State-of-the-Art Review

State-of-the-Art Review of Seismic-Resistant Precast

Bridge Columns
Qi Zhang, P.E., P.Eng.1; and M. Shahria Alam, Ph.D., P.Eng., M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: There has been significant research effort on seismic-resistant precast bridge columns; however, the research results have not been
transferred into the industry to achieve their full potential. This review provides a summary of the research development and challenges for
both researchers and practitioners. Applications of new materials in rocking columns are briefly discussed. Three types of rocking columns
are reviewed: emulative column, simple rocking column, and hybrid rocking column. It is believed that hybrid rocking columns are the most
prominent option when compared with the other two types. Its design recommendations with respect to energy dissipating bars, axial load
ratios, and tendons are concluded based on the review data. The amount of energy dissipating bars should be such that its contribution to total
bending moment capacity is less than 50%. In most of the cases, the energy-dissipating bar ratios are less than 1.7% of the column sectional
area. Upon a careful review of existing experimental test results, an effective stiffness ratio of 20%–40% can be suggested for design. To
further facilitate engineering designs, regression equations predicting residual drift to maximum drift ratios, as well as viscous damping ratios
are proposed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001620. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Precast concrete; Bridge column; Rocking column; Segmental column; Seismic damage; Self-centering.

Introduction
Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) is playing increasingly im-
portant roles as authorities try to reduce the traffic interruption of
transportation networks. The philosophy of accelerated construc-
tion is “get in, get out, and stay out” (Khaleghi 2005). Reducing
construction time and costs are the main incentives for using
ABC. Although costs on small ABC projects may be higher than
on conventional construction at some stages (Burak and Seraderian
2010), this is expected to change as more projects are built with
ABC. The benefits of ABC also include improvements in safety,
quality, durability, social costs, and environmental impacts
(FHWA 2017). ABC has been used in the United States (e.g.,
Ahn et al. 2006; Culmo 2011; Doolen et al. 2011; Mashal et al.
2017; PCI 2006), Canada (e.g., Fowler 2006), New Zealand
(e.g., Palermo and Mashal 2012), and many other countries (e.g.,
Khan 2014). Design guidelines and examples of ABC were also
published by many Departments of Transportation in the U.S.
(e.g., Iowa-DOT 2009; Mass-DOT 2013; MDOT 2013; UDOT
2015; ODOT 2016; WisDOT 2017; WSDOT 2017).
Precast concrete elements are frequently used as a technique to
accelerate bridge construction. Precast concrete girders have
been widely used in bridge superstructures for many decades
(Freyermuth 1969). Precast concrete elements have also been
used for deck construction in the form of partial precast deck panels
(e.g., PCI 2017) and full-depth panels (e.g., Issa et al. 1995;
1
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia,
Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V1V7; Project Engineer, WSP Canada, 840
Howe St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2M1. ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0001-6295-3390.
2
Professor, School of Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia,
Kelowna, BC V1V1V7, Canada (corresponding author). ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0002-9092-1473. Email: shahria.alam@ubc.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 26, 2019; approved on
May 21, 2020; published online on August 12, 2020. Discussion period
open until January 12, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
PCI 2011; Yamane et al. 1998; Yousif 1995). In recent years,
applications of precast concrete elements have been extended to
substructures such as abutments, columns, pier caps, and footings
(e.g., PCI 2006; Tobolski et al. 2006). Precast pier caps are typi-
cally connected with columns using pocket connections (Tazarv
and Saiidi 2015a). However, the use of precast columns is still rel-
atively rare, especially in high seismic regions. This is mainly be-
cause seismic behavior is highly sensitive to the characteristics of
the connections (Kurama et al. 2018). In seismic design, super-
structures are designed elastically, however, substructures are typ-
ically designed to undertake plastic deformations, which require
special seismic detailing. Therefore, the use of precast concrete col-
umns must take consideration of special joint design. Among the
100 ABC projects recorded on the ABC–UTC Project Database
(FIU 2018), 28 projects used precast pier components (e.g., col-
umns and caps), 73 projects used precast abutments or walls, and
74 projects used precast girders or deck panels.
This paper categorizes precast columns into three categories, ac-
cording to their connections: emulative column, simple rocking col-
umn, and hybrid rocking column. Both the simple rocking column
and hybrid rocking column are nonemulative. Emulative columns
are designed to achieve responses comparable to that of cast-in-place
(CIP) monolithic columns with full bending moment connections
(Kurama et al. 2018; Mashal and Palermo 2015). Simple rocking col-
umns are designed to rotate without any restraint from continuous
rebar at the joints. Hybrid rocking columns (Palermo et al. 2005)
are designed to achieve a balance between emulative and simple
rocking columns. The hybrid rocking column is characterized by
both unbonded posttensioned (PT) tendon and longitudinal rebar
connecting rocking components, therefore, named as “hybrid.”
At the rocking interface, the rebar, which is designed to yield
under design earthquake, is typically unbonded for a short length
to avoid strain concentration. Many researchers named the yielding
rebar as an energy dissipating (ED) bar (Ou et al. 2010a). When the
ED bars are applied externally to the columns, their connections
with the rocking components are usually achieved by anchorages
rather than bonding. The advantages of hybrid rocking columns
are the improved energy-dissipating capacity resulted from ED

© ASCE 03120001-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Simple rocking.
bars and relatively small residual displacement due to the self-
centering (also termedas “re-centering”) force from the elasti-
cally designed tendons. The three types of precast columns
can be comprised of a single precast element or multiple seg-
ments. In situations where there is transportation or prefabrica-
tion constraint for large columns, segmental constructions can
be the solution. However, it is normally preferred to use as
few segments as possible to accelerate on-site construction.
Precast columns in the forms of simple rocking and hybrid rock-
ing are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2.
Similar to precast column system, there are precast wall system
and precast beam–column in building structures, which were exten-
sively investigated by many researchers (e.g., Kurama et al. 1999;
Holden, et al. 2003; Kurama and Shen, 2004; Marriott et al. 2008;
Perez et al. 2007). Similar to precast columns, unbonded PT walls
and beam–column connections can undergo large deformation with
little damage because the opening along joints provides
nonlinear-elastic behavior. Several large-scale research projects,
as well as individual component tests, have taken place. For in-
stance, some of the large research projects are the testing of a
five-story precast concrete building (PRES project) in the United
States (Priestley et al. 1999), testing of two full-scale building
structures in Japan (Nagae et al. 2012), and testing of a full-scale
three-story precast concrete building (SAFECAST Project) in
Europe (Negro et al. 2013). The design requirements of hybrid rock-
ing walls are contained in ITG-5.1 (ITG 2008) and ITG-5.2 (ITG
2009). The design requirements of special moment frames are
specified in ACI (2013). The development of earthquake-resistant
precast structures in bridges lags behind that in buildings (Kurama
et al. 2018).
With the advent of accelerated bridge construction, it is ex-
pected that more bridge elements will be made in factories and
erected on-site to reduce the construction duration. The bridge in-
dustry is successful in building superstructures using precast ele-
ments, such as prestressed precast girders, precast deck panels,
and barriers, whereas the development in precast substructure
(such as columns) is relatively slow. There have been significant
research efforts on seismic-resistant precast bridge columns;
© ASCE 03120001-2
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
Fig. 2. Hybrid rocking.
however, the research results have not been transferred into the in-
dustry to achieve their full potential. Researchers have proved that
precast bridge columns can perform at least as well as CIP concrete
columns if they are properly designed and constructed. However,
the application of the precast bridge column is still quite rare in
seismic regions. This is mainly due to the fact that bridge codes
in North America do not have design provisions and guidelines
on precast bridge columns. Many innovative and discrete research
projects on this subject have been done by researchers. Yet there is
no recent review paper summarizing the current research progress
and identifying challenges systematically, which poses difficulty in
proposing a design guideline for practicing engineers and navigat-
ing the direction of future needed research.
This review paper provides a summary of the research develop-
ment, relevant design codes, and challenges for both researchers
and practitioners on the topic of precast bridge columns. Three
types of precast columns are reviewed: emulative column, simple
rocking column, and hybrid rocking column. Both simple rocking
and hybrid rocking columns are nonemulative. The focus of the
paper is on the hybrid rocking column, also known as dissipative
controlled rocking columns or jointed systems. The seismic design
of such a system is different from that of traditional CIP concrete
structures. The design philosophy is that the tendon provides self-
centering forces that reduce permanent deformation and the ED
bars reach yielding to improve ED capacity. For hybrid rocking
columns, three key parameters are identified and discussed: axial
load ratio, ED bar ratio, and tendon. Clear design recommendations
are presented at the end of each topic as well as in the Conclusion
section. The other two types of precast columns, emulative col-
umns and simple rocking columns, are presented in different
ways that may be discrete. For these two types of columns, the
focus is more on their construction detailing than on design param-
eters. For emulative column design, there are many developed de-
sign codes to follow, thus design parameters do not need to be
discussed again in this paper. Simple rocking columns are not
ideal for new constructions and are not likely to comply with design
codes. Therefore, no detailed design parameters are discussed. Its
review is focused on the fundamentals and innovative construction
J. Bridge Eng.
 details. In addition, many advanced materials were evolved in the
last decades and were tested by researchers. An assessment of the
effectiveness of these materials is discussed in the paper. With
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Grout-filled connection. (Adapted from Tazarv and Saiidi
2016.)
Fig. 4. Socket connection. (Adapted from Mashal et al. 2013.)
(a)
Fig. 5. (a) Ductile coupler connection; and (b) strong coupler connection. (Adapted from Kurama et al. 2018.)
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
the application of new structural systems and new materials, the re-
silience of bridge structures can be improved significantly.
Emulative Column
Emulative columns are designed to perform essentially like mono-
lithic CIP columns. Most of the time, PT tendons are not used in
emulative columns. Marsh (2011) evaluated a number of emulative
connections. The connections are typically in the form of grouted,
socket, and coupled connections (Haraldsson et al. 2013a; Tazarv
and Saiidi 2015a; Ameli et al. 2016; White and Palermo 2016).
Emulative connections can be further categorized into ductile and
strong connections. Structures with ductile connections are expected
to yield in the connection regions where plastic hinges are defined.
Structures with strong connections are expected to yield outside
the connection regions. In the design of emulative connections, spe-
cial attention should be given to the development length of reinforce-
ment, ductility, and strain concentrations. Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate
typical grout-filled and socket connections. Ductile and strong
connections using couplers are shown in Figs. 5(a and b).
Researchers have tested many types of construction details of
emulative columns (e.g., Haraldsson et al. 2013b; Tazarv and Saiidi
2013; Tran et al. 2013; Popa et al. 2015; Eom et al. 2016). It was
shown that emulative column responses can be achieved as long
as the bending moment can be fully transferred between joints in
a ductile manner. For example, two emulative segmental columns
were tested by Mashal et al. (2013): one square section with
grouted connections and one circular section with socket connec-
tions. It was found that although both connections showed slightly
pinched hysteresis loops, the energy dissipation met the expecta-
tion of emulative connections. To improve the joint performance
of emulative connections, ultra-high performance concrete
(UHPC) is frequently used due to its high strength and bonding be-
havior. Tazarv and Saiidi (2015b), Shafieifar et al. (2018), Ameli
et al. (2014), and Parks et al. (2016) incorporated UHPC and
grouted splice sleeves in achieving emulative behaviors and ob-
served improvement in the joint behavior. In addition to using
grout and socket connection, couplers are promising alternatives
as well. It is noted that most of the jurisdictions do not permit
using couplers in plastic hinge regions, with the only exception
being the Utah Department of Transportation (Ebrahimpour et al.
2016). Saiidi et al. (2015) suggested that the prohibition of couplers
in plastic hinge regions should be relaxed based on their study of
(b)
03120001-3 J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Pile–shaft connection. (Adapted from Tran et al. 2014.)

Fig. 7. Unrestrained rocking column.
five types of coupler: shear screw, headed bar, grouted ducts,
threaded, and swaged. Coupler connections can also be used
when smart materials, such as shape-memory alloy, are used in
the plastic hinge regions connected with mild steel used elsewhere
(Alam et al. 2009, 2010; Billah and Alam 2012). The coupler con-
nections may be located either in the column portion or footing por-
tion (Ebrahimpour et al. 2016; Haber et al. 2014).
The application of the precast column is not limited to shallow
foundations; other innovative systems have also been tested. Tran
et al. (2014) tested the pile–shaft splice with the precast column
shown in Fig. 6 under quasi-static loads. They concluded that if ad-
equate transverse steel is provided in the splice zone, the plastic
hinge would form in the column as expected. Researchers also
tested columns composed of both CIP and precast elements. For ex-
ample, Ou et al. (2013) tested a tall segmental PT column that has a
lower CIP portion and a prefabricated upper portion. The segments
Fig. 8. Restrained rocking column.
were assembled using U-loop PT anchored in CIP concrete seg-
ment. It was found that the damage was governed by the plastic
hinge mechanism of the CIP region, where flexural failure was
reached and then followed by fracture of the transverse reinforce- cannot be represented by single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) struc-
ment and buckling of longitudinal reinforcement. tures, as demonstrated by Makris and Konstantinidis (2003). For
The design philosophy of emulative columns is similar to tradi- unrestrained rocking columns, the restoring force is provided by
tional CIP monolithic columns. The research and design code on gravity, and the stiffness becomes negative once rocking is exces-
emulative structures are relatively newly established. Design guide- sive, whereas for an SDOF system, the elastic stiffness from bend-
lines on emulative connections are well documented in references ing and shear is always positive. The dynamic behavior of an
such as ACI (2014a). Guidelines specifically for bridge elements unrestrained rocking column is completely determined by the ge-
can be found in Steuck et al. (2008), Culmo (2009), Roddenberry ometry and gravity acceleration. When rocking columns are flexi-
(2012), Kapur et al. (2012), and Tazarv and Saiidi (2015a). ble in bending, the rocking response is coupled with flexural
deformations. Vassiliou et al. (2015) studied responses of deform-
able rocking columns and suggested that the stability of large can-
Simple Rocking Column tilever columns would not be reduced by deformability.
Nonetheless, the use of simple rocking columns is quite limited
Simple rocking columns are nonemulative and can be divided into in practice. In AASHTO (2013), rocking foundations are defined
two categories: unrestrained simple rocking column and restrained in the category of Permissible Earthquake-Resisting Elements
simple rocking column. This paper refers to freestanding columns that require the owner’s approval. A set of design criteria is de-
as unrestrained simple rocking columns (Fig. 7). Columns with PT scribed in the appendix of AASHTO (2013). It should be noted
tendons (but without ED bar) are referred to as restrained simple that rocking foundations are not commonly used in new structures,
rocking columns (Fig. 8). Housner (1963) first studied unrestrained but may be used in seismic retrofits as a cost-effective option
simple rocking columns, proving that blocks with larger geometry (Dowdell and Hamersley 2000).
were most stable. Subsequently, rocking behaviors were investi- To make unrestrained simple rocking columns more stable, ver-
gated by several researchers (e.g., Aslam et al. 1980; Ishiyama tical tendons anchored to the foundation can be used to increase the
1982; Psycharis and Jennings 1983; Spanos and Koh 1984; stiffness of the rocking column and delay the initiation of rocking
Hogan 1990; Shenton III 1996; Zhang and Makris 2001; Palmeri response. The formulations of restrained rocking responses were
and Makris 2008,; DeJong and Dimitrakopoulos 2014). Unre- studied by a number of researchers (e.g., Barthes 2012; Vassiliou
strained rocking columns have many distinct characteristics that and Makris 2015; Zhang and Alam 2018). Eq. (1) is a simplified

© ASCE 03120001-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001

 equation describing the condition to initiate column rocking
m|ẍg |H > mgb + bP0 (1)
where m = mass; ẍg = horizontal ground acceleration; g = gravity
acceleration; P0 = initial PT force; b = half of the column width;
and H = height of the center of gravity. These parameters and
the geometry definitions of a restrained rocking column are
shown in Fig. 8. Based on Eq. (1), it is apparent that the PT
force delays the initiation of rocking, compared with an unre-
strained rocking column. In addition, the PT force provides self-
centering force and the axial stiffness of the tendon increases the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
rocking vibration frequency. Makris and Vassiliou (2015) demon-
strated that the use of vertical tendons can change the stiffness of a
rocking column from negative to positive. However, the effective-
ness of tendons reduces as the geometry of the column becomes
larger. This is because rotational inertia is proportional to the
square of the column size, which would provide most of the self-
centering force for large columns under dynamic loadings.
Similar to monolithic frame structures, multiple rocking col-
umns can be used to form a frame. The analytical model of a simple
rocking column in a frame is studied by Roh and Reinhorn (2009),
who pointed out that the rocking column boundary varies continu-
ously from fixity to cracking, yielding, and crushing before rocking
starts. Makris and Vassiliou (2013) studied the response of an array
of an unrestrained rocking column with a rigid cap beam. They
concluded that the rocking response of an array of columns was
identical to the response of a single column but in a larger size.
They also found that the weight of the cap beam increased the
stability of the rocking frame.
Experimental research of simple rocking columns was per-
formed by a number of pioneers and evolved with several innova-
tive developments. Mander and Cheng (1997) did early theoretical
and experimental studies of restrained simple rocking columns. The
authors used steel plates at the column–footing interface to prevent
impact damage. They suggested limiting axial load ratio to 10%
(including gravity and prestressing effects) to delay compression
damage. Cheng (2008) conducted shaking table tests of a simple
rocking frame with two columns. Similarly, steel plates were
used at the base of the column. It was reported that up to at least
5% rotation, there was little damage or residual deformation.
Hewes and Priestley (2002) tested four segmental concrete col-
umns where each was tested twice. Steel jackets were used to con-
fine the bottom segments to delay compression damage. The
concrete segments were only connected by unbonded tendons
and segments relied on friction for shear transfer. In the first set
of tests, cyclic loads were applied to specimens with a low PT
force. Then, the specimens were repaired and tested again with a
higher PT force. It was found that specimens with thin jackets
showed higher energy dissipation, which might be contributed by
concrete crushing in thin jackets. It was suggested that the axial
load ratio should be limited to 20%. The authors concluded that
a high axial load ratio is not desirable, as it will result in a negative
post-elastic stiffness and poor ductility. Finite element models of
the test specimens were developed by Dawood et al. (2012) and
Zhang and Alam (2016).
Recent tests have introduced more design variables and made
improvements to the construction detailing. Hollow rectangular
segmental columns in shaking table tests were carried out by
Yamashita and Sanders (2009). Limited concrete spall and negligi-
ble residual drift were observed. Rocking columns using pin con-
nections were studied by Mehrsoroush and Saiidi (2013), where
connections consisted of two layers of steel pipes for shear force
transfer and threaded bar for uplift force transfer. It was observed
that rocking behavior only occurred in the bottom segment.
© ASCE 03120001-5
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
Shaking table tests of segmental columns were also tested by
Zhang et al. (2014). The authors stated that there was no residual
displacement even when the peak ground acceleration reached as
high as 0.8 g. Sideris et al. (2014) performed shaking-table tests
and quasi-static cyclic testing of segmental columns with sliding–
rocking (HSR) joints. In the tests, both sliding and rocking at the
joints were allowed. It was observed that the rocking-dominant
joints provided better self-centering capacity than did sliding-
dominant joints. It was also found that near-fault motions resulted
in larger deformations, compared with far-field motions (Sideris
et al. 2015).
The disadvantages of using simple rocking columns are the low
ED capacity associated with high displacement demand, less reli-
able shear transfer mechanism, and less redundancy comparing
with CIP monolithic columns. The low ED is due to the flag-shaped
hysteretic behavior, as the structure essentially remains elastic. In
such situations, oscillations may continue after earthquakes. caus-
ing low-cycle fatigue effects ACI (2014b). The excessive displace-
ment demand may significantly damage bridge joints, adjacent
structures as well as nonstructural components, such as barriers
and utilities. In terms of shear transfer relying on friction, it is
not reliable when frame action significantly reduces compression
at exterior columns of a frame. It is also less reliable during vehic-
ular impact or when vertical acceleration causes uplifts. In ACI
(2014a), it is specified that connections that rely solely on friction
caused by gravity shall not be permitted. Although it is possible to
use internal shear keys in various forms, their inspection after earth-
quakes can be very challenging. Hence, it is challenging to meet
current code requirements using simple rocking columns.
Hybrid Rocking Column
Hybrid rocking columns are characterized by both unbonded ten-
dons and ED bars at the rocking interface, as previously shown
in Fig. 2. The unbonded tendons provide self-centering capacity
and the ED bars provide ED capacity. The amount of ED bars
should be sufficient to provide ED capacity, at the same time, the
strength of ED bars should be smaller than the tendons such that
the columns show self-centering behavior. The major design pa-
rameters include the ED bar ratio (total ED bar to column cross-
section area ratio), axial load ratio (axial dead and prestressing
load to column compression capacity ratio), and tendon design.
These parameters collectively control some important characteris-
tics of the columns, such as self-centering capacity, damping, and
residual deformation, which ultimately determine the seismic per-
formance of bridges.
The first and so far possibly the only bridge constructed with
hybrid rocking columns is the Wigram–Magdala Link Bridge
(Routledge et al. 2016) in New Zealand. The bridge is about
99 m long with three spans of prestressed concrete girders sup-
ported on hybrid rocking column bents. The columns are concrete-
filled steel tubes supported on pile footings. The columns have base
plates connected to the footing using ED bars. The bridge has been
seen as a success for a step-change in seismic design philosophy.
The use of hybrid rocking columns is still rare, possibly due to
the lack of guidance in design codes. Limited design guidelines
can be found in NZS (2006) and fib (2010) which are based on
the monolithic beam analogy method, assuming the deformation
of the hybrid rocking column would be similar to that of CIP mono-
lithic column. Other than that, there are no detailed design clauses
in bridge codes around the world.
Although the explicit design requirements of hybrid rocking
columns are not contained in North American codes,
J. Bridge Eng.
 ACI (2014a) permits novel column designs if the test results meet
certain criteria. ACI (2014b) specifies the detailed testing procedures
for structures not fully satisfying the prescriptive requirements of
ACI (2014a). The main criteria for cyclic loading up to 3.5% drift
include: (1) strength degradation shall be within 25%; (2) relative
ED ratio shall not be less than 1/8; (3) secant stiffness from a drift
of −3.5% to +3.5% shall not be less than 5% of its initial stiffness.
It should be noted that even structures designed as per ACI (2014a)
may not meet the requirement of ACI (2014b), as the latter has
more-stringent requirements. Hybrid connections for buildings are
defined in ACI (2013), which specifies design requirements for spe-
cial frames with beams posttensioned to columns. In this structural
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
system, rocking occurs at beam–column joints. ED bars are used
at the joints and are unbonded to avoid strain concentration. ACI
(2013) stipulates that the bending moment contribution from ED
bars should be less than 50% of total capacity. This hybrid connec-
tion and its deformed shape are shown in Figs. 9(a and b), respec-
tively. The anchor of the tendon would be located at the exterior
columns, which are not shown in Fig. 9.
Researchers have performed a large number of experimental
tests on hybrid rocking columns (e.g., Sakai and Mahin 2004;
Hieber et al. 2005; Cheng 2008; Shim et al. 2008; Marriott et al.
2009; Metelli et al. 2011; Motaref et al. 2011; Bu et al. 2015,
2016a; Thonstad et al. 2016), as well as analytical and numerical
studies (e.g., Chou and Hsu 2008; Chou et al. 2013; Bu et al.
2016b; Rahmzadeh et al. 2018). Table 1 includes the selected
studies for discussion in this section and further analysis in the
next section. In general, the supplemental energy dissipation of hy-
brid rocking columns was achieved using internal unbonded bars or
external replaceable devices. Hybrid rocking columns under cyclic
loadings were tested by Cohagen et al. (2008), Ou (2007), Wang
et al. (2008), Larkin et al. (2012), and other researchers. In these
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9. (a) PT moment frame (adapted from ACI 2013); and (b) de-
formed PT moment frame.
© ASCE 03120001-6
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
experiments, the axial load ratios range from 6% to 25%. The
ED bar ratios (ED bar area to concrete section area ratio) range
from 0% to 1.4% and the tendon area ratios (tendon area to concrete
section area ratio) range from 0.15% to 1%. The locations of ten-
dons may be at the center of the section or around the parameter.
Some possible details are shown in Figs. 10–13 (Hung et al.
2017; Marriott et al. 2009; Saiidi et al. 2017; Thonstad et al.
2016). Figs. 10 and 11 show hybrid columns using pre-tensioned
and posttensioned tendons. Fig. 12 shows a column with external
mild steel energy dissipaters, which can be replaced after earth-
quake events. Fig. 13 shows a segmental construction with shear
keys in between segments.
The effects of ED bars were investigated by several researchers.
It is an important parameter that controls strength, energy dissipa-
tion, and self-centering of the column. ED bars contribute to energy
dissipation but also increase permanent deformation due to steel
yielding. When designing ED bars, their yielding should be pre-
vented under service loadings and frequent earthquake loadings.
Under moderate and rare earthquake loadings, they shall be de-
signed to yield to dissipate energy. Ou et al. (2007) tested seven
large-scale segmental rectangular concrete columns with ED bar ra-
tios of 0%, 0.5%, and 1%. Three of the seven specimens were
tested under pseudo-dynamic loading and then followed by cyclic
loading to investigate residual strength. In the follow-up tests, spec-
imens showed decreased stiffness, strength, and energy dissipation
capacity, and even smaller residual drifts. It was explained that the
decrease of residual drift might be caused by the crushing of the
concrete cover and further softening of the ED bars, which reduced
the required force to self-center the column. Therefore, residual
drift cannot be the only criterion for the seismic performance of
rocking columns. It can be misleading when the residual displace-
ment is very small, while at the same time the column residual
strength is significantly decreased. Wang et al. (2018a) tested
four large-scale segmental columns comprised of 9 to 10 segments
under cyclic loadings. The ED bar ratios ranged from 0% to 1.4%.
The authors suggested that large openings and high strength ED
bars should be avoided in order to obtain satisfactory energy dissi-
pation. Marriott et al. (2011) tested columns with external replace-
able ED bars. Several biaxial moment–interaction diagrams as a
function of mechanical and geometric section properties were pro-
posed. White and Palermo (2016) compared the performance of
one emulative with two hybrid rocking columns that have ED
bar ratios of 1.3% and 1.6%. The hybrid rocking columns were de-
tailed using couplers and socket connections. After the first round
of tests, the columns were repaired and tested again. The authors
indicated that the repair methodology requires further improvement
to avoid ED bars pullout in subsequent earthquakes. Wang et al.
(2018a) tested a hybrid rocking column with an ED bar ratio of
up to 1.7%, which was the highest ratio in the reviewed literature.
This column was pushed to a drift of 6% and the residual drift was
still less than 1%. Thus, existing testings show that any ED bar ra-
tios less than 1.7% would be feasible for hybrid rocking columns.
Meanwhile, the minimal ED bar ratios should be governed by flex-
ural demand and interface shear demand at the rocking interface.
The axial load ratio is another important parameter for column
designs. PT columns are likely to subject to higher compression
compared with traditional CIP columns due to the rocking impact
and PT forces. The compression is particularly high at the compres-
sion toe under rocking responses. Cohagen et al. (2008) tested two
unbounded PT columns and found that the column with PT forces
experienced damage earlier than the column without PT forces. The
damage was mostly due to the high compression force. A number
of details were used by researchers to reduce compression dam-
ages, such as using steel plates at the column–footing interface,
J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 1. Test parameters and residual drifts
Reference Specimen ASR N d λre ρed θpeak θresidual ALR Highlights
Hewes and Priestley JH11 6.0 4 610 NA 0.00 3.00 0.14 25.4 No ED bar, bottom segment confined by steel
(2002) JH21 6.0 4 610 NA 0.00 4.00 0.30 20.4 jacket, static cyclic loading
JH31 3.0 2 610 NA 0.00 4.00 0.10 17.6
JH41 3.0 2 610 NA 0.00 4.00 0.05 17.5
Chou and Chen 1 4.9 4 500 NA 0.00 6.00 0.61 N/A All circular segments confined by steel jacket
(2006) 2 4.9 4 500 NA 0.00 6.00 0.80 N/A
Ou (2007) C0C 4.7 4 860 × 860 NA 0.00 5.00 0.20 15.4 Hollow square sections, static cyclic and dynamic
C5C 4.7 4 860 × 860 2.18 0.50 5.00 0.40 6.1 loading
C8C 4.7 4 860 × 860 1.09 1.00 5.00 2.90 11.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C5C-1 4.7 4 860 × 860 1.54 0.50 5.00 0.90 11.4

Wang et al. (2008) P1 7.9 10 1,200 × 1,800 NA 0.00 4.00 0.05 N/A Hollow rectangular sections, ED bar ratios vary
P2 7.9 10 1,200 × 1,800 0.90 0.57 4.00 0.40 N/A along the height, static cyclic loading
P3 7.9 9 1,200 × 1,800 0.80 1.41 5.00 1.60 N/A
P4 7.9 9 1,200 × 1,800 1.33 0.85 5.00 1.30 N/A
Cohagen et al. (2008) LB6-PT 3.0 1 508 1.60 0.84 6.80 1.36 12.1 Circular sections, static cyclic loading
LB7-PT 3.0 1 508 1.20 1.15 9.80 3.14 12.6
Jeong et al. (2008) PRC-2 6.2 1 406 1.22 0.66 10.71 2.08 11.6 Circular sections, dynamic loading
PRC-U 6.2 1 406 1.17 0.66 11.09 0.30 11.5
PRC-U2 6.2 1 406 1.56 0.66 9.99 0.94 14.9
PRC-UJ 6.2 1 406 1.19 0.66 9.78 0.61 11.7
Marriott et al. (2009) PT 4.6 1 350 × 350 NA 0.00 3.50 0.00 N/A Square sections, static cyclic and dynamic
HBD3 4.6 1 350 × 350 6.37 0.26 3.50 0.00 N/A
HBD4 4.6 1 350 × 350 4.98 0.33 3.50 0.50 N/A
Larkin et al. (2012) PT-LL 4.5 1 610 1.51 0.69 7.00 2.70 14.0 Circular sections, static loading
PT-HL 4.5 1 610 0.89 1.33 7.00 3.65 16.0
Hung et al. (2017) SSKP0 6 4 600 × 600 0.63 1.26 7.00 3.80 10.0 Steel dowels and reinforced concrete shear keys,
SSKP1 6 4 600 × 600 1.04 0.94 7.00 2.70 12.5 static cyclic loading
SSKP2 6 4 600 × 600 1.25 0.94 7.00 1.50 15.0
RCSKP0 6 4 600 × 600 0.72 1.26 7.00 4.10 10.0
RCSKP1 6 4 600 × 600 1.19 0.94 7.00 3.70 12.5
RCSKP2 6 4 600 × 600 1.43 0.94 7.00 3.00 15.0
Li et al. (2018) 5seg 10 5 100 × 100 NA 0.00 7.00 1.40 10.1 Slender square sections, static cyclic loading.
5segED 10 5 100 × 100 2.75 0.25 7.00 1.40 10.1
7seg 10 7 100 × 100 NA 0.00 7.00 0.60 10.1
5segkey 10 5 100 × 100 NA 0.00 7.00 0.60 8.7
7segkey 10 7 100 × 100 NA 0.00 6.00 2.75 10.1
Li et al. (2019) S1 6.0 3 100 0.69 1.44 5.00 0.12 11.2 Bidirectional earthquake motions
White and Palermo SC-N 5 1 500 1.60 1.3 3 0.5 13.0 ED bars can be effectively replaced.
(2016) CC-N 5 1 500 1.29 1.6 3 0.75 12.0
Wang et al. (2018a) R-1 4 3 500 × 500 1.88 0.88 6.00 0.40 6 UHPC shell for the bottom segment
R-2 4 3 500 × 500 2.42 0.88 6.00 0.40 8
R-3 4 3 500 × 500 0.99 1.67 6.00 0.40 6
Bu et al. (2015) UPC 5.29 4 350 NA 0 7.00 0.20 7.49 PT bars are bonded in the last two specimen
UPCE 5.29 4 350 1.23 0.7 7.00 0.90 7.49
BPC 5.29 4 350 NA 0 7.00 4.00 3.74
BPCII 5.29 4 350 NA 0 7.00 3.00 7.49
Note: ASR = aspect ratio; N = number of segments; d = diameter or dimension of the section; λre = self-centering ratio, %; ρed = ED bar ratio, %; θpeak = peak
drift ratio, %; θresidual = residual drift ratio, %; and ALR = axial load ratio, %.

providing more confinement reinforcement to protect the core con-
crete, and using jacketing tubes. Chou and Chen (2006) tested
double-steel tube-confined segmental columns under cyclic loads.
Each of the columns was comprised of four segments. The bottom
segment was equipped with an ED device comprised of a steel plate
and stiffeners. The columns achieved a 6% drift with little residual
displacement and strength degradation. In the reviewed literature,
the total axial load (dead load plus prestressing force) ratios
range 4% (Bu et al. 2015) to 24% (Chou and Chen 2006) of column
compressive capacity. Several studies suggested limiting the axial
load ratios within 20% to ensure the ductility (Hewes and Priestley
2002; Zhang and Alam 2018). These findings are generally consis-
tent with the current design codes for monolithic column designs
(e.g., Caltrans 2019). In Caltrans (2019), a limit of 15% is imposed
on dead load ratio and 22% for all axial forces, including the over-
turning effects caused by the frame action.
Tendon is another unique component of hybrid rocking col-
umns. The amount of tendon steel area is generally governed by

© ASCE 03120001-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Pretensioned hybrid rocking column. (Adapted from Thonstad
et al. 2016.)
Fig. 11. Posttensioned hybrid rocking column. (Adapted from Saiidi
et al. 2017.)
the required prestressing force to recenter the column. The bending
moment contribution from tendon shall be higher than that of ED
bars so that the column can be self-centered after earthquakes. In
the existing literature (listed in Table 1), the tendon steel area ratios
are generally less than 1% of the cross section of the column, ex-
cept for two studies (Bu et al. 2015; Chou and Chen 2006). The ten-
don initial stresses are about 20% to 60% of the ultimate stresses. It
is noted that this ratio is significantly lower than that for a regular
beam design, where tendon initial stress can be as high as 80% of
the ultimate stress (CSA 2014). Using lower initial prestress is nec-
essary for columns that may experience large lateral deformation.
In terms of the prestressing force in the tendon, the earlier discus-
sion has covered the total axial load effect. In addition to that, use
of prestressing forces that are much higher than the dead load
should be avoided, which would inevitably require a larger column
size to maintain the same axial load ratio. In the existing literature,
researchers have tested columns with prestressing forces as high as
seven times the dead load, which may not be practical in a real de-
sign. Some other researchers used prestressing force to replace dead
load due to constraints in the lab. This would be less ideal if the in-
strumentations are not calibrated to capture the P-delta effect from
the dead load. On another note, the use of PT tendons not only im-
proves seismic performance but also enhances durability. This is
because a properly designed hybrid rocking column would only
subject to compressive stress during service loadings, which
eliminates the possibility of crackings. Although there are some
© ASCE 03120001-8
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
Fig. 12. Hybrid rocking column with external dissipator. (Adapted
from Marriott et al. 2011.)
Fig. 13. Hybrid rocking column with shear key. (Adapted from Hung
et al. 2017.)
challenges in the inspection and repair of the tendons after extreme
events. These challenges can be solved by using innovative tech-
nologies such as the replaceable tendons using in the Wigram–
Magdala Link Bridge (Routledge et al. 2016).
In addition to posttensioned columns, pretensioned columns
were also proposed by researchers (Davis et al. 2017; Thonstad
et al. 2016). Thonstad et al. (2016) conducted a multishaking
table test of a two-span bridge with pretensioned hybrid rocking
columns. It was found that residual drift was within 0.2% when
the maximum drift achieved 221% of design motion. The damage
was limited to longitudinal rebar fracture and bulging of the column
confining tube at a 6% drift.
Following the experimental and numerical studies, design
guidelines of the hybrid rocking bridge column have been proposed
by researchers from various perspectives. Kwan and Billington
(2003a) proposed two-level design criteria for the hybrid rocking
column. For the functional level displacement, it was defined as
(1) displacement at yielding of unbonded PT; (2) displacement
leading to 1% residual drift; and (3) 0.7 times survival-level dis-
placement. It was suggested that the yield strain is 0.007 for PT
bars and 0.01 for PT strands. The proposed criterion for life safety
is the displacement at which the capacity decreases by 10% com-
pared with its peak capacity. In a subsequent study, Kwan and
Billington (2003b) suggested that the force reduction factor may
J. Bridge Eng.
 be used to simplify the design similar to the traditional force-based
design for monolithic columns. The overall design, modeling, and
experimental response of the PT column were discussed in Palermo
et al. (2007). Sectional analysis equations based on the global de-
formation compatibility of rebar, PT tendon, and concrete can be
found in (Palermo and Pampanin 2008; Pampanin et al. 2001;
Rahmzadeh et al. 2018). The displacement-based design approach
was also presented in Ou et al. (2010a). In terms of ED bar design,
Ou et al. (2010b) suggested that ED bar contribution to the column
strength should be within 35% of overall strength to limit the resid-
ual drift to 1%. Saiidi et al. (2017) proposed AASHTO guidelines
for the design and construction of FRP-confined hybrid rocking
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
columns. It was suggested that the AASHTO (2013) equation for
analytical plastic hinge length of monolithic columns still applies.
For columns with more than 1% ED bar ratio, the damping was
taken as 5%, which was consistent with the monolithic column de-
sign (AASHTO 2013; CSA 2014). When the ED bar ratio was less
than 1%, Saiidi et al. (2017) suggested reducing damping to 3.2%
since a flag-shaped hysteretic behavior is expected.
Novel Materials in Rocking Column
Novel materials with excellent strength and ductility have been
used to improve the seismic performance of rocking bridge col-
umns (e.g., Zohrevand and Mirmiran 2012; Saiidi et al. 2015).
Billington and Yoon (2004) tested seven precast columns with duc-
tile fiber-reinforced concrete (DFRCC) in the plastic hinge regions.
After lateral loadings with the maximum drift of 4%, the residual
drift was less than 0.2%. The column with DFRCC showed more
distributed cracking, higher peak loads, and energy dissipation.
The authors also found that columns with longer socket length
showed better energy dissipation and delayed localization of
cracks. The columns had negligible residual displacement even if
the tendons were located at the corners of the section. Fiber-
reinforced concrete was also used in the shake table test by
Trono et al. (2015) and cyclic load test by Nguyen et al. (2017).
Lee (2007) and Mehrsoroush and Saiidi (2016) investigated the de-
sign issues and simulation of precast columns with engineered ce-
mentitious composites (ECCs) in plastic hinge regions. It was
found that ECC could prevent significant spalling, however using
ECC with high tensile strength could lead to cracking and failure
outside of the expected plastic hinge segment. Mohebbi et al.
(2018) carried out shake-table tests of rectangular PT column
with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) tendons and
ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) in the plastic hinge region.
The column was socket connected to the footing with unbonded ED
bars. Results showed that the column had a ductility capacity of 6.9
and a drift ratio of 13.8%. PT UHPC columns were also tested by
Mohebbi et al. (2018), Yang and Okumus (2017), and Wang et al.
(2018a). Ou et al. (2010a) compared the cyclic behavior of segmen-
tal columns using high performance (HP) steel with conventional
steel as ED bars. The HP steel had higher strength, ductility, and
superior corrosion resistance. Results showed that the column
with HP ED bars had better drift capacity, lateral strength, and en-
ergy dissipation compared with conventional rebar when the bond-
ing conditions are the same. Tazarv and Saiidi (2016) studied three
advanced materials in precast columns, including UHPC, ECC, and
shape-memory alloy (SMA). Studies on segmental columns with
SMA bars were also carried out by Roh and Reinhorn (2010),
Nikbakht et al. (2015), Moon et al. (2015); Varela and Saiidi
(2017), and Li et al. (2017). In the shake-table tests by Motaref
et al. (2014), ECC, elastomeric pad, and unidirectional CFRP
were used in the plastic hinge regions. Precast columns with
© ASCE 03120001-9
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
polyurethane (PU) as base segments were studied by Nikoukalam
and Sideris (2017). Precast columns with fiber tube and steel
tube systems were also tested (ElGawady et al. 2010; ElGawady
and Sha’lan 2011; Moustafa and ElGawady 2018). A performance-
based design approach of concrete-filled GFRP columns was pro-
posed by Dawood and ElGawady (2013). Guerrini et al. (2014)
tested columns comprised of double steel cylindrical shells with
concrete cast in between. A satisfactory seismic performance was
reported from the quasi-static tests.
Seismic Damage and Self-Centering Capacity
As there is a significant amount of testing data available, this sec-
tion provides some discussions on the key observation and pro-
poses regression equations based on the literature review. It is
worthwhile to reemphasize that rocking columns are designed to
self-center after earthquakes. The self-centering bending moment
is provided by the tendons and gravity, which are designed to be
greater than the plastic strength of ED bars. In other words, while
ED bars are the fuses, the tendons should be capacity protected
to reduce the residual drift. Thus, some important parameters in-
clude ED bar ratios, axial load ratios, and PT force, which deter-
mine the seismic damage under earthquake loadings.
Residual drift is an important seismic performance indicator for
seismic performance, which can be used for seismic assessment
(Christopoulos et al. 2003; Ghobarah 2004). Hieber et al. (2005)
proposed a self-centering/recentering ratio (λre) parameter, which
is defined as the ratio of the self-centering moment to resisting mo-
ment [Eq. (2)]. The expressions of Mre and My are presented in
Eqs. (3) and (4). The value of Mre should be higher than My to ob-
tain self-centering capacity. To be consistent with capacity design
requirements in most of the design codes, the overstrength of ED
bars may need to be used rather than the nominal strength. Several
researchers used the parameter self-centering ratio as an indicator
of the magnitude of residual drift. The self-centering ratio will be
used as an input to predict other crucial parameters such as damp-
ing in this paper:
Mre D + Ap f pi
λre = = (2)
My As fy
Mre = (DL + Ap f pi )αD (3)
My = (As fy )αD (4)
where DL = dead load; Ap = tendon area; fpi = tendon initial stress;
As = total area of ED bars/mild steel; fy = yield strength of ED bars/
mild steel; αD = distance from the center of the column to the cen-
troid of the concrete compression area.
A number of rocking column testings are selected and used for
data analysis. The testing parameters and results are presented in
Table 1, including peak (transient) drifts, residual (permanent)
drifts, and some other important parameters. Specimens in Hewes
and Priestley (2002) were simple rocking segmental columns with-
out ED bars. Tests by Chou and Chen (2006) were concrete seg-
ments confined by steel jackets. Specimens in Ou (2007) were
segmental hybrid rocking columns using PT strands and ED bars.
Hollow sections with ED bars were tested by Wang et al. (2008).
Specimens in Cohagen et al. (2008) were continuous hybrid rock-
ing columns with Williams PT bars and ED bars. The specimens P3
and P4 in Wang et al. (2008) were strengthened to avoid opening at
the bottom of the column, therefore, will not be included in further
analysis in this paper. Similarly, two specimens in Bu et al. (2015)
J. Bridge Eng.
 Fig. 15. Concrete cracking and crushing drifts.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.


0.16 1
Viscous damping = 0.05 + × 1 − √ (6)
λre u
Fig. 14. Residual to maximum drift ratio versus self-centering ratio.
To help readers gain more insight into the progressive damage
process of rocking columns, the tests by Hewes and Priestley
Table 2. Test parameters and damage states
(2002), Cohagen et al. (2008), and Ou (2007) are presented in Table 2
Cracking Yield Concrete crush with more details. The simple rocking columns in Hewes and
References Specimen drift (%) drift (%) drift (%) Priestley (2002) have higher concrete strength and also higher axial
Hewes and JH11 0.3 N/A 2 forces. The cracking drift of the simple rocking column is the drift
Priestley (2002) JH21 0.2 N/A 1.6 at which the gaps open at segment interfaces. The reinforcement
JH31 0.3 N/A 1.2 yielding drifts were not available in tests by Hewes and Priestley
JH41 0.2 N/A 1.2 (2002). The ED bar yielding drifts were reported in Cohagen et al.
Cohagen et al. LB6-PT 0.26 0.58 1.83
(2008) and Ou (2007) and the results are similar. The readers should
(2008) LB7-PT 0.25 0.41 1.4 expect similar damage results and sequences in other columns that
have similar axial load ratio, ED bar ratio, and column aspect ratio.
Ou (2007) C0C N/A 0.2 4 In terms of damage states used for performance-based design,
C5C 0.5 0.43 3 for monolithic columns, Priestley et al. (1996) recommended that
C8C 0.38 0.56 3
concrete crack should remain small for serviceability design so
C5C-1 0.38 0.48 4
that remedial action is not required. Ghobarah (2001) suggested a
drift limit of 0.2% for the lower-level design. For higher-level
used bonded PT bars, which are also excluded in further analysis. earthquakes, it is typically expected that the damage is repairable
Numerous experimental studies were done by researchers and only although there may be traffic interruptions. A drift limit of 0.5%
a limited number of them are listed in Table 1, with their highlights was proposed by Ghobarah (2001) for repairable damage.,
summarized in the last column. Due to the limit in space, not all ex- Fig. 15 plots the concrete cracking and crushing drifts reported
periments are described in detail in this article. from the five projects based on a review of Hewes and Priestley
Table 1 includes columns composed of 1–10 segments, with and (2002), Cohagen et al. (2008), Ou (2007), Wang et al. (2008),
without ED bars. It was found that when λre is higher than 1, the and Larkin et al. (2012). The average cracking drift is 0.32%,
ratio of residual to max drift is generally small. When λre is which can be the limit for serviceability design. For concrete crush-
lower than 1, significant residual displacement was observed in ing drifts, the values range from 1.2% to 4%, with an average of
all the specimens. Eq. (5) is proposed to correlate the self-centering 2.3%. Currently, there is no clear recommendation on the design
ratios with the residual drift to the maximum drift ratio. The pro- drift limits of hybrid rocking columns, and more experimental
posed equation has an R 2 of 0.53 and the comparison between test- and numerical studies are needed in the future. In addition to re-
ing data and the prediction equation is shown in Fig. 14. In addition viewing drift-related damage, based on several test results (Chou
to residual drift, viscous damping is also an important parameter in and Chen 2006; Cohagen et al. 2008; Hewes and Priestley 2002;
seismic design. Based on the experiments presented in Table 1, this Larkin et al. 2012; Ou 2007; Wang et al. 2008), this study also de-
study proposes an equation to predict the viscous damping of hy- termined the cracked stiffness ratio of each specimen. It was found
brid rocking columns as a function of ductility and self-centering that the cracked stiffness to uncracked stiffness ratio was between
ratio. The proposed relation is presented in Eq. (6), which also 20% and 40% (shown in Fig. 16). Early research (Itani 2003) might
has an R 2 of 0.53. It is noted that for both equations, the R 2 values suggest using 100% unreduced stiffness for prestressed concrete
are relatively low. This is mainly because the testing columns are members. However, this should not be applied to hybrid rocking
not all consistent in detailings and other variables cannot be cap- column designs.
tured by the regression equations. For example, some columns In terms of the seismic damage and self-centering capacity of
had steel jackets confining the bottom rocking segment while oth- the novel columns with advanced materials and structural types,
ers may not have such a high level of confinement thus having dif- they performed better than conventional reinforced concrete hybrid
ferent residual deformation and damping. The two proposed rocking columns. Table 3 presents test parameters and results of
equations are intended to help engineers for sizing columns and novel segmental columns with UHPC, ECC, SMA, and FRP
preliminary designs and cannot replace detailed analyses. More tubes. In the tests by Tazarv and Saiidi (2016) and Wang et al.
testing and numerical studies are needed to propose regression (2018a), the maximum drift ratios range from 6% to 11% and the
equations for various types of details: residual drifts range from 0.38% to 1.2%. The ratios of residual

 to maximum drifts are between 6% and 11%. In the test by ElGa-
0.2727
θresidual = + 0.057 × θmax (5) wady et al. (2010), the columns were pushed to a drift of 15%,
λre which caused residual drifts of 2.53% to 6.78%. The residual

© ASCE 03120001-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001

 drift to maximum drift ratio ranges from 17% to 44%. It should be
noted that the specimens FRP1 to FRP4-S are much more slender
than the other specimens listed in Table 3. In all these tests, the col-
umns were pushed to a displacement significantly beyond the code
requirements. In ACI (2014b), columns for seismic applications are
only tested to a drift ratio of 3.5%. It can be seen that these novel
columns do have superior seismic performance.
Summary and Future Directions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
recent years. However, the use of precast columns is still mostly
limited to low-seismic regions. To expand the application to high-
seismic regions, substantial efforts have been made in the research
of PT rocking columns. This review provides a summary of the
research development and challenges for researchers and
practitioners.
This study categorizes precast columns into three types:
emulative column, simple rocking column, and hybrid rocking
column. Emulative columns are designed to behave like mono-
lithic columns. The related research and design code develop-
ments are relatively comprehensive. The two types of rocking

Due to the trend in ABC, applications of precast components have
been extended from bridge superstructures to substructures in
Fig. 16. Cracked stiffness ratio.
columns are both nonemulative. Simple rocking columns are an-
chored to foundation only by tendons without supplemental ED
bars. The drawbacks are the low energy dissipation and large dis-
placement demand. Hybrid rocking columns are composed of
both tendons and ED bars, which are designed to dissipate en-
ergy, improve lateral stiffness, and meet serviceability require-
ments. ED bars are normally unbonded in the joint region to
avoid strain concentration caused by large openings. The tendons
are designed to remain elastic and capacity protected so that col-
umns show self-centering behaviors. Hybrid rocking columns are
the most prominent option as they seek for a balance between
monolithic columns and simple rocking columns.
Numerous tests have been performed on PT columns and a
number of new materials were investigated. While most often
strands and high-strength steel bars were used as PT tendons,

Table 3. Test parameters and results of novel segmental columns

References Specimen ASR N d ALR ρed θpeak θresidual Notes
Billington and SCon38 1.90 1 200 × 200 NA 0.00 4.00 0.30 Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Yoon (2004) SFrc76 1.90 2 200 × 200 NA 0.00 4.20 0.50
SFrc38 1.90 2 200 × 200 NA 0.00 4.20 0.60
TCon38 3.40 1 200 × 200 NA 0.00 4.00 0.20
TFrc76 3.40 2 200 × 200 NA 0.00 4.00 0.20
TFrc38 3.40 2 200 × 200 NA 0.00 4.20 0.60
ElGawady et al. FRP1 8.13 1 203 NA 0.00 15.30 2.53 Segmental columns consisting of precast posttensioned
(2010) FRP4 8.13 4 203 NA 0.00 15.40 6.78 concrete-filled fiber tubes
FRP4-R 8.13 4 203 NA NA 15.40 2.91
FRP4-S 8.13 4 203 NA NA 15.30 3.27
Motaref et al. SC-2 4.51 4 406 20.00 1.00 11.60 0.40 Reinforced concrete segment
(2014) SBR-1 4.51 4 406 20.00 1.20 14.00 3.00 Rubber base segment
SF-2 4.51 4 406 20.00 1.00 14.90 0.10 FRP-confined segment
SE-2 4.51 4 406 20.00 1.00 10.70 1.00 ECC segment
SC-2R 4.51 4 406 20.00 1.00 14.80 1.80 Repaired with FRP segment
Tazarv and Saiidi HCS 4.49 1 610 10.00 2.80 11.00 1.20 Novel column with UHPC, ECC, reinforcing NiTi
(2016) superelastic SMA bars and self-consolidating concrete
(SCC).
Ichikawa et al. RC-UHPC 4.57 2 300 × 300 NA NA 6.50 5.00 Multiple UHPC rings are used to compose the bottom
(2016) PC-UHPC 4.57 2 300 × 300 NA NA 3.50 2.80 portion of the column, bilateral cyclic loading and hybrid
HY-UHPC 4.57 2 300 × 300 NA NA 4.00 3.00 testing
Moustafa and SEG 6.00 4 300 26.80 0.00 8.85 0.08 Hollow-core FRP-concrete-steel columns
ElGawady (2018) SEG-ED1 6.00 4 300 26.80 0.24 1.80 0.08
SEG-ED2 6.00 4 300 26.80 0.43 8.85 0.08
Wang et al. R-1 3.33 3 500 6.20 1.35 6.00 0.38 UHPC segmental columns with hollow square cross
(2018b) R-2 3.33 3 500 8.00 1.35 6.00 0.40 section and replaceable dissipaters and cover plates.
R-3 3.33 3 500 6.20 1.35 6.00 0.38
Cai et al. (2019) ED1N1 7.00 6 600 × 400 10.00 1.37 5.80 3.80 Mixed use of steel and basalt FRP reinforcement
BFRP1N1 7.00 6 600 × 400 10.00 1.37 5.80 3.00
BFRP2N1 7.00 6 600 × 400 10.00 1.37 5.80 2.00
BFRP2N2 7.00 6 600 × 400 20.00 1.37 5.80 4.30
Note: Notation definitions see Table 1 notes.

© ASCE 03120001-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001

 attempts were made using SMA and FRP as PT materials as well.
Supplemental energy dissipating was achieved either using external
or internal ED bars, with steel or smart materials such as SMA.
Rocking columns are subject to higher compression compared
with traditional columns due to the rocking impact as well as PT
forces. To improve the ductility and to limit compression damage,
advanced materials were considered replacing normal weight con-
crete at the plastic hinge regions, such as ultra-high-performance
concrete and engineered cementitious composites. In addition,
steel and FRP jackets were also used to provide better confinement
thus improved ductility.
Upon a review of existing test parameters and results, some de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sign recommendations can be made for the hybrid rocking column
design:
1. Hybrid rocking columns with ED bar ratios up to 1.7% show
satisfactory performance. It is not recommended to use higher
ED bar ratios, as excessive ED bars would make the column be-
have like emulative columns. The minimal ED bar ratios are
likely determined by bending moment from service loading
and interface shear demand from extreme loading.
2. There is no evidence that the axial load limit for hybrid rocking
columns should deviate from the requirement for traditional
monolithic columns. Thus, it is recommended that the total
axial load (prestress plus dead load) ratio be limited to 15%.
When frame action is considered, the total axial load should
be limited to 22%, as prescribed in Caltrans (2019).
3. Tendons should be designed as capacity-protected elements to
ensure self-centering behavior. This can be achieved when the
moment capacity contribution from the tendon is higher than
that from ED bars. It is suggested that the moment contribution
from the ED bar is between 35% and 50% of the total moment
resistance. Meanwhile, in both testings and designs, prestressing
and dead load should be treated separately as the prior compo-
nent provides self-centering forces, and the latter component
causes P-delta effects.
4. For columns with the ED bar ratio ranging from 0% to 1.4% and
the tendon area ratio ranging from 0.15% to 1%, the cracked to
uncracked stiffness ratio ranges from 20% to 40%. When a de-
tailed analysis is not performed, both the lower- and upper
bound stiffness may need to be checked by designers.
5. To facilitate engineering designs, two regression equations are
proposed to calculate residual to maximum drift ratio and to pre-
dict the equivalent viscous damping ratio. It should be noted that
as long as the crushed concrete does not hinder the re-centering
force of the tendon, the residual displacement could be small,
which does not necessarily mean the column is undamaged.
Therefore, residual displacement is only one of the criteria for
evaluation purposes.
To fully transfer research results to applications, detailed de-
sign standards are to be developed for use by design profession-
als. Although hybrid PT columns may be used if meeting
acceptance criteria in ACI-374 (ACI 2014b) based on physical
testing, this would require much effort from practitioners. A de-
sign standard that allows engineers to demonstrate strength and
toughness of the rocking column through analysis rather than ex-
perimental evidence would expand its applications in seismic re-
gions. Besides, efficient and reliable methods are to be developed
for the construction of hybrid rocking column, and repair of var-
ious supplemental energy dissipating systems. One of the most
important incentives of using precast columns is accelerating
the constructions. Achieving this goal would require researchers
to spend more effort investigating simpler details that allow prac-
tical construction tolerances.
© ASCE 03120001-12
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The financial contribution of the Canadian Precast Prestressed Con-
crete Institute (CPCI) through the Scholarship Program is gratefully
acknowledged and was critical to conduct this study.
References
AASHTO. 2013. AASHTO guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge
design. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2013. Design specification for un-
bonded post-tensioned precast concrete special moment frames satisfy-
ing ACI 374.1. ACI-550.3. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2014a. Building code requirements for
structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. ACI-318.
Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2014b. Acceptance criteria for moment
frames based on structural testing and commentary. ACI-374.
Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Ahn, I.-S., S. S. Chen, and J. S. O’Connor. 2006. “Accelerated bridge pier
construction in the US: Seismic implications.” In Structures Congress
2006: Structural Engineering and Public Safety, edited by B. Cross,
and J. Finke, 1–10. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Alam, M. S., M. Nehdi, and M. A. Youssef. 2009. “Seismic performance of
concrete frame structures reinforced with superelastic shape memory al-
loys.” Smart Struct. Syst. 5 (5): 565–585. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss
.2009.5.5.565.
Alam, M. S., M. A. Youssef, and M. L. Nehdi. 2010. “Exploratory inves-
tigation on mechanical anchors for connecting SMA bars to steel or
FRP bars.” Mater. Struct. 43 (1): 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1617
/s11527-010-9601-0.
Ameli, M., D. N. Brown, J. E. Parks, and C. P. Pantelides. 2016. “Seismic
column-to-footing connections using grouted splice sleeves.” ACI
Struct. J. 113 (5): 1021–1030. https://doi.org/10.14359/51688755.
Ameli, M., J. Parks, D. Brown, and C. Pantelides. 2014. “Grouted splice
sleeve connection alternatives for precast reinforced concrete bridge
piers in moderate-to-high seismic regions.” In Proc., 10th US
National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering: Frontiers of Earthquake
Engineering, 1–11. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute.
Aslam, M., D. T. Scalise, and W. G. Godden. 1980. “Earthquake rocking
response of rigid bodies.” J. Struct. Div. 106 (2): 377–392.
Barthes, C. B. 2012. “Design of earthquake resistant bridges using rocking
columns.” Ph.D. thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
California.
Billah, A. M., and M. S. Alam. 2012. “Seismic performance of concrete
columns reinforced with hybrid shape memory alloy (SMA) and fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) bars.” Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (1): 730–
742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.020.
Billington, S. L., and J. K. Yoon. 2004. “Cyclic response of unbonded post-
tensioned precast columns with ductile fiber-reinforced concrete.”
J. Bridge Eng. 9 (4): 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084
-0702(2004)9:4(353).
Bu, Z., J. Guo, R. Zheng, J. Song, and G. C. Lee. 2016a. “Cyclic perfor-
mance and simplified pushover analyses of precast segmental concrete
bridge columns with circular section.” Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vib.
15 (2): 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-016-0323-3.
Bu, Z.-Y., Y.-C. Ou, J.-W. Song, and G. C. Lee. 2016b. “Hysteretic mod-
eling of unbonded posttensioned precast segmental bridge columns
with circular section based on cyclic loading test.” J. Bridge Eng.
21 (6): 04016016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000902.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Bu, Z.-Y., Y.-C. Ou, J.-W. Song, N.-S. Zhang, and G. C. Lee. 2015.
“Cyclic loading test of unbonded and bonded posttensioned precast seg-
mental bridge columns with circular section.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (2):
04015043. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000807.
Burak, R., and R. Seraderian. 2010. “Accelerated bridge construction—On
the fast track to success.” In Annual Conf. of the Transportation
Association of Canada, 1–15. Halifax, NS, Canada: Transportation
Association of Canada.
Cai, Z.-K., Z. Wang, and T. Y. Yang. 2019. “Cyclic load tests on precast
segmental bridge columns with both steel and basalt FRP reinforce-
ment.” J. Compos. Constr. 23 (3): 04019014. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000944.
Caltrans. 2019. Seismic design criteria. Sacramento, CA: California Dept.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of Transportation.
Cheng, C.-T. 2008. “Shaking table tests of a self-centering designed bridge
substructure.” Eng. Struct. 30 (12): 3426–3433. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.engstruct.2008.05.017.
Chou, C.-C., H.-J. Chang, and J. T. Hewes. 2013. “Two-plastic-hinge and
two dimensional finite element models for post-tensioned precast con-
crete segmental bridge columns.” Eng. Struct. 46: 205–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.009.
Chou, C. C., and Y. C. Chen. 2006. “Cyclic tests of post-tensioned precast
CFT segmental bridge columns with unbonded strands.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35 (2): 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.512.
Chou, C. C., and C. P. Hsu. 2008. “Hysteretic model development and seis-
mic response of unbonded post-tensioned precast CFT segmental
bridge columns.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 (6): 919–934.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.796.
Christopoulos, C., S. Pampanin, and M. Nigel Priestley. 2003.
“Performance-based seismic response of frame structures including re-
sidual deformations part I: Single-degree of freedom systems.”
J. Earthquake Eng. 7 (1): 97–118.
Cohagen, L. S., J. B. Pang, J. F. Stanton, and M. O. Eberhard. 2008. A pre-
cast concrete bridge bent designed to re-center after an earthquake.
Seattle: Univ. of Washington.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). 2014. Canadian highway bridge
design code. Rexdale, ON, Canada: CSA.
Culmo, M. P. 2009. Connection details for prefabricated bridge elements
and systems. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Culmo, M. P. 2011. Accelerated bridge construction—Experience in de-
sign, fabrication and erection of prefabricated bridge elements and sys-
tems. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Davis, P. M., T. M. Janes, O. S. Haraldsson, M. O. Eberhard, and J. F.
Stanton. 2017. “Unbonded pretensioned columns for accelerated bridge
construction in seismic regions.” J. Bridge Eng. 22 (5): 04017003.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000992.
Dawood, H., M. ElGawady, and J. Hewes. 2012. “Behavior of segmental
precast posttensioned bridge piers under lateral loads.” J. Bridge Eng.
17 (5): 735–746. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000252.
Dawood, H. M., and M. ElGawady. 2013. “Performance-based seismic de-
sign of unbonded precast post-tensioned concrete filled GFRP tube
piers.” Composites, Part B 44 (1): 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compositesb.2012.04.065.
DeJong, M. J., and E. G. Dimitrakopoulos. 2014. “Dynamically equivalent
rocking structures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43 (10): 1543–1563.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2410.
Doolen, T., A. Saeedi, and S. Emami. 2011. Accelerated bridge construc-
tion (ABC) decision making and economic modeling tool. Washington,
DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Dowdell, D. J., and B. A. Hamersley. 2000. ““Lions” gate bridge north ap-
proach: Seismic retrofit.” In Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic
Areas, 319–326. Auckland, New Zealand: STESSA.
Ebrahimpour, A., B. E. Earles, S. Maskey, M. Tangarife, and A. D.
Sorensen. 2016. Seismic performance of columns with grouted couplers
in Idaho accelerated bridge construction applications. Boise, ID: Idaho
Transportation Dept.
ElGawady, M., A. J. Booker, and H. M. Dawood. 2010. “Seismic behavior
of posttensioned concrete-filled fiber tubes.” J. Compos. Constr. 14 (5):
616–628. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000107.
© ASCE 03120001-13
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
ElGawady, M. A., and A. Sha’lan. 2011. “Seismic behavior of self-
centering precast segmental bridge bents.” J. Bridge Eng. 16 (3):
328–339. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000174.
Eom, T.-S., H.-G. Park, H.-J. Hwang, and S.-M. Kang. 2016. “Plastic hinge
relocation methods for emulative pc beam–column connections.”
J. Struct. Eng. 142 (2): 04015111. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0001378.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2017. “Accelerated bridge con-
struction.” Accessed January 5, 2019. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge
/abc/.
fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete). 2010. Seismic design
of precast concrete building structures. Lausanne, Switzerland: fib.
FIU (Florida International University). 2018. “ABC-UTC project & re-
search databases.” Accessed May 5, 2018. https://abc-utc.fiu.edu
/technology-transfer/project-research-databases.
Fowler, J. R. 2006. “Accelerated bridge construction.” In Annual Conf. &
Exhibition of the Transportation Association of Canada, 1–21. Ottawa,
ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
Freyermuth, C. L. 1969. Design of continuous highway bridges with pre-
cast, prestressed concrete girders. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement
Association.
Ghobarah, A. 2001. “Performance-based design in earthquake engineering:
State of development.” Eng. Struct. 23 (8): 878–884. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0141-0296(01)00036-0.
Ghobarah, A. 2004. “On drift limits associated with different damage
levels.” In Int. Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design.
Hamilton, ON: McMaster Univ.
Guerrini, G., J. I. Restrepo, M. Massari, and A. Vervelidis. 2015. “Seismic
behavior of posttensioned self-centering precast concrete dual-shell
steel columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 141 (4): 04014115.
Haber, Z. B., M. S. Saiidi, and D. H. Sanders. 2014. “Seismic performance
of precast columns with mechanically spliced column-footing connec-
tions.” ACI Struct. J. 111 (3): 639–650. https://doi.org/10.14359
/51686624.
Haraldsson, O. S., T. M. Janes, M. O. Eberhard, and J. F. Stanton. 2013a.
Precast bent system for high seismic regions: Laboratory tests of
column-to-footing socket connections. Washington, DC: Federal
Highway Administration.
Haraldsson, O. S., T. M. Janes, M. O. Eberhard, and J. F. Stanton. 2013b.
“Seismic resistance of socket connection between footing and precast
column.” J. Bridge Eng. 18 (9): 910–919. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000413.
Hewes, J. T., and M. N. Priestley. 2002. Seismic design and performance of
precast concrete segmental bridge columns. Rep. No. SSRP 2001/25.
La Jolla, CA: Univ. of California San Diego.
Hieber, D. G., J. M. Wacker, M. O. Eberhard, and J. F. Stanton. 2005.
Precast concrete pier systems for rapid construction of bridges in seis-
mic regions. Seattle: Univ. of Washington.
Hogan, S. 1990. “The many steady state responses of a rigid block under
harmonic forcing.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 19 (7): 1057–1071.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290190709.
Holden, T., J. Restrepo, and J. B. Mander. 2003. “Seismic performance of
precast reinforced and prestressed concrete walls.” J. Struct. Eng.
129 (3): 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)
129:3(286).
Housner, G. W. 1963. “The behavior of inverted pendulum structures dur-
ing earthquakes.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 53 (2): 403–417.
Hung, H.-H., Y.-C. Sung, K.-C. Lin, C.-R. Jiang, and K.-C. Chang. 2017.
“Experimental study and numerical simulation of precast segmental
bridge columns with semi-rigid connections.” Eng. Struct. 136: 12–
25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.012.
Ichikawa, S., H. Matsuzaki, A. Moustafa, M. A. ElGawady, and K.
Kawashima. 2016. “Seismic-resistant bridge columns with ultrahigh-
performance concrete segments.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (9): 04016049.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000898.
Iowa-DOT (Iowa Department of Transportation). 2009. ABC—Achieving
the need for speed. Ames, IA: Iowa-DOT.
Ishiyama, Y. 1982. “Motions of rigid bodies and criteria for overturning by
earthquake excitations.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 10 (5): 635–650.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290100502.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Issa, M. A., A. T. Idriss, I. I. Kaspar, and S. Y. Khayyat. 1995. “Full depth
precast and precast, prestressed concrete bridge deck panels.” PCI J.
40 (1): 59–80. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.01011995.59.80.
Itani, R. 2003. Effects of retrofitting applications on reinforced concrete
bridges. Pullman, WA: Washington State Univ.
ITG (Innovation Task Group). 2008. Acceptance criteria for special un-
bonded post-tensioned precast structural walls based on validation
testing. ITG-5.1. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
ITG (Innovation Task Group). 2009. Requirements for design of a special
unbonded post-tensioned precast shear wall satisfying ACI ITG-5.1 and
commentary. ITG-5.2. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute.
Jeong, H. I., J. Sakai, and S. A. Mahin. 2008. Shaking table tests and nu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
merical investigation of self-centering reinforced concrete bridge col-
umns. PEER Rep. 2008/06, Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Kapur, J., W. P. Yen, W. Dekelbab, A. Bardow, M. Keever, J. Sletten, D.
Tobias, and M. S. Saiidi. 2012. Best practices regarding performance
of ABC connections in bridges subjected to multihazard and extreme
events. Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway Research
Program.
Khaleghi, B. 2005. “Use of precast concrete members for accelerated
bridge construction in Washington state.” Transp. Res. Rec. 11s (1):
187–196. https://doi.org/10.3141/trr.11s.6207v0qg17298241.
Khan, M. A. 2014. Accelerated bridge construction: Best practices and
techniques. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Kurama, Y. C., and Q. Shen. 2004. “Posttensioned hybrid coupled walls
under lateral loads.” J. Struct. Eng. 130 (2): 297–309. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:2(297).
Kurama, Y., R. Sause, S. Pessiki, and L.-W. Lu. 1999. “Lateral load behav-
ior and seismic design of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete
walls.” ACI Struct. J. 96 (4): 622–632.
Kurama, Y. C., S. Sritharan, R. B. Fleischman, J. I. Restrepo, R. S. Henry,
N. M. Cleland, S. Ghosh, and P. Bonelli. 2018. “Seismic-resistant pre-
cast concrete structures: State of the art.” J. Struct. Eng. 144 (4):
03118001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001972.
Kwan, W.-P., and S. L. Billington. 2003a. “Unbonded posttensioned con-
crete bridge piers. I: Monotonic and cyclic analyses.” J. Bridge Eng.
8 (2): 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2003)
8:2(92).
Kwan, W.-P., and S. L. Billington. 2003b. “Unbonded posttensioned con-
crete bridge piers. II: Seismic analyses.” J. Bridge Eng. 8 (2): 102–111.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2003)8:2(102).
Larkin, A. S., D. H. Sanders, and M. S. Saiidi. 2012. “Unbonded pre-
stressed columns for earthquake resistance.” In Structures Congress,
edited by J. Carrato, and J. Burns, 539–548. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Lee, W. K. 2007. Simulation and performance-based earthquake engineer-
ing assessment of self-centering post-tensioned concrete bridge sys-
tems. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Li, C., K. Bi, and H. Hao. 2019. “Seismic performances of precast segmen-
tal column under bidirectional earthquake motions: Shake table test and
numerical evaluation.” Eng. Struct. 187: 314–328. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.001.
Li, C., H. Hao, and K. Bi. 2017. “Numerical study on the seismic perfor-
mance of precast segmental concrete columns under cyclic loading.”
Eng. Struct. 148: 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06
.062.
Li, C., H. Hao, X. Zhang, and K. Bi. 2018. “Experimental study of precast seg-
mental columns with unbonded tendons under cyclic loading.” Adv. Struct.
Eng. 21 (3): 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433217717119.
Makris, N., and D. Konstantinidis. 2003. “The rocking spectrum and the
limitations of practical design methodologies.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 32 (2): 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.223.
Makris, N., and M. F. Vassiliou. 2013. “Planar rocking response and stabil-
ity analysis of an array of free-standing columns capped with a freely
supported rigid beam.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (3): 431–
449. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2222.
Makris, N., and M. F. Vassiliou. 2015. “The dynamics of the rocking
frame.” In Seismic assessment, behavior and retrofit of heritage build-
ings and monuments, edited by I. N. Psycharis, S. J. Pantazopoulou, and
M. Papadrakakis, 37–59. Berlin: Springer.
© ASCE 03120001-14
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
Mander, J. B., and C.-T. Cheng. 1997. Seismic resistance of bridge piers
based on damage avoidance design. New York: National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research.
Marriott, D., S. Pampanin, D. Bull, and A. Palermo. 2008. “Dynamic test-
ing of precast, post-tensioned rocking wall systems with alternative dis-
sipating solutions.” In NZSEE Conf., 1–16. Wellington, New Zealand:
The New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Marriott, D., S. Pampanin, and A. Palermo. 2009. “Quasi-static and
pseudo-dynamic testing of unbonded post-tensioned rocking bridge
piers with external replaceable dissipaters.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 38 (3): 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.857.
Marriott, D., S. Pampanin, and A. Palermo. 2011. “Biaxial testing of un-
bonded post-tensioned rocking bridge piers with external replacable
dissipaters.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 40 (15): 1723–1741.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1112.
Marsh, M. L. 2011. Application of accelerated bridge construction connec-
tions in moderate-to-high seismic regions. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board.
Mashal, M., I. Aguilar, A. Ebrahimpour, and L. Ruminski. 2017.
“Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) in Idaho: The state-of-the-art
bridge technologies, current practice and future research.” IABSE
Symp. Rep. 109 (20): 2642–2650.
Mashal, M., and A. Palermo. 2015. “High-damage and low-damage seis-
mic design technologies for accelerated bridge construction.” In
Structures Congress, edited by N. Ingraffea, and M. Libby, 549–560.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Mashal, M., S. White, and A. Palermo. 2013. “Quasi-static cyclic tests of
emulative precast segmental bridge piers (E-PSBP).” In 2013 NZSEE
Conf. Wellington, New Zealand: The New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering.
Mass-DOT (Massachusetts Department of Transportation). 2013. LRFD
bridge manual, part III—Prefabricated elements. Boston, MA:
Mass-DOT.
MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation). 2013. Bridge design
manual for the michigan department of transportation. Cadillac, MI:
MDOT.
Mehrsoroush, A., and M. S. Saiidi. 2013. “Seismic performance of two-
column bridge piers with innovative precast members and pipe pin con-
nections.” In Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Bridge Maintenance, Safety, and
Management. Shanghai, China: International Association for Bridge
Maintenance and Safety.
Mehrsoroush, A., and M. S. Saiidi. 2016. “Cyclic response of precast
bridge piers with novel column-base pipe pins and pocket cap beam
connections.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (4): 04015080. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000833.
Metelli, G., C. Beschi, and P. Riva. 2011. “Cyclic behaviour of a column to
foundation joint for concrete precast structures.” Eur. J. Environ. Civ.
Eng. 15 (9): 1297–1318. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2011
.9714856.
Mohebbi, A., M. S. Saiidi, and A. M. Itani. 2018. “Shake table studies and
analysis of a PT-UHPC bridge column with pocket connection.”
J. Struct. Eng. 144 (4): 04018021. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0001997.
Moon, D. Y., H. Roh, and G. P. Cimellaro. 2015. “Seismic performance of
segmental rocking columns connected with NiTi martensitic SMA
bars.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 18 (4): 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369
-4332.18.4.571.
Motaref, S., M. S. Saiidi, and D. H. Sanders. 2011. Seismic response of pre-
cast bridge columns with energy dissipating joints. Reno, NV: Univ. of
Nevada.
Motaref, S., M. S. Saiidi, and D. Sanders. 2014. “Shake table studies of
energy-dissipating segmental bridge columns.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (2):
186–199. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000518.
Moustafa, A., and M. A. ElGawady. 2018. “Shaking table testing
of segmental hollow-core frp-concrete-steel bridge columns.”
J. Bridge Eng. 23 (5). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0001238.
Nagae, T., K. Tahara, K. Fukuyama, T. Matsumori, H. Shiohara, T.
Kabeyasawa, S. Kono, M. Nishiyama, J. Moehle, and J. Wallace.
2012. “Test results of four-story reinforced concrete and post-tensioned
J. Bridge Eng.
 concrete buildings: The 2010 E-defense shaking table test.” In Proc.,
15th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 1–10. Lisbon,
Portugal: International Association for Earthquake Engineering.
Negro, P., D. A. Bournas, and F. J. Molina. 2013. “Pseudodynamic tests
on a full-scale 3-storey precast concrete building: Global response.”
Eng. Struct. 57: 594–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013
.05.047.
Nguyen, W., W. Trono, M. Panagiotou, and C. P. Ostertag. 2017. “Seismic
response of a rocking bridge column using a precast hybrid fiber-
reinforced concrete (HyFRC) tube.” Compos. Struct. 174: 252–262.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.04.058.
Nikbakht, E., K. Rashid, F. Hejazi, and S. A. Osman. 2015. “Application of
shape memory alloy bars in self-centring precast segmental columns as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
seismic resistance.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 11 (3): 297–309. https://doi
.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.876056.
Nikoukalam, M., and P. Sideris. 2017. “Resilient bridge rocking columns
with polyurethane damage-resistant end segments and replaceable
energy-dissipating links.” J. Bridge Eng. 22 (10): 04017064. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001069.
NZS (New Zealand Standards). 2006. New Zealand concrete structures
standard. Wellington, New Zealand: NZS.
ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2016. Bridge design and
drafting manual. Salem, OR: ODOT.
Ou, Y.-C. 2007. Precast segmental post-tensioned concrete bridge col-
umns for seismic regions. Buffalo, NY: State Univ. of New York.
Ou, Y.-C., M. Chiewanichakorn, A. J. Aref, and G. C. Lee. 2007. “Seismic
performance of segmental precast unbonded posttensioned concrete
bridge columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 133 (11): 1636–1647. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1636).
Ou, Y.-C., Y. Oktavianus, and M.-S. Tsai. 2013. “An emulative precast
segmental concrete bridge column for seismic regions.” Earthquake
Spectra 29 (4): 1441–1457. https://doi.org/10.1193/082511EQS205M.
Ou, Y. C., M. S. Tsai, K. C. Chang, and G. C. Lee. 2010a. “Cyclic behavior
of precast segmental concrete bridge columns with high performance or
conventional steel reinforcing bars as energy dissipation bars.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 39 (11): 1181–1198. https://doi.org/10
.1002/eqe.986.
Ou, Y.-C., P.-H. Wang, M.-S. Tsai, K.-C. Chang, and G. C. Lee. 2010b.
“Large-scale experimental study of precast segmental unbonded post-
tensioned concrete bridge columns for seismic regions.” J. Struct.
Eng. 136 (3): 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0000110.
Palermo, A., and M. Mashal. 2012. “Accelerated bridge construction
(ABC) and seismic damage resistant technology: A New Zealand chal-
lenge.” Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 45 (3): 123–134. https://doi
.org/10.5459/bnzsee.45.3.123-134.
Palermo, A., and S. Pampanin. 2008. “Analysis and simplified design of
precast jointed ductile connections.” In Proc., 14th World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, China: International Association
for Earthquake Engineering.
Palermo, A., S. Pampanin, and G. M. Calvi. 2005. “Concept and develop-
ment of hybrid solutions for seismic resistant bridge systems.”
J. Earthquake Eng. 9 (6): 899–921.
Palermo, A., S. Pampanin, and D. Marriott. 2007. “Design, modeling,
and experimental response of seismic resistant bridge piers with
posttensioned dissipating connections.” J. Struct. Eng. 133 (11): 1648–
1661. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1648).
Palmeri, A., and N. Makris. 2008. “Response analysis of rigid structures
rocking on viscoelastic foundation.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
37 (7): 1039–1063. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.800.
Pampanin, S., M. N. Priestley, and S. Sritharan. 2001. “Analytical model-
ling of the seismic behaviour of precast concrete frames designed with
ductile connections.” J. Earthquake Eng. 5 (3): 329–367.
Parks, J. E., D. N. Brown, M. Ameli, and C. P. Pantelides. 2016. “Seismic
repair of severely damaged precast reinforced concrete bridge columns
connected with grouted splice sleeves.” ACI Struct. J. 113 (3): 615–626.
https://doi.org/10.14359/51688756.
PCI (Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute). 2006. Guidelines for acceler-
ated bridge construction using precast/prestressed concrete compo-
nents. Rep. No. PCINER-06-ABC. Chicago, IL: PCI.
© ASCE 03120001-15
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
PCI (Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute). 2011. Full depth deck panels
guidelines. Belmont, MA: PCI.
PCI (Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute). 2017. Partial depth deck
panel guidelines. Belmont, MA: PCI.
Perez, F. J., R. Sause, and S. Pessiki. 2007. “Analytical and experimental
lateral load behavior of unbonded posttensioned precast concrete
walls.” J. Struct. Eng. 133 (11): 1531–1540. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1531).
Popa, V., A. Papurcu, D. Cotofana, and R. Pascu. 2015. “Experimental test-
ing on emulative connections for precast columns using grouted corru-
gated steel sleeves.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 13 (8): 2429–2447. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9715-9.
Priestley, M. N., F. Seible, and G. M. Calvi. 1996. Seismic design and ret-
rofit of bridges. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Priestley, M. J. N., S. Sritharan, J. R. Conley, and S. Pampanin. 1999.
“Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-story pre-
cast concrete test building.” PCI Journal 44 (6): 42–67. https://doi
.org/10.15554/pcij.11011999.42.67.
Psycharis, I. N., and P. C. Jennings. 1983. “Rocking of slender rigid bodies
allowed to uplift.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 11 (1): 57–76. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290110106.
Rahmzadeh, A., M. S. Alam, and R. Tremblay. 2018. “Analytical predic-
tion and finite-element simulation of the lateral response of rocking
steel bridge piers with energy-dissipating steel bars.” J. Struct. Eng.
144 (11): 04018210. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0002216.
Roddenberry, M. 2012. Prefabricated/Precast bridge elements and systems
(PBES) for off-system bridges. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
Roh, H., and A. M. Reinhorn. 2009. “Analytical modeling of rocking ele-
ments.” Eng. Struct. 31 (5): 1179–1189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2009.01.014.
Roh, H., and A. M. Reinhorn. 2010. “Hysteretic behavior of precast seg-
mental bridge piers with superelastic shape memory alloy bars.” Eng.
Struct. 32 (10): 3394–3403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010
.07.013.
Routledge, P., M. Cowan, and A. Palermo. 2016. “Low-damage detailing
for bridges—a case study of Wigram–Magdala bridge.” In New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conf., 1–8. Wellington,
New Zealand: The New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Saiidi, M. S., M. Tazarv, B. Nakashoji, S. Varela, and F. Kavianipour.
2015. “Resilient and sustainable bridges of the future.” Int. J. Bridge
Eng. 3 (2): 37–48.
Saiidi, M. S., M. Tazarv, S. Varela, S. Bennion, M. L. Marsh, I. Ghorbani,
and T. P. Murphy. 2017. Seismic evaluation of bridge columns with en-
ergy dissipating mechanisms, volume 1: Research overview.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Sakai, J., and S. A. Mahin. 2004. “Mitigation of residual displacements of
circular reinforced concrete bridge columns.” In Proc., 13th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 1–13. Vancouver, BC, Canada:
International Association for Earthquake Engineering.
Shafieifar, M., M. Farzad, and A. Azizinamini. 2018. “New connection de-
tail to connect precast column to cap beam using
ultra-high-performance concrete in accelerated bridge construction ap-
plications.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2672 (41): 207–220. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0361198118792766.
Shenton, H. W., III. 1996. “Criteria for initiation of slide, rock, and
slide-rock rigid-body modes.” J. Eng. Mech. 122 (7): 690–693.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1996)122:7(690).
Shim, C. S., C.-H. Chung, and H. H. Kim. 2008. “Experimental evaluation
of seismic performance of precast segmental bridge piers with a circular
solid section.” Eng. Struct. 30 (12): 3782–3792. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.engstruct.2008.07.005.
Sideris, P., A. J. Aref, and A. Filiatrault. 2014. “Large-scale seismic testing
of a hybrid sliding-rocking posttensioned segmental bridge system.”
J. Struct. Eng. 140 (6): 04014025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000961.
Sideris, P., A. J. Aref, and A. Filiatrault. 2015. “Experimental seismic per-
formance of a hybrid sliding–rocking bridge for various specimen
configurations and seismic loading conditions.” J. Bridge Eng.
J. Bridge Eng.
 20 (11): 04015009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000742.
Spanos, P. D., and A.-S. Koh. 1984. “Rocking of rigid blocks due to har-
monic shaking.” J. Eng. Mech. 110 (11): 1627–1642. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1984)110:11(1627).
Steuck, K. P., L. Cohagen, J. F. Stanton, and M. O. Eberhard. 2008.
Rapidly constructible large-bar precast bridge-bent seismic connec-
tion. Seattle: Univ. of Washington.
Tazarv, M., and M. S. Saiidi. 2013. “Emulative moment-resistant RC
bridge column-footing connection for accelerated bridge construction
in high seismic zone.” In Proc., 7th National Seismic Conf. on
Bridges & Highways, 1–10. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Tazarv, M., and M. S. Saiidi. 2015a. Design and construction of precast
bent caps with pocket connections for high seismic regions. Rep. No.
CCEER-15-06. Reno, NE: Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Dept. Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Nevada.
Tazarv, M., and M. S. Saiidi. 2015b. “UHPC-filled duct connections for ac-
celerated bridge construction of RC columns in high seismic zones.” Eng.
Struct. 99: 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.05.018.
Tazarv, M., and M. S. Saiidi. 2016. “Low-damage precast columns for ac-
celerated bridge construction in high seismic zones.” J. Bridge Eng.
21 (3): 04015056. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000806.
Thonstad, T., I. M. Mantawy, J. F. Stanton, M. O. Eberhard, and D. H.
Sanders. 2016. “Shaking table performance of a new bridge system
with pretensioned rocking columns.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (4):
04015079. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000867.
Tobolski, M. J., M. L. Ralls, E. E. Matsumoto, and J. I. Restrepo. 2006.
“State-of-practice of precast bent cap systems.” In Structures
Congress 2006: Structural Engineering and Public Safety, edited by
B. Cross, and J. Finke, 1–10. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Tran, H., M. Eberhard, J. Stanton, and L. Marsh. 2014. Seismic-resistant,
ABC connection between precast concrete columns and drilled shafts.
Seattle: Univ. of Washington.
Tran, H. V., J. F. Stanton, and M. O. Eberhard. 2013. Precast bent system
for high seismic regions: Laboratory tests of column-to-drilled shaft
socket connections. Seattle: Univ. of Washington.
Trono, W., G. Jen, M. Panagiotou, M. Schoettler, and C. P. Ostertag. 2015.
“Seismic response of a damage-resistant recentering
posttensioned-HYFRC bridge column.” J. Bridge Eng. 20 (7):
04014096. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000692.
UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation). 2015. Utah DOT structures
design and detailing manual. Taylorsville, UT: UDOT.
Varela, S., and M. Saiidi. 2017. “Resilient deconstructible columns for ac-
celerated bridge construction in seismically active areas.” J. Intell.
Mater. Syst. Struct. 28 (13): 1751–1774. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1045389X16679285.
Vassiliou, M. F., and N. Makris. 2015. “Dynamics of the vertically re-
strained rocking column.” J. Eng. Mech. 141 (12): 04015049. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000953.
Vassiliou, M. F., R. Truniger, and B. Stojadinović . 2015. “An analytical
model of a deformable cantilever structure rocking on a rigid surface:
© ASCE 03120001-16
J. Bridge Eng., 2020, 25(10): 03120001
Development and verification.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
44 (15): 2775–2794. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2608.
Wang, J., Z. Wang, Y. Tang, T. Liu, and J. Zhang. 2018a. “Cyclic loading
test of self-centering precast segmental unbonded posttensioned
UHPFRC bridge columns.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 16: 5227–5255.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0331-y.
Wang, J. C., Y. C. Ou, K. C. Chang, and G. C. Lee. 2008. “Large-scale
seismic tests of tall concrete bridge columns with precast segmental
construction.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 (12): 1449–1465. https:
//doi.org/10.1002/eqe.824.
Wang, Z., J.-Q. Wang, Y.-C. Tang, T.-X. Liu, Y.-F. Gao, and J. Zhang.
2018b. “Seismic behavior of precast segmental UHPC bridge columns
with replaceable external cover plates and internal dissipaters.” Eng.
Struct. 177: 540–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.10.012.
White, S., and A. Palermo. 2016. “Quasi-static testing of posttensioned
nonemulative column-footing connections for bridge piers.” J. Bridge
Eng. 21 (6): 04016025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000872.
WisDOT (Wisconsin Department of Transportation). 2017. WisDOT
bridge manual. Madison, WI: WisDOT.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2017. Bridge
design manual (LRFD). Olympia, WA: WSDOT.
Yamane, T., M. K. Tadros, S. S. Badie, and M. C. Baishya. 1998. “Full
depth precast, prestressed concrete bridge deck system.” PCI J.
43 (3): 50–66. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.05011998.50.66.
Yamashita, R., and D. H. Sanders. 2009. “Seismic performance of precast
unbonded prestressed concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J. 106 (6): 821–
830.
Yang, C., and P. Okumus. 2017. “Ultrahigh-performance concrete for post-
tensioned precast bridge piers for seismic resilience.” J. Struct. Eng.
143 (12): 04017161. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0001906.
Yousif, A. A. 1995. Field performance of full depth precast concrete pan-
els in bridge deck reconstruction. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Illinois at
Chicago.
Zhang, J., and N. Makris. 2001. “Rocking response of free-standing blocks
under cycloidal pulses.” J. Eng. Mech. 127 (5): 473–483. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)127:5(473).
Zhang, N., H. Lan, W. Gao, G. Tang, and G. Lee. 2014. “Shake table study
of bridge with precast post-tensioned segmental columns.” In
Challenges and advances in sustainable transportation systems, edited
by Y. Bai, X. Du, P.-S. Lin, W.-C. Virgil Ping, and Y. Huang, 555–562.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Zhang, Q., and M. S. Alam. 2016. “Evaluating the seismic behavior of seg-
mental unbounded posttensioned concrete bridge piers using factorial
analysis.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (4): 04015073. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000851.
Zhang, Q., and M. S. Alam. 2018. “The dynamics of precast post-tensioned
rocking columns.” In Structures Congress 2018: Bridges,
Transportation Structures, and Nonbuilding Structures, edited by
J. G. Soules, 349–358. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Zohrevand, P., and A. Mirmiran. 2012. “Cyclic behavior of hybrid columns
made of ultra high performance concrete and fiber reinforced poly-
mers.” J. Compos. Constr. 16 (1): 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000234.
J. Bridge Eng.