Special Issue Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2016, Vol. 8(2) 1–14
Ó The Author(s) 2016
Modeling seismic performance of DOI: 10.1177/1687814016633411
aime.sagepub.com
high-strength steel–ultra-high-
performance concrete piers with
modified Kent–Park model using fiber
elements

Zhen Wang1,2, Jingquan Wang1,2, Tongxu Liu1,2 and Fan Zhang1,2

Abstract
The seismic performance of ultra-high-performance concrete–high-strength steel pier was studied using fiber elements,
which are capable to model accurately elastic–plastic behavior of members with fibers of different material constitutive
relations. For high-strength steel–ultra-high-performance concrete piers, the modified Kent–Park model was utilized to
describe the compressive stress–strain relations of ultra-high-performance concrete and high-strength steel-confined
ultra-high-performance concrete, respectively, by determining four key parameters. A finite element model was estab-
lished to simulate the hysteretic response; conduct parameter analysis including axial load ratio, longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio, and transverse reinforcement ratio; and assess the maximum ground acceleration capacity based on inelastic
response spectra for high-strength steel–ultra-high-performance concrete piers. The conclusions are summarized that
modified Kent–Park model is proved to be effective due to experimental data. The calculated hysteretic curves of high-
strength steel–ultra-high-performance concrete piers show good agreement with the experimental results. Three para-
meters have evident effects on seismic performance of high-strength steel–ultra-high-performance concrete piers, which
indicates that various seismic demands can be achieved by reasonable parameter settings. Compared to nonlinear
dynamic analysis based on finite element model, the results provided by inelastic response spectra are less conservative
for short high-strength steel–ultra-high-performance concrete piers under high axial load ratio.

Keywords
Ultra-high-performance concrete, high-strength steel, seismic performance, confinement, stress–strain relations, fiber
elements, parameter analysis, inelastic response spectra, nonlinear dynamic analysis

Date received: 29 October 2015; accepted: 26 January 2016

Academic Editor: Magd Abdel Wahab

Introduction
For bridge engineering in seismic region, reinforced
concrete (RC) piers are usually designed to be ductile
components to absorb earthquake energy using lateral
reinforcement. With development of society, exterior
loading including traffic loading becomes heavier,
resulting in huger piers and larger lateral reinforcement,
which is very uneconomical choice. With higher
1
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures,
Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
2
National Engineering Research Center for Prestressing, Southeast
University, Nanjing, China
Corresponding author:
Jingquan Wang, National Engineering Research Center for Prestressing,
Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China.
Email: wangjingquan@seu.edu.cn

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
compressive strength, improved toughness, and
increased damage tolerance, ultra-high-performance
concrete (UHPC) is more suitable for heavily loaded
structural components than traditional concrete in seis-
mic region.1–3
Over the last two decades, a number of studies
focused on the material properties of UHPC such as
ductility, toughness, fracture energy, strain hardening,
and deformation capacity under both tension and com-
pression loading, which proves UHPC a promising
material for structural application.4,5 To take full
advantage of UHPC, high-strength steel (HSS) is a
good choice to work together. A series of pseudo-static
tests on HSS–UHPC piers under axial load were con-
ducted to study the seismic performances including
energy dissipating capacity and deformation capacity.6–10
But all researches aforementioned were based on the
experimental results and the number of specimens is
very limited. To accelerate the application of HSS–
UHPC piers in seismic zones, further researches includ-
ing finite element model (FEM) are necessary.
For FEM, compared to resultant section model,
fiber elements can represent more accurately important
aspects of structural response including the interaction
of axial load and biaxial bending moment, confinement
effect, and material softening behavior.11 As a result,
the nonlinear seismic performance of RC members is
popularly researched with fiber elements derived from
divided sections integrated by concrete and reinforcing
steel fibers.12,13 Similar to RC members, modeling seis-
mic behavior of HSS–UHPC piers with fiber elements
requires uniaxial constitutive laws referring to skeleton
curves and hysteretic laws of UHPC, and HSS-con-
fined UHPC at first.
Some attentions have been focused on uniaxial
stress–strain skeleton curves of UHPC, most of which
are only used to predict bearing capacity of members
and cannot reflect the entire stress–strain curve includ-
ing post-peak zone.5,8,14–16 Compared to UHPC, only a
few trial researches have been conducted on uniaxial
stress–strain skeleton curves of HSS-confined UHPC.3,8
What is more, the uniaxial hysteretic laws of both
UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC have not been
reported so far.
For the monotonic envelope curves of confined or
unconfined concrete in compression, the modified
Kent–Park model, which was proposed by Kent and
Park17 and extended later by Scott et al.,18 is a good
choice to balance between simplicity and accuracy,
even though more accurate and complete models have
been published.12
In this article, the uniaxial compressive stress–strain
curves of UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC are
expressed in modified Kent–Park model. Other uniaxial
constitutive laws of UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC
are assumed to conform to the model proposed by
Mohd Hisham.19 Using fiber elements, an FEM is
established for HSS–UHPC piers based on OpenSees
platform.20 8 HSS–UHPC piers tested are used to ver-
ify the FEM, which is utilized later to conduct para-
meter analysis on seismic behavior affected by axial
force ratio, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and trans-
verse reinforcement ratio. Dependent on the FEM,
nonlinear dynamic analysis is used to assess maximum
ground acceleration capacities of HSS–UHPC piers
due to inelastic response spectrum.
Material constitutive models
To establish FEM with fiber elements, reasonable uni-
axial constitutive models are required to reflect actual
stress–strain relations of HSS, UHPC, and HSS-con-
fined UHPC. For HSS, OpenSees platform provides
reinforcing steel material, which is based on the uniax-
ial steel model proposed by Chang and Mander21 and
can consider the effect of plastic strain amplitude and
buckling. Moreover, reinforcing steel material gives
three parameters to reflect hysteretic laws incorporating
degradation behavior with strain range and the number
of cycles. In this article, the three parameters were
equal to the values suggested by Mazzoni et al.22 More
information can be seen in Figure 1.22
Concrete 02 given by OpenSees platform is used
commonly to simulate unconfined or confined con-
crete. For skeleton curves, the modified Kent–Park
model was used to describe compressive behavior of
unconfined or confined concrete.11,18 The model pro-
posed by Mohd Hisham19 was used to express tensile
behavior and reflect tensile damage. The parameters
required are shown in Figure 2.
As seen in Figure 2, the tensile behavior of Concrete
02 is simplified to a piecewise expression including two
linear functions.19 Due to the slope of the first linear
function equal to initial elastic modulus of the
Figure 1. Parameters of reinforcing steel material.
Wang et al. 3

Figure 3. Comparison of elastic modulus Ec tested to the

results of the modified Kent–Park model for UHPC.

Figure 2. Parameters of Concrete 02.

spk = lsh sB ð4Þ
compressive behavior, only two independent para-
meters are required to define the tensile behavior. where lsh is the shape factor, the ratio of the strength of
From the research provided by Sugano et al.,8 the concrete in the pier to the standard cylinder strength. In
uniaxial tensile stress–strain relation of UHPC is related general, lsh is suggested to be 0.85.8
to the amount of steel fiber. Based on the tests, the peak From Fafits and Shah’s equation, e0 can be given as
stress st,pk and the ultimate strain et,u(m) are calculated follows
as follows
e0 = 1950 + 14:6spk ð5Þ
st, pk = s0:44
B (0:25rsf , V + 0:54) ð1Þ
And from Popovics’ equation, e0 can be given as
et, u = 1500rsf , V + 1850 ð2Þ follows
where rsf,V is the amount of steel fiber (vol%) and sB is pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
e0 = 763 4 spk ð6Þ
the cylinder compressive strength of UHPC.
In general, the confinement effect of stirrups can be
According to known researches,8 the actual e0 ranges
ignored when core concrete is in the tensile status. So
between the above two estimations, so the following
the uniaxial tensile stress–strain relation of HSS-con-
equation is suggested in this article
fined UHPC is deemed to be the same as UHPC.8
In Figure 2, the compressive behavior based on the pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
e0 = 0:5(1950 + 14:6spk + 763 4 spk ) ð7Þ
modified Kent–Park model is obtained as follows18
8 h i The equivalent elastic modulus of UHPC at loading
>
> s 2e =e  (e =e )2
ec 6e0 zone Ec is calculated from equation (3) as follows
< pk
h
c 0 c 0
i
sc = spk 1  (1lrs )(ec e0 )
e0 6ec 6e20 ð3Þ
>
> (e20 e0 ) ðe0 
: 1 sc
lrs spk ec >e20 Ec = dec
e0 ec
where sc and ec are the stress and the strain of concrete, 0
0 h i1
respectively; spk and e0 are the peak stress and the ðe0 spk 2(ec =e0 )  (ec =e0 )2
strain, respectively, lrs is the ratio of resident strength =
1 @ Adec = 1:5spk
e0 ec e0
to peak stress; and e20 is the begin strain of resident 0
strength. ð8Þ
For a specified concrete, when four parameters
including spk, e0, lrs, and e20 are known, its compressive To remove the error between the elastic modulus
behavior can be determined from equation (3). Now measured and that due to modified Kent–Park model,
their owner parameters required are given for UHPC modified factor kE is considered as follows
and HSS-confined UHPC in the following section.
spk = kE lsh sB ð9Þ
Uniaxial compressive stress–strain relation of UHPC When modified factor kE is equal to 1.0, 0.85, and
For UHPC, due to the available researches,8 the peak 0.70, the respective Ec is compared to the experimental
stress spk can be given as follows value8 in Figure 3.
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 4. Comparison of uniaxial compressive stress–strain
curves of UHPC to experimental data.
As seen in Figure 3, when kE is equal to 0.85 or 0.7,
the equivalent elastic modulus obtained by the modi-
fied Kent–Park model agrees well with the experimen-
tal value. From equation (9), kE is closer to 1.0, spk is
closer to the accurate peak stress of UHPC, so
kE = 0.85 in this article is suggested to reflect the rea-
sonable peak stress and elastic modulus of UHPC in
the meantime. For general concrete, lrsspk is proposed
to be 0.2sB.23 To consider the effect of lsh and kE, lrs
is suggested to be 0.30 conservatively.
From the stress–strain curve obtained by Sugano
et al.,8 lrsspk and e20 can be calculated as follows
 
spk
lrs spk = 0:65spk  0:0103 e20  0:65 ð10Þ
Ec
So e20 can be predicted as follows
(0:65  lrs )spk 0:65spk
e20 = + ð11Þ
0:0103 Ec
Now, the results of the proposed model are com-
pared to the experimental curves of four specimens in
Figure 4. Because the modified Kent–Park model leads
to a little larger elastic modulus of UHPC than the
experimental results, good agreements can be obtained
on the whole. Detailed information of four specimens
can be provided by Sugano et al.8
Uniaxial compressive stress–strain relation of HSS-
confined UHPC
Similar to UHPC, HSS-confined UHPC based on the
modified Kent–Park model is determined by four para-
meters including spk, e0, lrs, and e20. To make a distinc-
tion between UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC, spk, e0,
lrs, and e20 are marked as scon,pk, econ,0, lcon,rs, and
econ,20, respectively.
From former researches,8 the peak stress scon,pk and
respective strain econ,0 of HSS-confined UHPC can be
calculated as follows
Figure 5. Comparison of uniaxial compressive stress–strain
curves of HSS-confined UHPC to experimental data.
 
scon, pk = lsh spk 1 + 1:8rw fyv =(lsh spk ) ð12Þ
 
econ, 0 = e0 1 + 5rw fyv =(lsh spk ) ð13Þ
where rw is the area ratio of transverse reinforcement
to core UHPC and fyv is the yield strength of transverse
reinforcement.
Referring to general concrete, lcon,rs is suggested to
be 0.2.18 From the stress–strain curve obtained by
Sugano et al.,8 lcon,rsscon,pk and econ,20 can be calculated
as follows
scon, pk (60, 000  econ, 20 )
lcon, rs scon, pk = ð14Þ
60, 000  econ, 0
So econ,20 can be predicted as follows
econ, 20 = 60, 000(1  lcon, rs ) + lcon, rs econ, 0 ð15Þ
To verify the model of HSS-confined UHPC, trial
values of three specimens are used to compare with the
results of the model in Figure 5. As seen in Figure 5,
the theoretical results are in good agreement with test.
Sugano et al. offered detailed information of the above
three specimens.8
It is noted that the uniaxial hysteretic laws of both
UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC have not been
reported so far. In this research, the above two types of
materials are assumed to conform to the hysteretic laws
proposed by Mohd Hisham,19 which include the gra-
dual degradation of stiffness under unloading and
reloading in compressive and tensile behavior.22 More
details can be given by Mohd Hisham.19
FEM of HSS–UHPC piers using fiber
elements
Principle of fiber element model
In fiber element model, an element is divided into sev-
eral sections at integration points along the axial
Wang et al. 5

Figure 6. Transitive relation between different levels of fiber element model.

direction. The sections are composed of many fibers

which have their own strain–stress relations. Those
fibers are assumed to comply with plane section
assumption and in uniaxial stress state. If selected
material models can reflect objective fact, fiber section
would provide accurate load–deformation relations of
section, which results in that fiber elements can simu-
late the total nonlinear response of members excited by
ground motions.12,13 The principle of fiber element
Figure 7. Diagram of beam with hinges’ element.
model can be seen in Figure 6.

Nonlinear beam–column elements

To study seismic behavior of HSS–UHPC pier, non-
linear beam–column elements were the most suitable
choice because they not only result in smaller amount
of calculation but also reflect more precise nonlinear
behavior of components than other elements.12,13
OpenSees platform gives three types of nonlinear
beam–column elements including nonlinear beam–
column element, beam with hinges’ element, and
displacement-based beam–column element.22
Compared with several displacement-based elements
for a single member, force-based elements have the
most notable ability to use one element to simulate the
material nonlinear behavior of a RC member.23 Both
Figure 8. FEM for HSS–UHPC pier based on OpenSees.
nonlinear beam–column element and beam with hinges’
element belong to force-based elements. The latter can
overcome the problems with nonobjective response
Key parameters
caused by strain-softening behavior, but the former
cannot.24 So the FEM of HSS–UHPC pier was estab- In Figure 8, FEM of a HSS–UHPC pier is established
lished with beam with hinges’ element, which considers with one beam with hinges’ element, which has only a
entire plasticity to be concentrated over specified plastic hinge end used to consider nonlinear effect
hinges’ lengths at the element ends,25 as seen in including reinforcement slide effect and the linear elas-
Figure 7. The section of the plastic hinge end can be tic region employed to simulate the linear elastic
defined by containing three types of fibers response. The bottom of FEM is fixed and the top is a
reflecting UHPC, HSS-confined UHPC, and HSS, mass point, of which the mass results from axial load.
respectively. At the top of FEM, the mass point is affected by
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

whether it is lateral force or ground motion. In plastic
hinge, the section is divided into many fibers represent-
ing cover UHPC, confined UHPC, and HSS, respec-
tively. Suitable number of fibers should be selected to
balance between accuracy and efficiency. Here, the
cover UHPC part is divided into 176 fibers. At the
same time, the confined UHPC part is divided into 400
fibers. A steel bar is expressed by a fiber alone.
Notably, two key parameters are necessary but have
not been reported for HSS–UHPC piers, which are the
length of plastic hinge region Lp and equivalent stiffness
of linear elastic region EIeff. So they have no choice but
to be determined referring to RC piers.
Paulay and Priestley26 conducted a series of tests on
RC piers and gave the computational formula of Lp
Lp = 0:08L + 0:022fy ds >0:044fy ds
where L is the shear span length of the pier and fy and
ds are the yield strength and diameter of the longitudi-
nal reinforcement, respectively.
From pseudo-static tests of RC piers, Berry et al.27
gave the expression of EIeff by regression analysis
 
P L
EIeff = 0:15 + + 0:035 + 0:1rl Ec Ic 6Ec Ic ð17Þ
Ag s B h ment and peak load in each cycle, in Figure 11,
where P is the axial force, Ag is the area of cross section,
h is the height of pier cross section, rl is the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, and Ic is the inertia moment of pier
cross section provided by concrete.
material models of UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC
cannot consider the effect of steel fiber on compressive
behavior. But for HSS–UHPC piers with steel fiber, the
FEM can be still reckoned to be effective.
Parameter analysis based on FEM
Parameter analysis was conducted to study the influ-
ence of three parameters including h, rl, and transverse
reinforcement ratio rw on seismic behavior which refers
to damping ratio j, residual drift ratio, and ductility
factor m of HSS–UHPC piers subjected to cyclic lateral
loading and constant axial load. Cyclic loading with a
loading history was applied as specified in ACI 374.1-
05,28 as shown in Figure 10.
ð16Þ From the hysteretic responses, j in each cycle is cal-
culated as29
Eh
j= ð18Þ
4pEe
where Eh is the dissipated energy calculated from the
enclosed area within the hysteretic loops, and Ee is the
elastic energy calculated from the maximum displace-
Ee = 0.5x1y1.29
From Figure 12, ductility factor m is calculated as
um
m= ð19Þ
uy

where um and uy are the maximum displacement and

Experimental verification
FEM was verified by eight specimens tested,8–10 of
which the test parameters are shown in Table 1. As
shown in Figure 9, the hysteretic curves measured were
compared to the results from FEM. The conclusions
can be obtained that two curves of each specimen are in
good agreement, except for 03NF16. It may be because
03NF16 does not contain steel fiber and the above two
the yield displacement of each specimen tested,
respectively.29
The detailed configuration of standard specimen
includes that L = 2000 mm, b = h = 500 mm, cover
thickness c = 30 mm, sB = 150 MPa, h = 0.15,
fyv = 600 MPa, layout of transverse reinforcement is
4f10 mm at 80 mm, fy = 600 MPa, layout of longitudi-
nal reinforcement is 12f10 mm, and rsf,V = 2%.

Table 1. Characteristics of specimens for experimental verification.

Specimen L (mm) h=b h sB Transverse reinforcement Longitudinal bars Contained

(mm) (MPa) steel fibers
Layout fyv (MPa) Layout fy (MPa) Elastic (vol%)
modulus
(MPa)

03FM168 500 200 0.3 207 4f7.1 mm at 50 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 2
03FM05 500 200 0.3 202 2f7.1 mm at 75 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 2
03NF16 500 200 0.3 199 4f7.1 mm at 50 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 0
06FM05 500 200 0.6 214 2f7.1 mm at 75 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 2
06FM16 500 200 0.6 230 4f7.1 mm at 50 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 2
06FM23 500 200 0.6 218 4f7.1 mm at 35 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 2
Unit7029 560 280 0.3 171.3 3f7.1 mm at 35 mm 1361 8f19 mm 1201 18,800 1
Unit60310 500 250 0.6 206.8 4f6.4 mm at 40 mm 1403 12f13 mm 729 18,700 1

b: width of cross section; h= so/csB, so: axial stress; h: axial load ratio.
Wang et al. 7

Figure 9. Comparisons of the experimental with simulated hysteretic curves.

Effects of axial load ratio
The effects of axial load ration were studied by six spe-
cimens, of which the axial load ratios were h = 0.1,
h = 0.15, h = 0.25, h = 0.3, h = 0.4, and h = 0.55,
respectively, corresponding to N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4, N-5,
and N-6. Other parameters were the same as the above
standard specimen.
In Figure 13, j of all specimens at the ultimate drift
ratio are over 15%. At the same drift ratio, when drift
ratio is less than 5%, j becomes smaller with h up to
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 10. Loading history.
Figure 11. Proposed hysteresis loop.
Figure 12. Idealized elastoplastic system for load–deflection
curves of piers tested.
0.25 and then rises. When drift ratio is over 5%, j
increases with h larger than 0.15.
As seen in Figure 14, at the same drift ratio, the resi-
dual drift ratio decreases with h up to 0.15 and then
gets larger. Among all specimens, the residual drift ratio
of N-3 is the largest up to 3% that is over the limit 1%
proposed by Japanese Road Association.30
Figure 15 shows that m declines very rapidly in the
form of exponential function with h up. When h is over
0.4, m is less than 4.0, meaning the pier cannot satisfy
general ductility seismic requirement.
Figure 13. Variation in damping ratio j relative to drift ratio
for different axial load ratios.
Figure 14. Variation in residual drift ratio relative to drift ratio
for different axial load ratios.
Figure 15. Variation in ductility factor relative to axial load
ratios.
In conclusion, for HSS–UHPC piers with less trans-
verse reinforcement, h should not be too large so that
the piers have good ductility, excellent energy dissipat-
ing capacity, and less residual deformation.
Effects of longitudinal reinforcement ratio
L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, and L-5 were configured by 12 long-
itudinal reinforcements with different diameters which
were 18, 22, 25, 28, and 32 mm, respectively. Other
parameters were the same as the above standard
specimen.
Wang et al.
Figure 16. Variation in damping ratio j relative to drift ratio
for different longitudinal reinforcement ratios.
Figure 17. Variation in residual drift ratio relative to drift ratio
for different longitudinal reinforcement ratios.
Figure 18. Variation in ductility factor relative to longitudinal
reinforcement ratios.
As seen in Figure 16, j obviously rises from 15% to
25% with rl varying from 1.22% to 3.86%. But resi-
dual drift ratio still increases stupendously from 0.5%
to 5.7% as seen in Figure 17, meaning that the amplifi-
cation is over 10 times. Figure 18 shows that m linearly
declines a little. So HSS–UHPC piers should adopt less
longitudinal reinforcement which requires good ducti-
lity and minor residential deformation. Despite the
lower energy dissipating capacity, HSS–UHPC piers
are better than that of general concrete members.
9
Figure 19. Variation in damping ratio j relative to drift ratio
for different transverse reinforcement ratios.
Figure 20. Variation in ductility factor relative to transverse
reinforcement ratios.
Figure 21. Variation in residual drift ratio relative to drift ratio
for different transverse reinforcement ratios.
Effects of transverse reinforcement ratio
Five specimens were called T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, and T-5
of which spaces of transverse reinforcement were 40,
50, 60, 80, and 100 mm, respectively. Other parameters
were the same as the above standard specimen.
As can been seen from Figures 19 and 20, j and m
are affected less obviously by rw, but residual drift ratio
can be diminished by increasing the amount of trans-
verse reinforcement due to Figure 21.
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 2. Cyclic performance characters of the specimens.

Specimen Initial stiffness, Yield strength, Yield displacement, Maximum deflection, Ductility, m
k (kN/mm) Fy (kN) uy (mm) um (mm)

03FM16 152.3 350.3 2.3 25.0 10.9

03FM05 147.1 353.1 2.4 10.0 4.2
03NF16 122.8 245.5 2.0 25.0 12.5
06FM05 141.3 254.3 1.8 3.6 2.0
06FM16 133.3 333.3 2.5 15.0 6.0
06FM23 149.2 358.0 2.4 25.0 10.4
Unit702 298.2 924.5 3.1 27.9 9.0
Unit603 250.7 626.8 2.5 10.0 4.0

Application of FEM to assess the seismic

capacity of HSS–UHPC piers due to
inelastic response spectra
Inelastic response spectra can be utilized to predict the
maximum ground acceleration of a pier based on the
results of its pseudo-static test.31 The method is very
convenient, but more researches are required to verify
the accuracy of the method. In general, the results of
nonlinear dynamic analysis are deemed to be enough
precise. So in this section, inelastic response spectra
were utilized to calculate the maximum ground accel-
eration capacity Acal which is verified by the result of
nonlinear dynamic analysis AOS based on FEM.
Figure 22. Variation in damping ratio j relative to drift ratio
for the specimens.
Cyclic performance characters based on tests
Figure 12 shows how each envelope tested was idealized 2. Idealized elastoplastic system for load–
by a bilinear elastic–perfectly plastic curve with the deflection curves of UHPC piers is established
same initial stiffness (k), maximum deflection (um), and to determinate k, Fy, and m.
area under the response curve. Using the method, the 3. Each pier is equal to be a single-degree-of free-
yield strength (Fy), uy, and m were calculated for each dom (SDOF) system with a lumped mass m
specimen,32 of which the details are shown in Table 1, which is focused on the top and the results from
as listed in Table 2. the simulated dead load applied as axial com-
From equation (18), j of eight specimens are calcu- pressive force during the cyclic tests.
lated in Figure 22, in which all the maximum damping 4. Based on the hysteretic response of each pier, j
ratios of specimens exceeded 10%. So HSS–UHPC is calculated by equation (18) as shown in
piers can be deemed to have good energy dissipating Figure 11.
capacity. 5. The natural period Tn of each pier is evaluated
according to k and m of the equal SDOF
system.
Prediction of maximum ground acceleration capacity 6. The amplification factors aA, aV, and aD are
due to inelastic response spectrum computed as follows
When the results of the pseudo-static tests are known,
due to inelastic response spectrum, the maximum aA = 4:38  1:04 ln j ð20Þ
ground motion capacity of each HSS–UHPC pier can
be estimated by the following procedure: aV = 3:38  0:67 ln j ð21Þ

aD = 2:73  0:45 ln j ð22Þ

1. From researches given by Newmark and Hall,33
the peak ground acceleration (PGA) €ug , velocity
u_ g , and displacement ug are assumed to conform 7. The period values of Ta# = 1/33 s, Tb# = 1/3 s,
ug ) = 1219 mm=s and €ug ug =€u2g = 6.
to u_ g =(g€ Te# = 10 s, and Tf# = 33 s are known, whereas
Wang et al. 11

Table 3. Estimation of the maximum ground acceleration capacity due to inelastic response spectrum.

Specimen 03FM16 03FM05 03NF16 06FM05 06FM16 06FM23 Unit702 Unit603

m (N s2/mm) 253.5 247.3 243.7 524.1 563.3 533.9 411.1 791.3

j (%) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Tn (s) 0.256 0.258 0.280 0.383 0.408 0.376 0.233 0.353
aA 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71
aV 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30
aD 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01
Ta# 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Tb# 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
Tc# 0.278 0.432 0.261 0.576 0.367 0.284 0.305 0.440
Td# 4.086 4.086 4.086 4.086 4.086 4.086 4.086 4.086
Te# 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Tf# 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33
Ry 4.6 2.7 12.5 1.7 6.0 10.4 4.1 2.6
Acal (g) 0.237 0.146 0.199 0.032 0.082 0.148 0.350 0.079

Tc# and Td# can be calculated as follows step, and near-fault ground motions with forward
  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi directivity were selected to excite each piers in Table 4.
aV u_ g 2m  1 PGA of each ground motion was adjusted to 1.0 at
Tc0 = 2p ð23Þ
aA €ug m first, and FEM of each HSS–UHPC pier was subjected
   to a series of excitations with gradually increasing
aD ug amplitudes starting from 0.05Acal by an increment of
Td 0 = 2p ð24Þ
aV u_ g 0.05Acal until failure of the pier. For example, 03FM16
8. The strength reduction factor Ry is calculated as could sustain the EL-Centro ground motion up to
follows 0.80Acal (PGA = 0.190g), but failed in 0.85Acal. So AOS
was deemed to be 0.190g. Other results are listed in
8 Table 4.
>
> 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Tn 6Ta0
>
> Acal and AOS obtained are compared in Figures 23 and
< 10:56( 2m  1  1)T n
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R= p 1:32  0:32 2m  1 Ta0  Tn 6Tb0 ð25Þ
+ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 24. As seen in Figure 23, AOS/Acal can be regarded to be
>
> equal to 1 on the whole. But Acal becomes a little larger
>
> 2m  1 Tb0  Tn 6Tc0
: than AOS with Acal up in Figure 24, meaning the results
m Tn  Tc0
of inelastic response spectra are not always conservative
9. From Ryfy = Acalm,32Acal of HSS–UHPC pier for short HSS–UHPC pier under heavy axial load.
can be predicted as follows Moreover, for all specimens, maximum ground
acceleration capacities excited by near-fault ground
Acal = motions with forward directivity are less than those
8 excited by other two types of ground motion; in other
> fy =m Tn 6Ta0
>
>
>
> Ry fy words, near-fault ground motions with forward direc-
>
> m½10:56(aA 1)Tn 0:32aA + 1:32 Ta0  Tn 6Tb0
>
> tivity are more subversive for HSS–UHPC piers which
>
> Tb0  Tn 6Tc0
< Ry fy =(maA )
>
ð26Þ have small shear length and are subjected to large axial
Ry fy Tn =(0:25paV m0 Tc0  Tn 6Td 0 load. This is probably because near-fault ground
>
>
>
> Ry fy Tn2 =(0:37p2 aD m) Td 0  Tn 6Te0 motions with forward directivity contain rich high-
>
>
>
> Ry fy Tn2 frequency components.
>
> Te0  Tn 6Tf 0
>
> 0:37p 2 (14:35T + 14:35a T + 1:43a )m
n D n D
:
Ry fy Tn2 =(0:37p2 m) Tn  Tf 0
Conclusion
In the following calculation, j is assumed to be 5% This article utilized FEM based on OpenSees platform
conservatively. Table 3 lists Acal of each pier. to research seismic performance of HSS–UHPC piers.
The following conclusions can be drawn:

Prediction of maximum ground acceleration capacity (1) Two stress–strain models were proposed to
reflect well uniaxial compressive relations of
due to nonlinear dynamic analysis UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC based on
Three groups of ground motions including far-field modified Kent–Park model, compared with
ground motions, near-fault ground motions with fling trial data.
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 4. Estimation of the maximum ground acceleration capacity due to nonlinear dynamic analysis.

Ground motion 03FM16 03FM05 03NF16 06FM05 06FM16 06FM23 Unit702 Unit603

Far-field ground EL-Centro 0.190 0.168 0.229 0.101 0.090 0.104 0.322 0.099
motions BBD 0.213 0.190 0.219 0.072 0.078 0.089 0.315 0.119
KAU046 0.166 0.161 0.229 0.064 0.070 0.074 0.280 0.099
KCT 0.178 0.168 0.209 0.100 0.078 0.089 0.315 0.099
LCP 0.190 0.168 0.159 0.072 0.070 0.067 0.245 0.099
Average 0.187 0.171 0.209 0.082 0.077 0.085 0.295 0.103
Near-fault ground TCU052 0.178 0.190 0.169 0.077 0.078 0.074 0.245 0.107
motions with fling TCU065 0.308 0.307 0.299 0.096 0.123 0.148 0.400 0.162
step TCU068 0.213 0.204 0.180 0.083 0.090 0.096 0.263 0.126
TCU075 0.213 0.190 0.209 0.064 0.078 0.088 0.280 0.087
TCU087 0.154 0.153 0.149 0.056 0.066 0.074 0.228 0.087
Average 0.213 0.209 0.201 0.075 0.087 0.096 0.283 0.114
Near-fault ground Northridge-SCE 0.213 0.204 0.209 0.082 0.090 0.104 0.315 0.115
motions with TCU051 0.130 0.139 0.129 0.048 0.053 0.059 0.192 0.071
forward directivity TCU054 0.130 0.139 0.139 0.056 0.062 0.067 0.210 0.087
TCU082 0.154 0.139 0.149 0.056 0.062 0.059 0.228 0.087
TCU102 0.166 0.161 0.159 0.059 0.070 0.067 0.228 0.087
Average 0.159 0.156 0.157 0.060 0.067 0.071 0.235 0.089

(3) For HSS–UHPC piers with medium amount of

Figure 23. Histogram of ratios of maximum ground
acceleration capacities resulting from two methods’ capacities
resulting from two methods.
transverse reinforcement, the increase in axial
load ratio can weaken ductility seriously. To
keep good seismic ductility, axial load ratio
was suggested to be less than 0.4, based on the
results of parameter analysis.
(4) Due to parameter analysis of FEM, with
medium amount of transverse reinforcement, a
HSS–UHPC pier under minor axial load ratio
was suggested to use less longitudinal reinfor-
cement than 2% for less residual drift ratio
than 1%.
(5) Subjected to smaller axial ratio, the increase in
transverse reinforcement has no effect on ducti-
lity and energy dissipation of HSS–UHPC pier
basically, but can reduce residual drift ratio
obviously, according to the results of parameter
analysis.
(6) Compared with the results calculated by non-
linear dynamic time history analysis of FEM,
maximum ground acceleration capacity of
short HSS–UHPC pier subjected to heavy axial
load was a little insecure due to inelastic
response spectra.

Figure 24. Comparison of maximum ground acceleration
capacities resulting from two methods.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their research group mem-
bers for their help to finish this article. Meantime, the authors
appreciate the University of California for developing the free
OpenSees platform.

(2) An FEM of HSS–UHPC pier using fiber ele-
ments was established based on OpenSees plat-
form, which can provide the hysteretic response
consistent with experimental data.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Wang et al.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The work described in this article was financially sup-
ported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant Nos 51378110 and 51438003), Six Talent Peaks
Project in Jiangsu Province (Grant No. JZ-007), and a Project
Funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of
Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (Grant No. CE02-1-4).
References
1. Saiidi MS, Brien MO and Sadrossadat-Zadeh M. Cyclic
response of concrete bridge columns using superelastic
nitinol and bendable concrete. ACI Struct J 2009; 106:
69–77.
2. Zohrevand P and Mirmiran A. Cyclic behavior of hybrid
columns made of ultra high performance concrete and
fiber reinforced polymers. J Compos Constr 2012; 16:
91–99.
3. Hosinieh MM, Aoude H, Cook WD, et al. Behavior of
ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete columns
under pure axial loading. Eng Struct 2015; 99: 388–401.
4. Graybeal, BA. Material property characterization of
ultra-high performance concrete. Report No. FHWA-
HRT-06-103, Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration, 2006.
5. Graybeal BA. Compressive behavior of ultra-high-
performance fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J
2007; 104: 146–152.
6. Fischer G and Li VC. Effect of matrix ductility on the
performance of reinforced ECC column members under
reversed cyclic loading conditions. In: Proceedings of
the JCI international workshop on ductile fiber rein-
forced cementitious composites, Takayama, Japan,
October 2002, pp.269–278. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Con-
crete Institute.
7. Billington SL and Yoon J. Cyclic behavior of precast
post-tensioned segmental concrete columns with ECC.
In: Proceedings of the JCI international workshop on duc-
tile fiber reinforced cementitious composites, Takayama,
Japan, October 2002, pp.279–288. Tokyo, Japan: Japan
Concrete Institute.
8. Sugano S, Kimura H and Shirai K. Study of new RC
structures using ultra-high-strength fiber-reinforced con-
crete (UFC)—the challenge of applying 200 MPa UFC
to earthquake resistant building structures. J Adv Concr
Technol 2007; 5: 133–147.
9. Kimura H, Ishikawa Y, Kambayashi A, et al. Seismic
behavior of 200 MPa ultra-high-strength steel-fiber rein-
forced concrete columns under varying axial load. J Adv
Concr Technol 2007; 5: 193–200.
10. Ousalem H, Takatsu H, Ishikawa Y, et al. Use of high-
strength bars for the seismic performance of high-strength
concrete columns. J Adv Concr Technol 2009; 7: 123–134.
11. Kostic SM and Filippou FC. Section discretization of
fiber beam-column elements for cyclic inelastic response.
J Struct Eng: ASCE 2011; 138: 592–601.
13
12. Spacone E, Filippou FC and Taucer FF. Fibre beam-
column model for non-linear analysis of R/C frames: part
I—formulation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1996; 25:
711–726.
13. Spacone E, Filippou FC and Taucer FF. Fibre beam-
column model for non-linear analysis of R/C frames: part
II—applications. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1996; 25:
727–742.
14. Chauvel D, Rossi P and Ulm FJ. Documents scientifiques
et techniques AFGC (general information), 2002, http://
www.ductal.com/
AFGC_Recommandations_BFUPJuin2013.pdf
15. Gowripalan N and Gilbert RI. Design guidelines for duc-
tal prestressed concrete beams: reference article. Sydney,
NSW, Australia: The University of New South Wales,
2000.
16. Niwa J, Uchida Y, Tanaka Y, et al. Outlines of JSCE
recommendations for design and construction of ultra
high-strength fiber-reinforced concrete structures. In:
Proceedings of CICHE-JSCE joint seminar on concrete
engineering, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, May 2004, pp.47–66.
Tokyo, Japan: Japan Society of Civil Engineers
(JSCE).
17. Kent DC and Park R. Flexural members with confined
concrete. J Struct Div: ASCE 1971; 97: 1964–1990.
18. Scott BD, Park R and Priestley MJN. Stress-strain beha-
vior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low
and high strain rates. ACI J 1982; 79: 13–27.
19. Mohd Hisham MY. Nonlinear analysis of prestressed con-
crete structures under monotonic and cyclic loads. PhD
Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1994.
20. Mckenna FT. Object-oriented finite element programming:
frameworks for analysis, algorithms and parallel comput-
ing. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
1997.
21. Chang G and Mander J. Seismic energy based fatigue
damage analysis of bridge columns. Part I—evaluation of
seismic capacity. NCEER technical report 94-0006, Buf-
falo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (NCEER), 1994.
22. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, et al. OpenSees com-
mand language manual. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2006.
23. Neuenhofer A and Filippou FC. Evaluation of nonlinear
frame finite-element models. J Struct Eng: ASCE 1997;
123: 958–966.
24. Scott MH and Fenves GL. Plastic hinge integration meth-
ods for force-based beam-column elements. J Struct Eng:
ASCE 2006; 132: 244–252.
25. Lee CL and Filippou FC. Efficient beam-column element
with variable inelastic end zones. J Struct Eng: ASCE
2009; 135: 1310–1319.
26. Paulay T and Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1992.
27. Berry MP, Lehman DE and Lowes LN. Lumped-plasti-
city models for performance simulation of bridge col-
umns. ACI Mater J 2008; 105: 270–279.
14 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

28. ACI Committee. Acceptance criteria for moment frames h height of cross section
based on structural testing and commentary (ACI 374.1- Ic inertia moment of cross section
05). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, k initial stiffness of piers
2006. kE modified factor considering the modulus
29. Priestley MJN, Seible F and Calvi GM. Seismic design of UHPC
and retrofit of bridges. New York: John Wiley & Sons, L shear span length of piers
1996. Lp length of plastic hinge region
30. Japanese Road Association. Design specifications of high- m mass equal to axial load
way bridges. Part V: seismic design. Tokyo, Japan: Japa-
P axial force
nese Road Association, 1996.
31. Zohrevand P and Mirmiran A. Seismic response of ultra-
Ry strength reduction factor
high performance concrete-filled FRP tube columns. J Tn natural period
Earthquake Eng 2013; 17: 155–170. ug peak ground displacement
32. Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures. 3rd ed., Upper Sad- u_ g peak ground velocity
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008. €ug peak ground acceleration
33. Newmark NM and Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and um maximum displacement of piers
design, earthquake engineering. Berkeley, CA: Research uy yield displacement of piers
Institute, 1982.
ec strain of concrete
econ, 0 strain respective to peak stress for HSS-
Appendix 1 confined UHPC
Notation econ, 20 begin strain of resident strength for HSS-
confined UHPC
Acal maximum ground acceleration capacity et, u ultimate strain of UHPC
due to inelastic response spectra e0 strain respective to peak stress
Ag area of cross section e20 begin strain of resident strength
AOS maximum ground acceleration capacity h axial load ratio
due to results of FEM lcon, rs ratio of resident strength to peak stress for
b width of cross section HSS-confined UHPC
c cover thickness lrs ratio of resident strength to peak stress
ds diameter of longitudinal reinforcement lsh shape factor (assumed to be 0.85)
Ec equivalent elastic modulus of UHPC m ductility factor
Ee elastic energy j damping ratio
Eh dissipated energy rl longitudinal reinforcement ratio
EIeff equivalent stiffness of linear elastic region rsf , V amount of steel fiber (%)
Es initial elastic tangent modulus of rw transverse reinforcement ratio
reinforcing steel material sB cylinder compressive strength of UHPC
Esh tangent modulus at initial strain sc stress of concrete
hardening for reinforcing steel material scon, pk peak stress of confined UHPC
fy yield strength of longitudinal spk peak stress of concrete
reinforcement st, pk peak stress of UHPC
Fy yield strength of piers
fyv yield strength of transverse reinforcement