ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 104-S37
Shake Table Studies of Bridge Columns with Double
Interlocking Spirals
by Juan F. Correal, M. Saiid Saiidi, David Sanders, and Saad El-Azazy
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) code
provides the only guidelines in the U.S. for the design of columns
with interlocking spirals. Previous studies have shown that
columns with interlocking spirals have a satisfactory behavior, but
none of them have addressed the Caltrans upper limit on
horizontal spacing between centers of the spirals in detail and
none used dynamic testing. Six large-scale column models were
designed and tested on a shake table at the University of Nevada-
Reno to study the effects of the shear level, spiral distance, and
crossties. The observed damage progression, load-displacement
responses, reinforcement strains, and the apparent plastic hinge
lengths were examined to evaluate the response. The results
revealed that the Caltrans upper spiral distance limit of 1.5 times
the spiral radius is satisfactory. However, supplementary crossties
are needed to prevent premature vertical shear cracking and
strength degradation in columns with relatively high shear.
Keywords: bridge; columns; interlocking spirals; seismic behavior.
INTRODUCTION
The current seismic design philosophy for reinforced
concrete structures relies on confinement of concrete to
provide the necessary ductility and energy dissipation
capacity of structural members. Confinement is mainly
provided by the transverse reinforcement, which in columns
usually consists of spirals in members with circular or square
shape and ties in those with square or rectangular cross
sections. Spirals confine concrete more effectively than
rectilinear ties because they counteract the dilation of
concrete through hoop action instead of a combination of
bending and hoop action that takes place in rectilinear ties.
As a result, to provide the same level of confinement, the
amount of tie reinforcement is greater than that provided by
spirals. Another advantage of spirals is that they are generally
easier to construct. The circular shape of spirals makes them
suitable for circular and square columns. To use the benefits
of spirals in rectangular columns, two or more sets of
interlocking spirals are used.
The Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications (BDS)1 and
Seismic Design Criteria (SDC)2 are currently the only codes
in the U.S. that include provisions for the design of columns
with interlocking spirals. Because the amount of research on
interlocking spirals has been limited, the design provisions
are driven mainly by research on single spirals. Studies3-5
were conducted on the effect of several design parameters,
including a comparison between interlocking spirals and
ties, horizontal distance between centers of the spirals,
quantity of transverse reinforcement, variation of the axial
load ratios, appropriate size and spacing of longitudinal bars
in the interlocking region, and cross section shape. These
studies generally concluded that flexural and shear
capacities of columns with interlocking spirals can be
conservatively estimated using current procedures. Conflicting
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007
TECHNICAL PAPER
recommendations exist, however, with respect to the
distance between spiral sets and uncertainties about the need
for supplemental crossties between adjacent spiral sets. For
example, the BDS upper limit on the distance between the
centers of adjacent spirals is 1.5 times the radius of the spiral
R, whereas the study in Reference 3 places an upper limit of
1.2R. To address these issues, a study was undertaken using
large-scale testing of bridge column models on one of the
shake tables of the University of Nevada-Reno. The study
included both experimental and analytical components to
evaluate the seismic performance of bridge columns with
double interlocking spirals with different parameters, including
the spread between the spiral sets, the level of shear, and
crossties. The focus of this paper is on the experimental
phase of the investigation. Details of all aspects of the study
are presented in Reference 6.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Interlocking spirals are used in the columns of many
bridges. The spirals are designed based on provisions that
have yet to be verified and, in part, are in conflict with some
of the recommendations that are based on the limited available
past studies. The research presented in this paper was used
to: 1) evaluate the dynamic performance of bridge columns
that are designed based on the current Caltrans provisions; 2)
determine if the limits in the provisions are satisfactory; and
3) identify cases and limit states in which supplemental
crossties are needed.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
Test specimens
Six large-scale specimens were designed, constructed, and
tested. The limit of 1.2R on the horizontal distance of the
centers of the spirals, di, recommended in Reference 3 is to
ensure sufficient vertical shear transfer between adjacent
spiral sets. Because vertical shear is a function of horizontal
shear, the test parameters were selected to capture the effect of
a range of realistic horizontal shear stresses. The test variables
were: 1) the level of average shear stress; 2) the horizontal
distance between the centers of the spirals, di; and 3) supple-
mentary horizontal crossties. The test variables are listed in
Table 1. The effect of other parameters such as axial load and
material strength was not considered because the variation of
these parameters in real bridges is relatively small.
The average horizontal shear stress was calculated as the
lateral load divided by the effective shear area taken equal to
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
MS No. S-2005-200 received August 8, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-June
2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.
393
 Table 1—Test variables
Juan F. Correal is an Assistant Professor of civil and environmental engineering at
the University of Los Andes, Colombia, where he received his BS and MSCE. He Steel reinforcement
received his PhD in 2004 from the University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev. His Scale Shear Aspect
research interests include the seismic design of bridges and applications of innovative Specimen factor index ratio di (× R) ρl , % ρs ,* %
materials for design, repair, and rehabilitation of structures.
ISL1.0 3.0 3.3 1.0 2.0 1.1
0.25
M. Saiid Saiidi, FACI, is a Professor of civil and environmental engineering and is the ISL1.5 3.0 3.6 1.5 2.0 1.1
Director of the Office of Undergraduate Research at the University of Nevada-Reno. He ISH1.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 2.9 0.6
is a Past Chair and a member of ACI Committee 341, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
Bridges, and is member of ACI Committees 342, Bridge Evaluation; E803, Faculty ISH1.25 7.0 2.0 1.25 2.8 0.9
Network Coordinating Committee; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and 0.2
ISH1.5 7.0 2.1 1.5 2.9 0.9
Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. His research interests include analysis
and shake table studies of reinforced concrete bridges and application of innovative ISH1.5T 7.0 2.1 1.5 2.9 0.9*
materials. *
Steel ratio from additional crossties is not included.
Note: ρl = ratio of longitudinal reinforcement and ρs = ratio of transversal reinforcement.
David Sanders, FACI, is an Associate Professor of civil and environmental
engineering at the University of Nevada-Reno. He is Chair of ACI Committee 445,
Shear and Torsion, is Past Chair of ACI Committee 341, Earthquake-Resistant
Concrete Bridges, and is a member of the ACI Technical Activities Committee; ACI
Committees 318, Structural Concrete Building Code; 369, Seismic Repair and
Rehabilitation; 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete; E803, Faculty Network Coordinating
Committee; E804, Educational Awards Nomination Committee; and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 423, Prestressed Concrete. His research interests include shake table
studies of reinforced concrete bridges.

Saad EI-Azazy is the Seismic Research Program Manager at the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans). He received his BS from Cairo University, Giza, Egypt,
and his MS and PhD from Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. His research
interests include bridge seismic retrofit and performance of new bridges.

80% of the gross area (SDC).2 A shear stress index was

defined as the average shear stress divided by 0.083√f ′c
(MPa) (√f ′c [psi]). This index represents the level of shear in
the column. In this study, two levels of shear were selected:
low index equal to 3 and high index equal to 7. These indexes
represent column shear stresses in real bridges. Actual
bridge columns are designed to be ductile and the load
capacity is controlled by flexure, although shear damage is
expected to increase as the shear index increases.
The Caltrans BDS1 states that when more than one cage is
used to confine an oblong column core, the spirals must be
interlocked or the pier must be designed as though it consists
of multiple single columns. A maximum limit of 1.5 times
the radius of the spirals, R, (where R is measured to the
outside edge of the spiral) for the horizontal distance of the
spirals, measured center-to-center of the spirals, di, is
specified. A minimum distance of 1.0R is recommended to
avoid overlaps of more than two spirals in multiple spiral
cases. Of the six models used in this study, two were
designed with a di of 1.0R, one with a di of 1.25R, and three
with a di of 1.5R.
Three alphabetical characters followed by a number were
used to identify the test specimens. The initials I and S
represented interlocking and spirals, respectively. The third
initial L or H was for the shear index of low or high,
respectively. A numeral indicated the fraction of R used for
di. In one specimen an initial T was added at the end of the
specimen, designation to indicate the presence of
supplementary crossties (Fig. 1).
The experimental program was developed to use one of
the shake tables at the Large-Scale Structures Laboratory at
the University of Nevada-Reno. Scale factors of 1/4 for the
specimens with low shear and 1/5 for the columns with high
shear were selected. These were the largest scales that could
be used without exceeding shake table capacity. The
displacement-based design procedure in the SDC2 was used
for a target displacement ductility capacity of 5. In the SDC,2
the displacement ductility is defined as the displacement
divided by the effective yield displacement excluding bond
slip and shear deformations. Typical steel ratios of 2.0% and
Fig. 1—Test specimens cross sections.
2.8% were selected for the longitudinal reinforcement. The
transverse steel ratio was designed to provide sufficient
confinement for the columns to reach the target displacement
ductility capacity. Additional crossties with the same bar
size as the spirals and spacing of two times the spacing of the
spirals were used based on a design recommendation
described in Reference 6. An axial load index, defined as the
axial load divided by the product of the gross cross-sectional
area and the specified concrete compressive strength of 10%,
was used to represent the axial load level in real bridge columns.
The details of the cross section and the elevations of the
specimens are shown in Fig. 1 and 2, respectively. The
spirals were continuous with constant pitch throughout the
height of the specimens. The spirals were extended along the
height of the footing and the top loading head. The
longitudinal reinforcement was continuous with 90-degree
standard hooks at the ends. In the specimens with low shear,
the height was taken from the top of the footing to the center
of the lateral loading head because these columns were
tested in single curvature cantilever mode. The height for
others was taken as the clear distance between the top of the
footing and the bottom of the loading head because these
columns were tested in double curvature.
The specified concrete compressive strength was 34.5 MPa
(5000 psi) with 9.52 mm (3/8 in.) maximum aggregate size. The
average measured concrete strength of the standard cylindrical

394 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

samples on the day of testing was 36.8 MPa (5339 psi) for
Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL1.5, 31.1 MPa (4514 psi) for
Specimens ISH1.0 and ISH1.5, and 45.1 MPa (6542 psi) for
Specimens ISH1.25 and ISH1.5T. The specified yield stress for
all the reinforcement was 420 MPa (60 ksi). The average
measured yield stress of the steel samples was 462 MPa (67 ksi)
for Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL1.5, 443 MPa (64 ksi) for
Specimens ISH1.0 and ISH1.5, and 431 MPa (63 ksi) for
Specimens ISH1.25 and ISH1.5T.

Test setup, instrumentation, and testing procedure

Figure 3 shows the shake table setup for the high shear
specimens. The test setup for the low-shear specimens was
similar but with only one link between the mass rig and the
column to achieve single-curvature testing. All specimens
were tested in the strong direction. The lateral load was
applied through an inertial mass system off the table for better
stability. Two sets of swiveled links were used to connect the
inertial mass system to the specimens. One set consisted of
one link connected at the column loading head to test the
Fig. 2—Test specimens elevations.
specimens as a cantilever member with single curvature. The
other set consisted of two links connected at the top of the
column, allowing the specimens to be tested in double
curvature. The double-link system was designed to prevent
rotation of the loading head. The specimens with low shear
(ISL1.0 and ISL1.5) were tested in single curvature whereas
the specimens with high shear (ISH1.0, ISH1.25, ISH1.5, and
ISH1.5T) were tested in double curvature. The total equivalent
weight of the inertia mass was 445 and 356 kN (100 and
80 kips) for specimens tested in single and double curvature,
respectively. The axial load was applied through a steel
spreader beam by prestressed bars connected to hydraulic jacks
and an accumulator to limit axial load fluctuation. Electrical
strain gauges were attached to the longitudinal and transverse
steel to measure strain variation. A series of curvature Fig. 3—Double cantilever test setup.
measurement instruments were installed in the plastic
hinge zones. Additional displacement transducers forming Intermittent free vibration tests were conducted to measure
panels were placed along the height of the columns with high the change in frequency and damping ratio of the columns.
shear. Load cells were used to measure both the axial and
lateral forces. The acceleration at the top of the columns was EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
measured using an accelerometer placed on the link Important aspects of the seismic performance of the test
connecting the mass rig to the specimens. Wire potentiometers columns were evaluated. The observed damage progression,
were used to measure the lateral displacements of the columns. load-displacement response, and strains were used to judge
Preliminary moment-curvature analysis was performed to the behavior of the columns. Additional response parameters,
estimate the lateral load and displacement capacities of the the curvature and plastic hinge length, were computed based
specimens. Once the capacity was estimated, a series of on the measured data and used in performance evaluation.
dynamic analyses were conducted to select the input motion
to be simulated in the shake table tests. The 1994 Northridge Observed response
earthquake, recorded at the Sylmar Hospital (0.606g peak Specimens with low shear—The observed performance was
ground acceleration [PGA]) was selected as the input motion correlated with the displacement ductility μd, which represents
based on the maximum displacement ductility demand the displacement divided by the effective measured yield
placed on the columns without exceeding the shake table displacement. Only flexural cracks were observed during the
capacity. The earthquake record is referred to as “Sylmar” first three runs (displacement ductility of up to 0.8) in
hereafter. The time axis of the input record was compressed Specimen ISL1.0 and during the first six runs (μd of up to 1.5)
to account for the scale effect and the minor differences in Specimen ISL1.5. Most of these cracks were located in the
between the axial load and the effective mass. lower 1/3 of the column height. First spalling and shear cracks
Each column was subjected to multiple simulated were seen in Specimen ISL1.0 after 0.5 × Sylmar (μd = 1.5) and
earthquakes, each referred to as a “run.” The amplitude of in Specimen ISL1.5 after 1.25 × Sylmar (μd = 2.4). The shear
the motions was increased in subsequent runs. Small cracks were located in the interlocking region in the lower 1/3
increments of the Sylmar record (10 to 20% of the full of the height of the column and were extensions of the flexural
Sylmar amplitude) were initially applied to the specimens to cracks. Considerable spalling at the bottom of the column, as
determine the initial stiffness, the elastic response, and the well as propagation of flexural and shear cracks, was observed
effective yield point. Once the effective yield was reached, after 1.25 × Sylmar (μd = 2.8) in Specimen ISL1.0 and 1.5 ×
the amplitude of the input record was increased until failure. Sylmar (μd = 3.1) in Specimen ISL1.5. Spirals were visible

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 395

Fig. 4—Specimen ISL1.0 after failure.
Fig. 5—Vertical crack (µd = 0.7) Specimen ISH1.5.
after 1.5 × Sylmar (μd = 4.1) and longitudinal bars were
exposed after 1.75 × Sylmar (μd = 5.6) in Specimen ISL1.0.
The spirals were visible in Specimen ISL1.5 after 1.75 ×
Sylmar (μd = 4.5) and became exposed over a large area after
2.0 × Slymar (μd = 7.5). There was no visible core damage in
either specimen. Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL1.5 failed during
2.0 × Sylmar (1.21g PGA and μd = 9.6) and 2.125 × Sylmar
(1.29g PGA and μd = 10.4), respectively. Figure 4 shows the
damage after failure in Specimen ISL1.0. The failure in both
columns was similar and was due to rupture of the spirals and
buckling of the longitudinal bars at the bottom of the column in
the plastic hinge zone.
Specimens with high shear—Even though these columns
had a relatively high shear index, they were flexural members
and, hence, only flexural cracks were formed during the initial
three or four runs. The measured displacement ductilities
associated with initial flexural cracks were 0.4, 0.6, 0.7, and
0.6 in Specimens ISH1.0, ISH1.25, ISH1.5, and ISH1.5T,
respectively. The flexural cracks were located in the plastic
hinge zones near the top and bottom of the columns. These
cracks were concentrated mainly at the top and bottom 1/3 of
the column height. A vertical crack in the interlocking region
extending from the top of the column to the midheight was
observed after 0.4 × Slymar (μd = 0.7) in Specimen ISH1.5
(Fig. 5). Diagonal cracks were formed in the interlocking
region in the plastic hinge zones of all the specimens. These
cracks began to form starting with 0.5 × Sylmar (μd = 0.6) and
became noticeable under 0.75 × Sylmar (μd = 0.9) in Specimen
ISH1.0, and 1.0 × Sylmar (μd = 1.4) in Specimen ISH1.25. In
Specimen ISH1.5, shear cracks were visible starting with
0.75 × Sylmar (μd = 1.0) and in Specimen ISH1.5T under
396
Fig. 6—Specimen ISH1.25 after failure.
Fig. 7—Specimen ISH1.5T after failure.
1.0 × Sylmar (μd = 1.2). Localized small vertical cracks were
observed in Specimen ISH1.5T under 1.0 × Sylmar. After
1.0 × Sylmar (μd = 1.4), first spalling at the top and bottom of
the column was observed in Specimens ISH1.0 and ISH1.5,
whereas in Specimens ISH1.25 and ISH1.5T, the first spalling
was observed during 1.25 × Sylmar (μd = 1.6 in Specimen
ISH1.25 and 1.7 in Specimen ISH1.5T). Flexural and shear
cracks propagated and more concrete spalled during 1.5 ×
Sylmar (μd = 2.5) in Specimen ISH1.0, 1.75 × Sylmar (μd = 2.2)
in Specimen ISH1.25, 1.25 × Sylmar (μd = 1.7) in Specimen
ISH1.5, and 1.75 × Sylmar (μd = 2.5) in Specimen ISH1.5T.
The spirals were visible at the top and bottom of the column
after 2.125 × Sylmar (μd = 2.9) in Specimen ISH1.25. The
longitudinal bars were exposed after 1.75 × Sylmar (μd = 3.6)
in Specimen ISH1.0, 2.25 × Sylmar (μd = 3.7) in Specimen
ISH1.25, 1.5 × Sylmar (μd = 2.2) in Specimen ISH1.5, and
2.0 × Sylmar (μd = 2.8) in Specimen ISH1.5T. Specimens
ISH1.0 and ISH1.25 (Fig. 6) failed in flexure/shear during
2.0 × Sylmar (μd = 4.7) near the bottom and 2.375 × Sylmar
(μd = 4.7) near the top, respectively.
Damage in the core was observed in Specimen ISH1.5 after
2.125 × Sylmar (μd = 4.7) and in Specimen ISH1.5T after
2.25 × Sylmar (μd = 3.0). The longitudinal bars buckled at the
bottom of the column during 2.25 × Sylmar (μd = 3.4) in
Specimen ISH1.5 and 2.5 × Sylmar (μd = 3.4) in Specimen
ISH1.5T Specimens ISH1.5 and ISH.5T (Fig. 7) failed
during 2.375 × Sylmar (μd = 4.0) and 2.625 × Sylmar (μd =
3.8), respectively. Failure in Specimen ISH1.5, was due to
fracture of the spirals and buckling of the longitudinal bars,
whereas in Specimen ISH1.5T, failure was due to fracture of
the spirals and one of the longitudinal bars.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007
 Fig. 8—Hysteretic curves and envelopes for low-shear specimens.
Fig. 9—Hysteretic curves and envelopes for high-shear specimens.
Force-displacement relationships
The accumulated measured hysteresis curves for the ISL
and ISH groups are plotted in Fig. 8 and 9, respectively. For
each column, a backbone force-displacement envelope was
developed based on the peak forces with corresponding
displacements for all the motions before failure. The failure
point in the backbone curve was assumed either at the point
of maximum displacement or at a point with 80% of the peak
force with the corresponding displacement. The latter was
used when the force at the maximum displacement dropped
more than 20% of the pick force (Fig. 8 and 9). The
backbone curves for the predominant direction of the motion
were idealized by elasto-plastic curves to quantify the
ductility capacity. The force corresponding to the first
reinforcement yield and the corresponding displacement on
the measured envelope was used to define the elastic portion
of the idealized curve. Once the elastic portion was defined,
the yield level was established by equalizing the area
between the measured backbone and the idealized curves.
Figures 8 and 9 show the idealized curves for specimens with
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007
low and high shear, respectively. Based on the elasto-plastic
curves, displacement ductility capacities of 9.5 and 10.4 were
obtained for Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL1.5, respectively. In
Specimens ISH1.0, ISH1.25, ISH1.5, and ISH1.5T, the
measured displacement ductility capacities were 4.7, 5.0,
4.0, and 3.8, respectively.
The column section total depths were different within each
specimen group due to different distances between the spiral
sets. As a result, the lateral load capacity varied among the
columns. To compare the performance of the specimens,
forces were normalized with respect to the effective yield
force of each specimen and the normalized force-
displacement envelopes were compared (Fig. 10). The effect
of a large distance between the spiral sets in low-shear
columns can be seen in Fig. 10(a). The overall ductility
capacity of the two low-shear specimens was comparable.
The strength of the specimen with di of 1.5R (Specimen ISL1.5),
however, degraded starting with displacement ductility of
7.4, whereas the strength of the column with di of 1.0R
397

Fig. 10—Normalized lateral force-displacement envelopes.
Fig. 11—Measured displacement ductility capacity versus
average shear stress index.
Fig. 12—Measured curvature for ISL group.
(Specimen ISL1.0) did not drop until failure. At a
displacement ductility of 9, the strength degradation in the
column with di of 1.5R was 10% whereas it was 4% when di
was 1.0R. Nevertheless, degradation started at a relatively
high ductility and hence is not of concern. Note that the
target design displacement ductility for the columns was 5.
In specimens with high shear, the displacement ductility
capacity was comparable in the two columns with di of 1.0R
or 1.25R. The ductility capacity dropped by approximately
20% when di was increased to 1.5R. The slightly lower
ductility of Specimen ISH1.5T versus Specimen ISH1.5 (3.8
versus 4) suggests that the addition of crossties had little
effect on the ductility capacity. A comparison of Fig. 9(c)
and (d) indicates that the response of Specimen ISH1.5
contained limited excursions into the negative displacement
range, whereas the Specimen ISH1.5T response was some-
what symmetric. Variations of concrete strength properties,
column stiffness, and the shake table response are attributed
398
to the difference in the column responses. Symmetric cyclic
displacements tend to place higher demands on reinforced
concrete members. It is hence concluded that, had the
displacements in the two columns been identical, Specimen
ISH1.5T would have shown a higher ductility capacity.
Nonetheless, the ductility capacity of approximately 4
measured in Specimens ISH1.5 and ISH1.5T was considered
to be satisfactory. The displacement ductility at which
strength degradation began in columns with di of 1.0R and
1.25R was approximately 3.7, and in those with di of 1.5R
was approximately 3. The larger spread of the spirals clearly
shows some effect on the overall load-displacement
response. The addition of the crossties reduced the slope of
the degradation part of the responses (Fig. 10(b)).
The displacement ductility capacity versus the average
shear stress index is shown in Fig. 11. The measured
concrete compressive strengths were used in this graph. In
general, the displacement ductility capacity decreased when
the average shear stress index increased. This was because
columns subjected to high shear failed in shear/flexural
mode, whereas those with low shear failed in flexure with no
significant shear damage.
Measured curvatures
Displacement transducers were used to measure curvature
in the plastic hinge regions at the bottom of the ISL group
and at the top and bottom of the ISH group. The strain on
each side of the column was calculated from the vertical
displacement measured by each external transducer divided
by the gauge length. The average curvature over the gauge
length was computed as the difference between the strains on
the opposite sides of the column divided by the horizontal
distance between the instruments. This procedure assumes
that sections remained plane.
The curvature profiles for the predominant direction of
motion are shown in Fig. 12 and 13 for specimens with low
and high shear, respectively. High values of curvature were
measured in the plastic hinges, as expected. The curvatures
at the ends are influenced by the localized longitudinal
reinforcement bond slip and are not purely due to flexural
deformation of the plastic hinge.
The maximum ultimate curvatures in Specimens ISL1.0
and ISL1.5 were comparable, indicating that the change in
distance of the spiral sets did not affect the curvature
performance. This observation was in agreement with the
displacement ductility capacities of the two models. The
maximum curvatures in the columns with high shear were
also comparable within the group, but were approximately 2/3
of the curvatures of the ISL group. The lower curvatures are
consistent with the smaller displacement ductility capacities
that were observed for this group. The peak top and bottom
curvatures in Specimens ISH1.0 and ISH1.25 were comparable,
confirming that the loading mechanism to bend the columns
in double-curvature fixed-fixed mode was successful. In
Specimens ISH1.5 and ISH1.5T, the peak top curvatures
were 20 to 25% lower than the bottom curvature due to slight
rotation of the loading head that occurred under high loads
and prevented fully fixed response at the top.
Measured strains
The strain gauges on the longitudinal reinforcement were
placed at the potential plastic hinge regions of all the
columns and the footings, and in the loading heads of the
ISH group. In all specimens, the longitudinal bars yielded
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007
 Fig. 13—Measured curvature for ISH group.

extensively and flexural deformations dominated the

response. Higher strains were measured at or near the base of
all the columns and also at the top of the ISH group. Because
the response in all the specimens was dominated by flexure,
the test variables did not significantly affect the trends in the
longitudinal and spiral bar strains except as noted in the
following.
The correlation between the apparent damage and the longi-
tudinal bar strains was studied. Five damage states were
selected representing an increasing level of damage: 1) flexural
cracks; 2) first spalling and shear cracks; 3) extensive cracking
and spalling; 4) visible spirals and longitudinal bars; and 5)
imminent failure. The fifth damage state refers to the case where
core damage is observed or is about to occur and some of the
longitudinal bars show signs of bending that might lead to
buckling and failure in subsequent runs. This damage state
corresponded to the run before the failure run in the shake table
tests. Figure 14 shows the average of the highest three strain
data in the longitudinal bars versus the damage states in each
model. The average data for three gauges, rather than the
maximum strain, were used because local bar strains are
influenced by cracks and present erratic patterns. The data for
all specimens were averaged and shown on the graph.
It can be seen in Fig. 14 that, within each damage state, the
longitudinal bar strains were generally higher in the ISL
group. This is because the moment gradient in the high-shear
columns is relatively high, making the strain more localized
and the average strains lower. The larger distance between
the spiral sets in Specimen ISL1.5 led to higher bar strains in
the first three damage states. Within the ISH group, the bar
strains did not seem to be sensitive to the distance between
the spiral sets.
The average bar strains in all specimens increased
especially during the first three damage states. Average
strains of approximately 3.5 times the yield strain were
recorded when flexural cracks were observed in the
columns. When first spalling and shear cracks were visible,
the strain in the longitudinal bars increased to approximately
7.5 times the yield strain. An average strain of 14.5 times the
Fig. 14—Longitudinal bars strain versus observed damage.
yield strain was recorded when extensive cracking and
spalling was observed in the columns. Average strains of 18
and 19 times the yield strain were recorded for the last two
damage states.
The correlation between the spiral bar strains and different
damage states was also reviewed. It was found that spiral bar
strains remain small (generally less than 2/3 of the yield
strain) until the run before failure. These data are presented
and discussed in more detail in Reference 7. It was
determined that it would be more useful if the trends in spiral
bar strains are studied as a function of displacement
ductilities. The average of peak spiral strains is plotted
against displacement ductilities in Fig. 15. It can be seen that
average strain was below yield until higher ductilities were
reached. The larger distance between the spiral sets in
Specimen ISL1.5 led to higher strains than those of
Specimen ISL1.0 under large ductilities. The higher spiral
strains are attributed to the slight degradation of the load
capacity (Fig. 10) observed in Specimen ISL1.5. In addition,
Fig. 15 shows slightly smaller strains in Specimen ISH1.0
compared with the rest of the high-shear specimens until the
last motion. The average maximum spiral strains in

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 399

 In Eq. (1), the average of the measured curvatures over the
extreme two gauge lengths (203 mm [8 in.] in low-shear
columns and 254 mm [10 in.] in high-shear columns) was used
because most of the plastic deformation was concentrated over
that region according to the measured curvatures and strains.
Table 2 lists the data used to determine the measured lp for
Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL 1.5. The values of lp of 0.75 and
0.83 times the total depth of the column were found for
Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL1.5, respectively. It can be seen that
the larger spiral distance in Specimen ISL1.5 led to an increase
in the ratio of the PHL over the column depth by
approximately 10%. The aspect ratio (column height divided
Fig. 15—Maximum average strain in the spirals. by the column section depth in the loading direction) of
Specimen ISL1.5 was approximately 10% larger than the
Table 2—Data for plastic hinge length Specimen ISL1.0 aspect ratio. Under equal conditions,
Specimen Specimen ISL1.5 would experience a smaller shear
Variables ISL1.0 ISL1.5 ISH1.0 ISH1.25 ISH1.5 ISH1.5T deformation. The larger spread of the spirals in Specimen
φp , Rad/mm
ISL1.5, however, appear to have led to higher shear
0.204 0.159 0.124 0.116 0.101 0.074
(Rad/in.) (0.008) (0.006) (0.005) (0.005) (0.004) (0.003) deformations that necessitated a larger PHL to match the
16.901 18.172 21.1 21.1 32.1 26.7
measured displacement.
Δy, mm (in.)
(0.67) (0.72) (0.83) (0.83) (1.26) (1.05) The values of lp of 0.98, 0.96, 1.12, and 1.27 times the total
Δu, mm (in.) 161 188 98.6 105 127 102 depth of the columns were found for Specimens ISH1.0,
(6.34) (7.4202) (3.88) (4.15) (5.02) (4.00) ISH1.25, ISH1.5, and ISH1.5T, respectively. The aspect
L, mm (in.) 1473 1828 1473 1600 1753 1753 ratios for these columns were nearly the same. In high-shear
(58) (72) (58) (63) (69) (69)
columns, the increase in the distance between the spirals
lp , mm (in.) 351 428 363 384 480 541 from 1.0R to 1.5R appears to have increased displacement
(13.8) (16.84) (14.3) (15.1) (18.9) (21.3)
due to shear, thus increasing the apparent plastic hinge
length by approximately 20%.
Specimens ISH1.25 and ISH1.5T were nearly the same, and
the average maximum spiral strain in Specimen ISH1.5 was CONCLUSIONS
the highest until a displacement ductility of approximately Based on the observations and the experimental results of
1.6 was reached. this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. The seismic performance of columns with relatively
Plastic hinge length low shear with spiral distance di of 1.0R and 1.5R was similar
The plastic hinge length (PHL) is used to estimate post- and satisfactory with displacement ductility capacities of
yield lateral displacements based on the moment curvature near 10. The strength degradation was slightly larger when di
properties of the plastic hinge while empirically taking into was 1.5R. This degradation began at a displacement ductility
account displacements due to bond slip and shear of 7.4, however, which exceeded the target design
deformation. To determine the sensitivity of PHL to the displacement ductility of 5;
spiral set distance and the level of shear, the PHL for each 2. Because the low-shear column with di of 1.5R did not
column was estimated using the measured plastic curvatures experience significant shear cracking, and based on the
and displacements. The moment area method was used to satisfactory displacement ductility capacity, it appears that
relate displacements and curvatures assuming that the plastic the Caltrans provision of allowing a di value of up to 1.5R is
rotation θp over the equivalent PHL, lp, is defined by appropriate for columns with low shear;
3. The seismic performance of column models with di of
θ p = ( φ u – φ y )l p (1) 1.0R and 1.25R subjected to high shear was similar and
satisfactory. Even though the columns failed in shear/flexure
mode, they were ductile and achieved the design
where φu equals the ultimate curvature capacity, and φy displacement ductility capacity of 5;
equals the idealized yield curvature. 4. Vertical cracks in the interlocking region were observed
The center of rotation was assumed to be at the center of under small earthquakes in the column with high shear and
the plastic hinge. Equation (2) was assumed to relate plastic di of 1.5R. The large area of plain concrete in the interlocking
rotation and plastic displacements. The PHL was determined zone is susceptible to cracking when di is 1.5R and the
using this equation. In the ISH group, two plastic hinges column shear is relatively high. The addition of horizontal
were formed and, hence, the average measured curvatures at crossties connecting the interlocking hoops not only reduced
the top and bottom were used. and delayed vertical cracks in the interlocking region, but
also reduced the strength degradation;
l 5. The measured displacement ductility capacity was
Δ p = θ p ⎛ L – ---p⎞ (2) approximately 4 in columns with high shear and a di of 1.5R.
⎝ 2⎠
Even though the desired ductility capacity was 5, the column
is considered to be sufficiently ductile for most applications.
where L equals the distance from point of maximum moment Crossties are recommended to reduce premature vertical
to the point of contraflexure. cracking in these columns; and

400 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 6. The plastic hinge length to match the measured plastic
lateral displacement increased as the distance of the spirals
sets increased from 1.0R to 1.5R by 10 to 20%, depending on
the level of shear.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research presented in this paper was sponsored by the California
Department of Transportation. The dedicated assistance of P. Laplace, J.
Pedroarena, and P. Lucas of the University of Nevada-Reno bridge
laboratory is gratefully acknowledged. Specials thanks are expressed to N.
Wehbe of South Dakota State University for developing a moment-curvature
analysis program for interlocking spiral columns.
REFERENCES
1. California Department of Transportation, “Bridge Design Specifications,”
Engineering Service Center, Earthquake Engineering Branch, Calif.,
July 2000, 250 pp.
2. California Department of Transportation, “Seismic Design Criteria
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007
Version 1.2,” Engineering Service Center, Earthquake Engineering Branch,
Calif., Dec. 2001, 133 pp.
3. Tanaka, H., and Park, R., “Seismic Design and Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Columns with Interlocking Spirals,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993, pp. 192-203.
4. Buckingham, G. C., “Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns with
Interlocking Spirals Reinforcement,” MS thesis, Washington State University,
Pullman, Wash., 1992, 146 pp.
5. Benzoni, G.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., “Seismic Shear Strength
of Columns with Interlocking Spiral Reinforcement,” 12th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000, 8 pp.
6. Correal, J.; Saiidi, M.; and Sanders, D., “Seismic Performance of RC
Bridge Columns Reinforced with Two Interlocking Spirals,” Report No.
CCEER-04-6, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev., Aug. 2004,
438 pp.
7. Correal, J., and Saiidi, M., “Lessons Learned from Shake Table Testing of
RC Columns in Relation to Health Monitoring,” IMAC-XXIII—A Conference
& Exposition on Structural Dynamics—Structural Health Monitoring,
Orlando, Fla., 2005, 9 pp.
401