlined in Fig. 6. To repair the con-
nection, the CIP material and stirrups were removed, allowing for
removal and replacement of the damaged dissipaters using the
threaded couplers. Replacement stirrups were welded around the
dissipaters, and CIP grout was cast to complete the repair process.
Because the stirrups were not subjected to significant inelastic de-
formation, welding was deemed to be an appropriate solution for
repair of the connection. Single lap welds of 100-mm length and 4-
mm throat thickness were used. The bars being welded were micro-
alloyed and were identified by the manufacturer as being suitable
for welding. Alternative methods of bar splicing, such as bar cou-
plers, could be used to connect the replacement stirrups if site weld-
ing is not a desired repair solution.
Because the precast core of the column is protected from damage
and designed to carry the full axial load in the column, vertical load-
carrying capacity would be maintained following an earthquake
event, and the connection could be repaired without removal of
posttensioning load or raising of the column.
Connection Design
The design parameters of each half-scale test model are summarized
in Table 1. The emulative connection (SC-E) was designed using a
Axial
Lateral Lateral load cell
actuator load cell Axial
actuator
String potentiometer
Reaction frame
Precast
column
Array of rod-end
potentiometers
Precast
footing
Post-tensioned
bar
(a)
Fig. 8. Testing arrangement: (a) elevation; (b) plan
© ASCE 04016025-6
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025
conventional ductile RC approach. The nonemulative connections
(SC-N, SC-N*, CC-N, CC-N*) were designed following the guide-
lines presented by the New Zealand Concrete Society (NZCS
2010).
The length of debonding in the nonemulative connections was
such that the expected strain in the longitudinal bars was less than
5% at the design drift, as recommended by NZCS (2010). All post-
tensioning components were designed to remain elastic at the
design drift.
Experimental Investigation
Quasi-static biaxial testing of the three half-scale test columns was
carried out. The SC-E connection was tested once to failure.
Columns SC-N and CC-N were each tested to 3.25% biaxial drift
and then repaired and retested (SC-N*, CC-N*).
Testing Procedures
Displacement-controlled hydraulic actuators were used to apply a
biaxial lateral load to the columns in the north-south (N-S) and east-
west (E-W) directions at a height of 2.5 m above the footings (Figs.
8 and 9). Fig. 10 illustrates the lateral loading sequence for each
drift cycle and the relationship between uniaxial and biaxial drift. In
general, the peak biaxial drift input for a given load cycle was 1.3
times the peak uniaxial drift input.
An axial hydraulic actuator was used to apply posttensioning
force. The unbonded posttensioning bar was located in a polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) duct that ran through the full length of the column
and footing. The bar was anchored at both ends using steel plates,
washers, and nuts.
Instrumentation on the columns included string potentiometers
to measure column displacement in the N-S and E-W directions,
load cells to measure lateral and vertical actuator loads, and an array
of rod end potentiometers located on the north and east faces of the
column to measure column deformation (Figs. 8 and 9).
Measured material properties for each test column are presented
in Table 2.
East-West
(EW) actuator
North-South
N (NS) actuator
Anchor
bolts
(b)
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. SC-E column before testing

Uniaxial drift Table 2. Test Column Material Properties

Dri Cycles (%)
N
Uniaxial Biaxial Property SC-E SC-N, SC-N* CC-N, CC-N*
3
8 0.25 0.33
t Compressive strength (MPa)
d rif 5 0.35 0.46
Concrete—footing 44 55 60
x ial
North-South drift

0.50 0.65
Bia Concrete—column 45 55 50
0.75 0.98
2 1 Grout—for construction 44 41 55a
W E 1.00 1.30
Grout—for repair N/A 55a (before test) 39
1.50 1.95 Steel tensile strength—yield/ultimate (MPa)
2.00 2.60 Column—longitudinal 516/650 350/530 520a/650a
2.50 3.25 Column—transverse 556/690 680/790 680/790
6 7 3.00 3.90 Dissipaters N/A 360/540 380/520
4 4.00 5.20 Footing 516/650 520/650 520/650
S 5.00 6.50 Posttensioned bar 835a/1,030a 835a/1,030a 835a/1,030a
East-West drift 6.00 7.80 Glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrap
Tensile strength (MPa) N/A 2,300a N/A
Fig. 10. Biaxial drift cycles Tensile modulus (GPa) N/A 76a N/A
Elongation at break (%) N/A 2.8a N/A
a
Column Assembly Reliable measurement was not achieved—expected value provided
instead.
SC-E and SC-N shared a similar assembly methodology, as shown
in Fig. 11. Assembly involved lifting the column into the socket and
The posttensioning bar was stressed just before commencement
propping. Once the column was aligned, grout was manually
of testing in all cases.
poured into the gap between the footing and column and agitated
with a thin rod to ensure that grout completely filled the gap. SC-N
was confined with FRP wrap following a prior column test, as previ- Initial Testing
ously discussed. Fig. 13 shows damage to each test model following biaxial testing.
The assembly of test column CC-N is shown in Fig. 12. Cracking initiated at the base of the column during the 0.2–0.35%
Grease tape was used to avoid bonding of the dissipaters with drift cycles in all tests. Distributed fine cracks formed along the col-
the surrounding concrete. After placement of the column and umn at larger levels of drift. All cracks above the joint region closed
connection of the couplers, high-flow grout was poured into the to hairline thickness upon unloading of the column.
shallow socket between the column and footing. The column Column SC-E was tested to failure and reached a biaxial drift of
was intended to remain unbonded from this grout layer to per- 7.8% (displacement ductility ratio, m = 7.8). Minor spalling
mit rocking behavior. It was discovered upon disassembly that occurred during the 3.25% biaxial drift cycle, with spalling becom-
bonding of the two elements had occurred, which altered the ing more severe in the 3.90% drift cycle. Bar fracture occurred dur-
behavior of the column and caused it to behave in a more emu- ing biaxial loading to 7.8% drift. Significant spalling was observed,
lative manner with flexure of the precast core. Bonding could extending to a height of 500 mm. Bar buckling occurred, although it
be avoided by placing a polythene sheet in the base of the shal- was difficult to confirm the level of drift at which buckling initiated.
low socket before grouting, or through the use of a match cast Column SC-N was tested to a biaxial drift of 3.25% (m = 3.6). A
joint that requires no grouting. very low level of damage was observed, with some horizontal

© ASCE 04016025-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. SC-E and SC-N assembly: (a) precast column; (b) precast footing; (c) column lifted into place; (d) column in socket; (e) grout poured; (f)
connection after FRP wrap (SC-N only)

Fig. 12. CC-N assembly: (a) couplers on footing studs; (b) dissipaters attached; (c) column placed; (d) couplers attached; (e) stirrups spaced; (f) form-
work assembled; (g) grout gravity fed; (h) formwork removed; (i) construction complete

cracking of the FRP wrap that initiated during the 0.98% biaxial drift
cycle. The cracking was parallel to the fiber orientation of the wrap,
and thus no reduction in column confinement was expected to have
occurred.
The CC-N column was also tested to a biaxial drift of 3.25% (m =
3.6). Spalling of the CIP region of the column initiated during the
2.6% biaxial drift cycle. Spalling extended to a height of 100 mm by
the end of testing. No spalling occurred outside of the CIP region.
Repair
Postdrilling and chemical anchorage of the dissipaters was used for
repair of SC-N (Figs. 4 and 14). Repair of CC-N involved removal
of the CIP grout material and stirrups, allowing access for replace-
ment of the dissipaters (Fig. 15). Minor buckling of the dissipaters
had occurred, and thus the bars were cut for removal. There was no
apparent damage to the couplers or threads, which allowed the cou-
plers to be removed and reused. There was some difficulty with in-
stallation of the replacement dissipaters because of thread
misalignment. The difficulty was overcome by swapping the loca-
tion of dissipaters and did not prevent the repair strategy from being
applied, although it did slow the repair process. These difficulties
could be avoided by using an alternate bar coupling system that
allows for a higher degree of rotational tolerance. An example is the
upset headed coupler with threaded sleeve, as tested by Haber et al.
(2014) and Tazarv (2014).
In both repairs, longitudinally grooved dissipaters were used as
an alternative to bars that were turned down to a smaller diameter
over the yielding region (Fig. 5). The longitudinally grooved dis-
sipaters used in this research had a radius of gyration that was 40%
higher than that of the round dissipaters, with a circular cross sec-
tion of equal cross-sectional area, which decreased the dissipaters’
susceptibility to buckling. In the repair of the SC-N connection, an
unbonded steel sleeve provided buckling restraint to the externally
mounted grooved dissipaters. The sleeve was fabricated from
Grade 300 bar and had a wall thickness of 8 mm. The grooved dis-
sipaters maintained a constant outside diameter along their length
that enabled continual contact with the buckling restraint sleeve.
This avoided the need for epoxy or grout to close the gap between

© ASCE 04016025-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Damage to test models: (a) SC-E; (b) SC-N; (c) SC-N*; (d) CC-N; (e) CC-N*

Fig. 14. SC-N repair: (a) internal reinforcing bars cut; (b) holes drilled for dissipaters; (c) mounting collar and dissipaters installed

the bar and sleeve, as is required in similar dissipater designs
(Marriott 2009; Sarti et al. 2013). In the repair of the CC-N column,
no sleeve was used and welded stirrups provided buckling restraint.
Preliminary testing of the grooved dissipaters was carried out prior
to column testing. The dissipaters were subjected to cyclic loading
at increasing magnitudes of strain. Each load cycle involved exten-
sion of the dissipater to a certain strain limit before compressing the
dissipater back to its original length. The dissipater yielded in com-
pression as it returned to its original length, but was not compressed
further than its original length. Three load cycles were applied at
each strain limit. Very good results were observed showing stable
hysteresis loops and good ductility, with the dissipater reliably com-
pleting three cycles at 9% strain (Fig. 16).
Postrepair Testing
Fig. 13 shows damage to each test model following biaxial testing
of the repaired test models. SC-N* was tested to the limits of the
test equipment and completed the 7.8% biaxial drift cycle (m = 7.1)
without bar fracture. Actuator stroke limitation meant that only 4%
uniaxial drift could be applied in the south direction. Inadequate an-
chorage and previous damage to the concrete footing led to some
sliding of the mounting collar at drifts exceeding 1.5%, and pullout
of the dissipaters at drifts exceeding 2.5%.
The repaired CC-N* column was tested to biaxial drifts of 3.9%
(m = 4.3). Damage in the repaired column was similar to that of the
initial test. Spalling initiated during the 2.5% drift cycle. The testing
ended after premature failure of a dissipater. The cause of this fail-
ure was overlap of the grooved and threaded regions of the bar, as
shown in Fig. 5, which should be avoided in fabrication of the
grooved dissipaters. The failure strain of the grooved dissipater was
not measured directly, but was estimated from the column drift and
observed gap opening to be less than 6%. This was significantly
smaller than the cyclic strain of 9% achieved in preliminary testing
of the grooved dissipater, indicating that column performance
would likely be improved with correct dissipater detailing.
No failure of transverse reinforcement or welds was observed in
any of the tests.
Results
Fig. 16 and Table 3 summarize the experimental results for each
test model. SC-E showed stable hysteresis loops with good levels

© ASCE 04016025-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 15. CC-N repair: (a) damaged CIP grout removed; (b) damaged dissipaters exposed; (c) damaged dissipaters removed; (d) replacement
dissipaters installed; (e) debonding tape applied; (f) replacement stirrups welded; (g) formwork assembled; (h) grout gravity fed
of energy dissipation, as indicated by the fatness of the hysteresis
loops. No flag shape was visible in testing of SC-N, but this shape
developed at higher levels of drift during SC-N* testing. CC-N
showed no flag-shaped hysteresis loops, with a similar ratio of
peak to residual drift as SC-E, despite having a higher recentering
ratio. Residual drifts in SC-N and SC-N* were significantly lower
than those of SC-E, CC-N, and CC-N*. Residual drift following
loading to a 6% uniaxial drift cycle was 0.7% in the SC-N* col-
umn, which was 78% smaller than that of the SC-E column, which
had residual drift of 3.2% following the same load cycle.
CC-N* dissipated significantly more energy than both SC-E and
SC-N* up to the failure biaxial drift of 3.9% (3% uniaxial drift
cycle). Because CC-N(*) and SC-E had similar energy dissipation
moment contributions to overall capacity (Table 1), and both col-
umns were subjected to the same displacement input, the amount of
energy dissipated by both columns was expected to be similar. In
reality, the repaired CC-N* column dissipated 50% more energy
than SC-E on completion of the 3.9% biaxial load cycle (3% uniax-
ial drift). Bonding of the precast core (as previously discussed) is
believed to be the reason for the increased residual drifts and energy
dissipation of CC-N and CC-N*.
Similar cumulative energy dissipation was observed in SC-E,
SC-N, and SC-N* for biaxial drift cycles up to 3.9% (3% uniaxial
drift). The cumulative dissipated energy of SC-N* was 61% that of
SC-E at completion of testing, with both columns achieving the
same ultimate drift. This corresponds well to the contribution of
energy dissipation components to the overall strength of each con-
nection, as summarized in Table 2. The dissipating contribution of
SC-N* was expected to be 180 kN·m, which is 62% that of SC-E at
290 kN·m.
Further Investigations
A number of points require further investigation before the nonemu-
lative connections presented in this research can be found suitable
for use in regions of moderate to high seismicity. These include but
are not limited to:
• Further development of construction and repair methodolo-
gies to increase connection effectiveness, robustness, and
reliability.
© ASCE 04016025-10
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025
• Detailed cost-comparison and loss modeling analysis to quan-
tify the potential cost benefits of nonemulative systems, con-
sidering life-cycle costs that encompass the construction,
maintenance, repair, and deconstruction stages of the struc-
ture’s life (Lee and Billington 2011; Marriott et al. 2009).
• Durability of the nonemulative connections, including corro-
sion protection of the dissipating and posttensioning compo-
nents at the jointed connection interface. Research is currently
under way at the University of Canterbury to address these
issues (Andisheh et al. 2014).
• Applicability of the connection types to certain environments
that pose additional challenges for construction and repair,
including in-water piers. Additionally, application of these
connection types to other regions of the bridge substructures,
including column-to-cap-beam connections.
• Shake table testing to investigate the dynamic behavior of the
connections, including rate dependency in the connection
response and the potential for suboptimal coupler performance
as investigated by Noureddine (1996) and Rowell et al.
(2009).
• Compliance of the connections to current design standards,
particularly those relating to the use of mechanical splices in
plastic hinge regions.
Conclusion
The experimental results of quasi-static cyclic tests of three half-
scale test models with emulative and nonemulative column-footing
connections have been presented. The nonemulative connections
were designed to behave in a rocking manner with opening of a single
gap at the base of the column to improve seismic performance and
control damage. This design is aimed at facilitating rapid and cost-
effective repair using predetermined methodologies that avoids the
need for time-consuming and costly post-earthquake structural
assessment and repair methodology development.
The following key conclusions can be made from this paper:
• The emulative socket connection (SC-E) showed good seis-
mic performance, with levels of energy dissipation and duc-
tility comparable to those of a conventional monolithic
connection. As expected, significant damage occurred,
J. Bridge Eng.
 Yield Spall/Design Bar Fracture
120 200 North-South actuator
East-West actuator

80 150

100

Uniaxial force (kN)

40
Force (kN) 50
0 E N
0
S W
-40 −50

-80 −100

−150
-120
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 −200
Strain (%) −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Uniaxial drift (%)
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Yield Design
200 North-South actuator 200 Collar Slip
North-South actuator Yield Design/Pull-Out
East-West actuator East-West actuator
150 150
100 100
Uniaxial force (kN)

Uniaxial force (kN)

50 50
E N E N
0 0
S W S W
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150
−200 −200
−6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Uniaxial drift (%) Uniaxial drift (%)
(c) (d)

Yield Spall Design 200 Yield Design/Spall

200
Bar Fracture
150 150

100 100
Uniaxial force (kN)
Uniaxial force (kN)

50 50
E N E N
0 0
S W S W
−50 −50
North-South North-South
actuator actuator
−100 East-West −100 East-West
actuator actuator
−150 −150

−200 −200
−6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Uniaxial drift (%) Uniaxial drift (%)
(e) (f)
3.5 400
*Repaired *Repaired SC-E
Cumulative dissipated energy (kJ)

SC-E
3 350
Residual uniaxial dri (%)

2.5 300

250
2

CC-N* 200
1.5 CC-N*
SC-N*
150
1 CC-N SC-N* CC-N
SC-N 100
0.5
50
SC-N
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6
Peak uniaxial dri (%) Drift cycle (%)
(g) (h)

Fig. 16. Experimental results: (a) force-strain behavior of grooved dissipaters; (b) SC-E uniaxial force-drift; (c) SC-N uniaxial force-drift; (d) SC-N*
uniaxial force-drift; (e) CC-N uniaxial force-drift; (f) CC-N* uniaxial force-drift; (g) residual drift following each drift cycle; (h) cumulative dissipated
energy in each test

© ASCE 04016025-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025

 Table 3. Summary of Observed Drifts and Ductilities ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2014). “Building code requirements
* *
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-14, Farmington
Observed result SC-E SC-N SC-N CC-N CC-N Hills, MI.
Maximum uniaxial drift 6.0 2.5 6.0 2.5 3.0 Ameli, M., Parks, J., Brown, D., Pantelides, C., Sletten, J., and Swanwick,
ratio (%) C. (2013). “Seismic evaluation of grouted splice sleeve connections for
precast reinforced concrete bridge piers.” Proc., 7th National Seismic
Maximum biaxial drift 7.8 3.25 7.8 3.25 3.9
Conf. on Bridges and Highways: Bridge Resilience for Earthquakes &
ratio (%)
Other Natural Hazards, Kapur, J., and Ostrom, T., Eds., MCEER, Univ.
Effective yield drift ratio (%) 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9
at Buffalo, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY, Paper A3-5.
Displacement ductility 7.8 3.6 7.1 3.6 4.3 Andisheh, K., Scott, A., and Palermo, A. (2014). “Preliminary estimation of
ratio reduction factors in mechanical properties of steel reinforcement due to
Peak axial load (kN) 450 1,070 1,370 1,300 1,310 pitting simulated corrosion.” Proc., New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Peak axial load ratio (%) 5.1 9.9 12.7 10.4 10.5 Engineering Annual Conf., New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand.
Note: Axial load ratio = axial load/(gross cross-sectional area  measured
Billington, S. L., Barnes, R. W., and Breen, J. E. (1999). “A precast
concrete strength).
segmental substructure system for standard bridges.” PCI J., 44(4),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

including spalling of concrete and yielding and buckling of
longitudinal reinforcement.
• The nonemulative socket connection (SC-N, SC-N*) sustained
significantly less damage than SC-E. No flag-shaped hysteretic
behavior was observed in the initial testing, but became appa-
rent in testing of the repaired column at larger column drifts.
The construction methodology was straightforward; however,
the repair methodology requires further development to avoid
dissipater pullout and unintended slippage of the mounting
brackets.
• The nonemulative coupled bar connection (CC-N, CC-N*)
showed similar performance to that of SC-E up until the pre-
mature failure point that occurred during the 3% drift cycle.
CC-N had a higher recentering ratio than SC-E, which should
have resulted in improved performance with reduced residual
drift. Unintentional bonding of the column and footing is
believed to be the reason for the higher-than-expected residual
drift and energy dissipation. Difficulties were encountered
when aligning the replacement energy dissipaters, and prema-
ture failure of the dissipaters occurred as a result of a detailing
error.
The experimental testing showed that the proposed construction
and repair methodologies require further improvements to address
issues relating to connection effectiveness, robustness, and reliabil-
ity. Nevertheless, it is believed that a controlled damage approach
with connections that can be rapidly and cost-effectively repaired
will significantly reduce post-earthquake repair costs and maximize
the functionality of bridge structures following severe earthquake
events.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the New Zealand Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment—Natural Hazard Research Platform
for financially supporting this project as part of the research
program Advanced Bridge Construction and Design (ABCD). The
authors also thank Mustafa Mashal for his assistance in design and
testing throughout project and technicians Gavin Keats and
Russell McConchie for lab assistance.
References
AASHTO. (2015). Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design,
2nd edition, with 2012, 2014 and 2015 interim revisions, Washington,
DC.
56–73.
Brenes, F. J., Wood, S. L., and Kreger, M. E. (2006). “Anchorage require-
ments for grouted vertical-duct connectors in precast bent cap systems.”
FHWA/TX-06/0-4176-1, Center for Transportation Research, Univ. of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Christopoulos, C. (2004). “Frequency response of flag-shaped single
degree-of-freedom hysteretic systems.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:8(894), 894–903.
Culmo, M. P. (2011). “Accelerated bridge construction: Experience in
design, fabrication, and erection of prefabricated bridge elements and
systems.” Federal Highway Administration Rep. No. FHWA-HIF-12-
013, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Davis, P. M., Todd, M. J., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2012).
“Unbonded pre-tensioned columns for bridges in seismic regions.”
PEER Rep. 2014/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
ElGawady, M., Booker, A. J., and Dawood, H. M. (2010). “Seismic behav-
ior of posttensioned concrete-filled fiber tubes.” J. Compos. Constr., 10
.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000107, 616–628.
Finnsson, G. (2013). “Unbonded pre-tensioned bridge columns with hybrid
fiber-reinforced concrete shells.” M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of Washington,
Seattle.
Haber, Z. B., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. H. (2014). “Seismic perform-
ance of precast columns with mechanically spliced column-footing con-
nections.” ACI Struct. J., 111(3), 639–650.
Haraldsson, O., Janes, T., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2013).
“Seismic resistance of socket connection between footing and precast
column.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000413,
910–919.
Hewes, J. T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (2002). Seismic design and perform-
ance of precast concrete segmental bridge columns, Caltrans,
Sacramento, CA.
Hieber, D. G., Wacker, J. M., Stanton, J. F., and Eberhard, M. O.
(2005). Precast concrete pier systems for rapid Construction of
bridges in seismic regions, Washington State Transportation Center
(TRAC), Seattle.
Kapur, J., et al. (2012). “Best practices regarding performance of ABC
connections in bridges subjected to multihazard and extreme
events.” NCHRP Project No. 20-68A, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Khaleghi, B., et al. (2012). “Accelerated bridge construction in Washington
state: From research to practice.” PCI J., 57(4), 34–49.
Kurama, Y. (2004). “A friction damper for post-tensioned precast concrete
moment frames.” PCI J., 49(4), 112–133.
Lee, W. K., and Billington, S. L. (2011). “Performance-based earthquake
engineering assessment of a self-centering, post-tensioned concrete
bridge system.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 40(8), 887–902.
Lehman, D. E., Gookin, S. E., Nacamuli, A. M., and Moehle, J. P. (2001).
“Repair of earthquake-damaged bridge columns.” ACI Struct. J., 98(2),
233–242.
Marriott, D. (2009). “The development of high - performance post - ten-
sioned rocking systems for the seismic design of structures.” Ph.D. the-
sis, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

© ASCE 04016025-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025

 Marriott, D., Pampanin, S., Bull, D., and Palermo, A. (2009). “A probabilis-
tic seismic loss assessment of advanced post-tensioned precast bridge
systems.” Proc., New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering
Annual Conf., New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Marsh, M. L., Wernli, M., Garrett, B. E., Stanton, J. F., Eberhard, M. O.,
and Weinert, M. D. (2011). “Application of accelerated bridge construc-
tion connections in moderate-to-high seismic regions.” NCHRP Rep.
698, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Motaref, S., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. H. (2011). “Seismic response of
precast bridge columns with energy dissipating joints.” Rep. No.
CCEER-11-01, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV.
Motaref, S., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. H. (2014). “Shake table studies
of energy-dissipating segmental bridge columns.” J. Bridge Eng., 10
.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000518, 186–199.
Nelson, M., Lai, Y. C., and Fam, A. (2008). “Moment connection of con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ayman Shama on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
crete-filled fiber reinforced polymer tubes by direct embedment into
footings.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 11(5), 537–547.
Noureddine, I. (1996). “Plastic energy absorption capacity of #18 reinforc-
ing b ar splices under monotonic loading.” M.Sc. thesis, California State
Univ., Sacramento, CA.
NZCS (New Zealand Concrete Society). (2010). PRESSS design handbook,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Osanai, Y., Watanabe, F., and Okamoto, S. (1996). “Stress transfer mecha-
nism of socket base connections with precast concrete columns.” ACI
Struct. J., 93(3), 266–276.
Ou, Y.-C., Oktavianus, Y., and Tsai, M.-S. (2013). “An emulative precast
segmental concrete bridge column for seismic regions.” Earthquake
Spectra, 29(4), 1441–1457.
Palermo, A. (2004). “The use of controlled rocking in the seismic design of
bridges.” Ph.D. thesis, Politecnico Di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Palermo, A., Pampanin, S., and Marriott, D. (2007). “Design, modeling,
and experimental response of seismic resistant bridge piers with postten-
sioned dissipating connections.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(2007)133:11(1648), 1648–1661.
Palermo, A., et al. (2011). “Lessons learnt from 2011 Christchurch earth-
quakes: Analysis and assessment of bridges.” Bull. N. Z. Soc.
Earthquake Eng., 44(4), 319–333.
© ASCE 04016025-13
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(6): 04016025
Priestley, M. J. N. (1991). “Overview of PRESSS research program.”
PCI J., 36(4), 50–57.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. (1996). Seismic design and
retrofit of bridges, Wiley, New York.
Priestley, M. J. N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J. R., and Pampanin, S. (1999).
“Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-story pre-
cast concrete test building.” PCI J., 44(6), 42–67.
Restrepo, J. I., Tobolski, M. J., and Matsumoto, E. E. (2011).
“Development of a precast bent cap system for seismic regions.”
NCHRP Rep. 681, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Rowell, S. P., Grey, C. E., Woodson, S. C., and Hager, K. P. (2009).
“High strain-rate testing of mechanical couplers.” ERDC TR-09-8,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Sarti, F., Smith, T. J., Palermo, A., Pampanin, S., Bonardi, D., and
Carradine, D. M. (2013). “Experimental and analytical study of replace-
able buckling-restrained fused-type (BRF) mild steel dissipaters.”
Proc., New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual
Conf., New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Schaefer, J. (2013). “Unbonded pre-tensioned bridge columns with rocking
detail.” M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Sideris, P., Anagnostopoulou, M., Aref, A., and Filiatrault, A. (2010).
“Seismic performance of precast segmental bridges.” Proc., 9th US
National and 10th Canadian Conf. on Earthquake Engineering:
Reaching Beyond Borders, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, CA.
Stanton, J. F., Hawkins, N. M., and Eberhard, M. O. (1992). “Seismic
connections for precast concrete structures.” Proc., Earthquake
Engineering, 10th World Conf., Balkema, Rotterdam, the
Netherlands.
Stanton, J. F., Stone, W. C., and Cheok, G. S. (1997). “Hybrid reinforced
precast frame for seismic regions.” PCI J., 42(2), 20–32.
Steuck, K. P., Pang, J. B. K., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2007).
Anchorage of large-diameter reinforcing bars grouted into ducts, Univ.
of Washington, Seattle.
Tazarv, M. (2014). “Next generation of bridge columns for accelerated
bridge construction in high seismic zones.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of
Nevada, Reno, NV.
J. Bridge Eng.