114 Timothy J.

Sullivan, Rui Pinho & Alberto Pavese

ranged from 0.254s to 0.272s) at the base of the frame is 2.347g for the final phase of
testing, stage 10. The spectral acceleration for the corresponding period of the original
unscaled Hollister record is 0.323g. Consequently, despite scaling the PGA by a factor of
22 from a value of 0.12g to 2.7g, the effective scaling factor for the periods of interest is
closer to 7.3. Figure 5.9 also shows that for the intermediate levels (stage 2) of excitation,
the filtering has had an even greater effect on the spectral accelerations.

5.3.5 Conclusions for the dynamic shake table investigation of a steel frame
This fully dynamic investigation of a steel frame has been successful in achieving its
three aims as outlined by the following points.

1. A shake table test has been performed using a real earthquake ground motion.
2. A level of excitation has been obtained experimentally that causes the steel frame
to reach a displacement ductility of five, which may be considered as collapse.
3. An analytical model of the frame has been developed and compared with the test
response.

Unfortunately however, the test did encounter difficulties related to load application.
It has been shown that the shake table filtered the earthquake motion so that much lower
accelerations were applied to the frame than intended. Consequently, the results appeared
illogical during performance of the test and only became reasonable when the actual
applied base motion was examined. It is postulated that this filtering was caused by the
bolted connection of the frame to the shake table being too loose.

In the context of this report, the investigation has served two purposes. Firstly, it has
demonstrated how a shake table test may be carried out in practice. Secondly, the
investigation has served to demonstrate how sensitive a shake-table test can be to
excitation filtering caused by inadequate test set-up. This emphasises the points made
within this report regarding the value of experimental set-up and also the highlights the
importance of placing instrumentation that will allow assessment of the actual applied
input excitation.

5.4 QUASI-STATIC TESTING OF A HOLLOW RECTANGULAR REINFORCED

CONCRETE BRIDGE PIER
5.4.1 Introduction
Appropriate seismic assessment of R.C. bridges is an important challenge considering
the number of existing bridges built without applying advanced codes of practice. The
significance of such assessment is apparent, acknowledging the vital role bridges play
within a society’s infrastructure. To assist in the development of current assessment
procedures, this section investigates the inelastic behaviour of the scaled hollow R.C. pier
 An Introduction to Structural Testing Techniques in Earthquake Engineering 115

shown in Figure 5.10. A hollow R.C. pier is studied because it is considered that hollow
piers may behave differently than the solid piers on which the development of most
current assessment procedures have been based. In addition, the inelastic shear behaviour
of R.C. members is still not well understood, even for new solid R.C. members.
Consequently, the aims of this case study are:

• To establish the cyclic non-linear behaviour of a hollow reinforced concrete pier.

• To compare and comment on the observed behaviour in relation to that
predicted by flexural theory and current analytical shear models for solid RC
piers.

To achieve these aims, a cyclic quasi-static test up until failure will be performed on
the hollow R.C. pier. It is noted that several similar investigations would be necessary
before any strong conclusions could be made about the non-linear behaviour of such
piers. However, the results for the single pier shown in Figure 5.10 will emphasise the
importance of careful experimental set-up. This section includes excerpts from [115]
where similar tests on a number of hollow R.C. piers are reported. For detailed results
and a comprehensive discussion on the behaviour of these other hollow rectangular piers,
readers are referred to [115].

5.4.2 Description of the pier

The dimensions of the specimen prepared for the experiment, with reinforcing details,
are briefly summarized in Figure 5.10. The pier has a hollow square cross section; 450
mm wide by 75 mm thick by 1350 mm tall. Note that these dimensions correspond to a
bridge pier 5.4m tall with a 1.8m square section at a reduced scale of one to four. Pier
reinforcing was detailed in accordance with typical practice that existed in Italy in the
1950’s and 60’s, with the intention that a shear failure would develop. The cyclic
displacements to be applied to the top of the pier will induce inelastic behaviour and
allow examination of the non-linear cyclic response of the pier. The large footings were
designed to prevent any local damage and to provide a stiff foundation.

The concrete cylinder compressive strength of the pier was found to be 30.3 MPa.
Reinforcing steel yield strengths were also obtained through testing; 520MPa for
longitudinal reinforcing and 710MPa for transverse steel. An axial load of 250kN,
corresponding to an axial load ratio of 0.07, was applied to the pier through the post
tensioned bar shown in Figure 5.10. The test set-up is discussed further in Section 5.4.5.
116 Timothy J. Sullivan, Rui Pinho & Alberto Pavese

1200 mm

200 mm
375 mm 450 mm 375 mm

450 mm
Load
line 300 mm

Post-tensioned
bar
1350 mm

1250 mm

450 mm
300 mm

Long. Bars: 40 φ8
600 mm

Stirrups type 2: φ3/75mm, 4 legs

Figure 5.10. Details of the hollow RC bridge pier scaled 1 to 4.

5.4.3 Analytical prediction

A pushover analysis is performed to give the flexural capacity curve of the pier, whereas
various analytical models are used to provide envelopes of shear strength. Having
obtained the capacity curves, the shear and flexural strengths can be considered together
on a single plot. This provides the expected non-linear response and allows identification
of appropriate drift values for application during the cyclic experiment.

5.4.3.1 Prediction of flexural capacity

Modelling inputs and assumptions

The computation of the flexural capacity curve for the pier was obtained by means of
a quasi-static pushover analysis carried out using the SeismoStruct [69] software. Various
assumptions were necessary in the development of a fibre element model used for this
pushover analysis. The main assumptions are outlined in the following paragraphs.
 An Introduction to Structural Testing Techniques in Earthquake Engineering 117

The pier was discretized into ten elements for which 200 monitoring points were
introduced. As can be seen from Figure 5.11, a fine mesh was adopted for the base of the
pier that receives the highest curvature demands and is consequently where the inelastic
behaviour is concentrated.

Figure 5.11. Discretization of pier model in deformed shape.

A concrete crushing strain value of 0.004 was adopted, as recommended in [68] for
design and assessment. Note that it is suggested in [68] that spalling may be expected
between strains of 0.006 and 0.010, therefore an even higher value of crushing strain may
have been appropriate due to the confining nature of the support. A concrete
confinement factor of 1.11 was determined in accordance with the Mander [80] model.

It was assumed that the tensile strength of concrete was zero for the pushover analysis
since concrete will not contribute greatly to flexural strength. It is acknowledged that
some tensile strength is important for reinforcement bonding to concrete yet such
behaviour was not explicitly modelled in the pushover.

Reinforcement strain hardening was incorporated linearly within the program and
strain penetration into the footing was allowed for by an increased pier height. This
effective length was set equal to the clear height of the pier plus the strain penetration
118 Timothy J. Sullivan, Rui Pinho & Alberto Pavese

length determined in line with recommendations provided in [68] and discussed in

Section 4.8.4. Consequently, the effective length was set to the value shown in Eq. (5.4).

Leff = 1350mm + 91.5mm = 1441.5mm (5.4)

Note that this effective length is only the appropriate height for flexure since the shear
will develop between the clear faces of the pier. However, this length was considered
reasonable for the pushover model since the shear capacity is determined independently
and superimposed on the flexural capacity curve.

Pushover analysis results

The pushover analysis itself was performed by displacing the top of the pier a total of
40mm using 200 load steps of 0.2mm. Figure 5.11 plots the base shear versus the top
displacement associated with the flexural failure. It can be seen that the pier yields in
bending at a top displacement of 7.9mm. The yield displacement has been obtained by
forming a bilinear representation of the response using the first yielding of reinforcing
bars and crushing of the cover concrete as key points.

200000

150000
Base Shear (N)

First bar yields at 5.6mm

100000
Yield displacement = 7.9mm

50000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Top Displacement (mm)

Pushover cracking first bar yields conc crushing

Figure 5.12. Pushover curve for the pier modelled in SeismoStruct [69].
 An Introduction to Structural Testing Techniques in Earthquake Engineering 119

5.4.3.2 Prediction of shear capacity

The second phase of the analytical assessment is to predict the shear capacity of the
pier. Experimental evidence produced in the last ten years has made clear that traditional
code formulations to predict shear strength tend to be overly conservative at low levels of
ductility and increasingly non conservative at high levels of displacement ductility. In
general, most models follow the traditional approach of computing the shear strength as
the sum of a concrete and a steel contribution (see, for example the ATC-40 formulation
described below). More recently, revised models have been proposed that include a
reduction of the concrete contribution as a function of the flexural ductility demand as
presented in [74].

The following shear models (refer [81] for details of all models) have been considered
and compared in this investigation:

1. ATC-40 shear assessment equations.

2. CALTRANS Memo 20-4 attachment B (M 20-4)
3. Two models proposed at the University of California at San Diego, indicated as
UCSD-ORIG and UCSD-MOD
These various models are primarily intended for the assessment of existing columns
and so it is expected that they can reasonably predict the capacity of the test pier. Note
that in the presentation of the UCSD-MOD model [81], all the above methods for
circular R.C. columns are utilised and discussed.

The ATC-40 model computes the shear strength (Vn) as the sum of a concrete (Vc)
and a steel (Vs) contribution as shown in Eq. (5.5).

Vn = Vc + Vs (5.5)

where Vc and Vs are given in SI units by Eq.s (5.6) and (5.7) respectively.
ª Pe º ' (5.6)
Vc = 0.29 « k1 + » f c (0.8 Ag )
¬« 13 . 8 A »
g ¼

Av f yh D '
Vs = (5.7)
0. 6 s
In the first of these equations, the factor k1 equals 1 for a displacement ductility of
two or less, and zero for a displacement ductility greater than two. Pe is the axial load, Ag
is the gross section area of the pier and f ‘c is the concrete cylinder compressive strength.
In the second equation, Av is the cross sectional area of the transverse reinforcing, with
120 Timothy J. Sullivan, Rui Pinho & Alberto Pavese

yield strength fyh, and hoop spacing or spiral pitch of s. Finally, D’ is the core diameter
measure from centre to centre of the transverse reinforcing. It should be selected for a
hollow pier by considering that the ratio D’/s is used to determined how many transverse
bars are effective in resisting the development of a diagonal shear crack.

The nominal shear strength for the Caltrans formulation also uses the formulation
presented in Eq. (5.5). In the Caltrans model, the steel component is found using Eq.
(5.7) and the concrete component is determined as shown in Eq. (5.8).

Vc = vc Ae = F 1F 2 f c' (0.8 Ag ) ≤ 0.33 f c' Ag (5.8)

Where F1 and F2 are given by Eq.s (5.9) and (5.10) respectively.

F1 = 0.025 ≤ 0.08 ρ s f yh + 0.305 − 0.083μ Δ ≤ 0.25 (5.9)

Pe
F 2 = 0 for < 0.25
Ag
§ Pe · for Pe (5.10)
F 2 = ¨1 + ¸ ≤ 1 .5 ≥ 0.25
¨ 13.8 A ¸ Ag
© g ¹

It is seen that these formulations are very similar to the ATC formulation, with the
main differences being the higher concrete contribution at ductility levels greater than
two, and no strength when the pier is in tension.

Both UCSD models recognise that there is a component of the shear strength that
does not degrade with ductility and which is not associated with the steel contribution.
The proposed expressions are consequently composed of three terms as shown in Eq.
(5.11), where an axial force component is added to the concrete and steel contributions.

Vn = Vc + Vs + V p (5.11)

Components of both formulations proposed are summarized in the following

formulae, where index O refers to UCSD-ORIG and M refers to UCSD-MOD;

VcO = 0.8γ f c′ Ag VcM = αβγ f c′ (0.8 Ash ) (5.12)

Av f y (D − 2 cov+ d bs ) Av f y (D − c − cov )
VsO = cot θ VsM = cot θ (5.13)
s s

V pO = V pM = P
(D − c ) (5.14)
2L
 An Introduction to Structural Testing Techniques in Earthquake Engineering 121

Where Av is the transversal reinforcement, fy is the transverse reinforcement strength,

θ is the cracking angle, dbs is the diameter of the transverse bars, D is the section depth, P
is the axial load, s is the stirrups spacing and L is the pier height. The cracking angle θ is
suggested to be taken as equal to 30°. The terms c and cov represent the neutral axis depth
and reinforcement cover respectively.

In Eq. (5.12) the effective shear area, Ash, can be taken as 0.8 Ag for solid sections,
while for hollow section the suggested values are given by Eq. (5.15).

Ash, rectangular = bw d, Ash, circular = 0.54 π/4 (Dia2 - dia2) (5.15)

The parameter γ in Eq. (5.12) accounts for the degradation of the aggregate interlock
contribution with ductility. Its value in both formulations is obtained using the values
shown in Figure 5.13 as a function of the displacement ductility, μΔ.

0.35

0.30
UCSD-Mod
UCSD-Orig
0.25
γ (MPa)

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10

Displacement ductility

Figure 5.13. Parameter γ in UCSD formulations of shear strength

The α and β terms shown in the UCSD-MOD version of Eq. (5.12) account for the
aspect ratio and longitudinal reinforcement respectively. The aspect ratio factor can be
calculated using Eq. (5.16) and the factor to account for longitudinal reinforcement
through Eq. (5.17).

1 ≤ α = 3 − H / D ≤ 1 .5 (5.16)
β = 0.5 + 20 ρ l ≤ 1 (5.17)
122 Timothy J. Sullivan, Rui Pinho & Alberto Pavese

where ρl=Asl / Ac is the geometrical reinforcement ratio for which Ac is the confined
concrete core area. Finally, it is noted that the UCSD-MOD equations have been derived
from results partially obtained through testing of hollow piers.

These four models have been used to determine the shear capacity of the section at
different values of displacement ductility. The next stage is to superimpose these shear
capacities onto the pushover curve obtained in Section 5.4.3.1.

5.4.4 Predicted non-linear response of pier

The predicted non-linear response, considering both the flexural and shear capacity, is
shown in Figure 5.14. The shear capacities have been plotted against the top displacement
of the pier by correlating the ductility values presented in the previous section with the
pier yield displacement of 7.9mm obtained from section 5.4.3.1. It is apparent that none
of the models predict a shear failure for the proposed actuator displacements. However,
both the UCSD-MOD and ATC-40 models predict shear capacities that are almost equal
to flexural capacity. Therefore, considering that significant variations in material
properties may exist throughout the pier, it is quite possible that a shear failure may in
fact develop, especially at higher displacement ductility demands.

400
ATC-40
300 Caltrans
UCSD-Orig.
200
Lateral Force (kN)

UCSD-Mod.
100 Flexural response

0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
Displacement (mm)

Figure 5.14. Predicted non-linear response envelope for the hollow RC pier.
 An Introduction to Structural Testing Techniques in Earthquake Engineering 123

Another important point is that the predicted capacity curves can be used to set
appropriate displacement limits for the actuator. From Section 5.4.3.1 it was shown that
the outer reinforcing bars should start yielding at a top displacement of 5.6mm. This
corresponds to a drift of 0.41%. Similarly the yield displacement for the pier of 7.9mm,
converts to a yield drift of 0.59%. Appropriate test drift levels might progress from 0.4%
initially, for which an elastic response should be expected, through to 3.0% which
corresponds to a displacement ductility of five. It is expected that at a displacement
ductility of five the pier will either have reached or be on the point of collapse. Note that
these ductility demands do not account for bar slippage or movements associated with
shear cracking.

5.4.5 Test set-up

The quasi-static nature of this test on a single degree of freedom structure meant that
only a single actuator was required to apply the displacements. However, in addition to
this, a hydraulic actuator was connected to a 32mm diameter high strength bar which was
post-tensioned in order to apply and maintain the 250kN axial load throughout the
execution of the test. Even though the test only incorporates two actuators, considerable
work was required for the test set-up, mostly related to development of the data
acquisition system.

The data acquisition system included global measurements of horizontal, vertical and
diagonal displacements, measurements of longitudinal deformation (curvature) in the
plastic hinge zones, some strain gauges on stirrups and longitudinal bars and verification
of possible base translation and rotation. In total, data was recorded at more than 80
points over the pier as indicated by Figure 5.15 and Figure 5.16 which present the
transducer locations for two sides of the pier. A similar number and arrangement of
transducers were also provided on the other sides of the pier.

The data for each transducer was collected and stored on a central computer that
monitored the results as the test proceeded. As shown in the photo of Figure 5.17, the
wiring associated with so many transducers is substantial and careful planning and
organisation is required simply to keep track of each transducer. The photo also clearly
shows the actuator used to apply the horizontal displacements and part of the top
actuator used to control the axial load.
124 Timothy J. Sullivan, Rui Pinho & Alberto Pavese

SIDE C
24 60

0 13
25
load cell

1 5 9 14 LP
26 59
LVDT

2 16

6 10

27 58

3 17
7 11
28

(a) 4
8 12
18

52 51 29 30 54 55
Key to pier-side names

53 56
57

(b)

Figure 5.15. (a) Key to names assigned to pier faces. (b) Locations of transducers on face
A of the pier and the positions of the load cells. The LP devices are resistive transducers,
whereas the LVDT are linear variable differential transformers or inductive transducers.
C D

Figure 5.16. Locations of transducers on reinforcing bars on sides C and D of the pier.
 An Introduction to Structural Testing Techniques in Earthquake Engineering 125

Figure 5.17. Photo of pier ready for testing. Note the actuators at the top of the pier,
some transducers on the face of the pier, and the large amount of wiring that connects to
the computer.

Cyclic displacements were applied to the top of the pier to drift levels of 0.4%, 1.2%,
1.8% and 3.0%. Three cycles were performed at drift levels of 0.4% and 1.2%, with two
cycles performed at 1.8% and 3.0%. The global response, in terms of actuator force
(shear) versus tip displacement, was monitored as the test proceeded. After the
displacement cycles at 1.2% drift it was observed that the axial load was not being
maintained at 250kN as intended and had instead risen to over 300kN. This was because
the actuator responsible for controlling the axial load was not being operated correctly.
Consequently, the test was paused and the vertical actuator was released and re-set at
250kN. The actual cyclic time-history of imposed displacements is shown in Figure 5.18.
Included in this figure is the effective displacement of the pier with a rigid base obtained
by allowing for the footing rotations. Included in this figure are the displacements of the
pier modified with account for the footing rotations so that the values are equivalent to a
pier with a rigid base. Although there is little difference between the raw and adjusted
displacement values, this modification is made as it is desirable to consider the rigid
footing case for comparison with the analytical prediction.
126 Timothy J. Sullivan, Rui Pinho & Alberto Pavese

The fact that the test had to be paused and the axial load adjusted implies that the
experimental set-up was not carried out correctly. Ideally, the changing axial load would
have been noted within the first set of cyclic displacements to the 0.4% drift level. This
level is below the yield drift of the pier and is performed to enable checks of the system
set-up, with the aim of preventing exactly this type of mistake. The impact of the axial
load adjustment on the non-linear behaviour of the pier will be considered in the review
of the results.

50

40
Test paused and axial load
30
adjusted to be constant 250kN
20
Displacement (mm)

10

0
1
-10

-20

-30
Displacement History
-40 Disp w/o footing rotation
Disp due to footing rotation
-50
Time

Figure 5.18. Cyclic displacement history as applied to the pier, adjusted for foundation
rotation.

Apart from the adjustment of axial load, the test proceeded smoothly. It was found
that the pier began to lose significant shear capacity at 3.0% drift indicating that failure
had been reached. An unexpected crack pattern developed with vertical cracks on the
sides of the piers, as presented in the following results section.

5.4.6 Test results

Figure 5.19 shows the inelastic response of the pier in comparison with the predicted
capacity obtained from Section 5.4.4. It is apparent that the pier had considerably less
capacity than that predicted by the analytical models. Despite this, the initial response of
the pier seems to be approaching a similar flexural capacity as that predicted by the
pushover analysis. For the initial cycles to 0.4% drift it can be seen that the pier remains
 An Introduction to Structural Testing Techniques in Earthquake Engineering 127

essentially elastic close to the flexural prediction, but with very narrow hysteresis loops. It
is believed that these loops are associated with the cracking that was predicted at a drift
less than 0.1%.

400
ATC
300 Caltrans
UCSD-Orig.
200
Lateral Force (kN)

UCSD-Mod.
Flexural response
100 Experimental data

0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
Displacement (mm)

Figure 5.19. Cyclic behaviour, plus flexural and shear capacity predictions for the bridge
pier

The yield displacement of the pier was calculated as 7.9mm, or 0.59% drift, as
reported in Section 5.4.3.1. However, the test results indicate that both the stiffness and
strength of the pier have been over estimated for the second stage of cycling to 1.2%
drift. This lower than expected initial stiffness has also been observed from several tests
on similar hollow RC piers [115] and it has been suggested that this is principally the
result of shear cracking deformations. Consequently, it is expected that at 1.2% drift the
full flexural capacity of the pier had still not been developed, even if some longitudinal
bars had begun yielding. Given these points, the lower than expected response of the pier
up to the various drift levels might be considered reasonable. However, it is apparent that
even at displacements of 40mm, corresponding to 3.0% drift, the predicted capacity of
the section overestimates the response. In fact, a drop of strength is noted for cycles
beyond the 1.2% drift level. Some causes for this might be found through examination of
the damage pattern that developed during the test.

At the initial stages of the test a predictable cracking pattern developed that consisted
principally of diagonal shear cracks on the sides and some horizontal flexural cracks on
128 Timothy J. Sullivan, Rui Pinho & Alberto Pavese

the front and back faces of the pier. This early stage cracking is shown in the photo, part
(a) of Figure 5.20. Note that such cracking supports the argument that the stiffness was
reduced because of shear deformations. At the later stages of testing an unexpected form
of cracking was observed. Part (b) of Figure 5.20 shows a large vertical crack that
developed on the side faces of the pier. The test was stopped upon formation of a failure
mechanism that could be described as a combined shear-splitting failure.

Note the large

vertical crack

Connects to a
diagonal shear crack

(a) (b)

Figure 5.20. Cracking patterns on the side of the pier (a) diagonal shear cracks at low drift
levels, and (b) combined vertical splitting and diagonal shear cracks near collapse.

The suggestion that a partial splitting failure developed might be supported

considering the test procedure. More specifically, reference is made to the fact that the
axial load crept above 250kN and so was removed and re-applied after the pier had been
subjected to the 1.2% drift level. It is expected that the initial cyclic loading caused some
bond deterioration along the longitudinal reinforcing bars. The deterioration in bond and
partial yielding of bars would imply different elastic recovery of displacements for the
steel and concrete materials upon removal of axial load. Subsequent re-loading without
 An Introduction to Structural Testing Techniques in Earthquake Engineering 129

the presence of any bending is expected to have subjected some longitudinal bars to an
axial load capable of transferring to lateral movement and generation of circumferential
tensile stresses in the concrete. In contrast to a situation where the axial load is constant
and a longitudinal bar is subject to tension and compression as part of flexural cycling,
these circumferential stresses would have developed before the full transverse confining
pressure had been developed in the concrete. The small cracks around the longitudinal
bars would then have developed into what appeared as a splitting failure upon the
ensuing cycling. This is because the initial splitting cracks would have been subject to
shears parallel to the longitudinal bars (known as horizontal shear for a cantilever beam)
which eventually split the column longitudinally. The observed failure mechanism was
formed when the diagonal shear cracks (formed during the initial cycle phases to 1.2%
drift) connected to the splitting cracks.

Alternatively, it could be that local weaknesses in the concrete caused the unexpected
failure mechanism to develop. However, through comparison of the results with those
reported in [115] it is clear that the axial unloading and reloading of the pier midway
through the test did alter the response. Figure 5.21 (from [115]) presents the response of
an identical pier subject to similar drift levels but with the axial load maintained at a
constant 250kN throughout the test.

350
UCSD-Orig.
UCSD-Mod.
UCB-Orig.
250
UCB-Mod.
Flexural response
Experimental data
150
Lateral force (kN)

50

-50

-150

-250

-350
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement ductility

Figure 5.21. Experimental tests results from [115] compared with numerical predictions.
130 Timothy J. Sullivan, Rui Pinho & Alberto Pavese

It is evident that the full predicted strength has been developed and maintained for
some cycles at displacement ductility demands greater than four (drift levels of 2.4%). A
combined flexure-shear failure eventually developed at displacement ductility demands
greater than five. Further support is given to the argument that the test procedure
affected the results, because the hysteretic shapes for the initial stages of the two tests are
very similar. Readers are again referred to [115] for more details and the performance of
other shear models in predicting the results of hollow reinforced concrete piers.

5.4.7 Conclusions from bridge pier investigations

A cyclic pseudo-static test has been performed on a scaled RC pier with limited
success. The cyclic non-linear behaviour of a hollow reinforced concrete pier has been
obtained. However, the non-linear response was significantly less than that predicted by
the analytical models. The capacity of the pier appears to have been controlled by a
combined vertical splitting-shear failure. Because of this unusual failure mechanism,
neither the full shear nor the flexural capacity of the section has been developed.
Consequently, a performance assessment of the analytical shear models was not possible.

Through comparison of results from [115] for a similar test, it appears that the
behaviour of the test pier at low drift levels is reasonable. Interesting observations include
a lower than expected initial stiffness. It is proposed that this low stiffness is due to
formation of shear cracks causing reduced shear stiffness, noting that the pushover curve
incorporated the effects of flexural cracking. The comparison in results suggests that at
higher levels of drift the test pier has responded unusually.

A failure sequence has been proposed to account for the unexpected non-linear
response. The hypothesized response sequence stipulates that the response was altered by
axial unloading and reloading during the testing. This axial adjustment was necessary
because of a mistake made in the experimental set-up phase. Fortunately for the purposes
of this report, this event has highlighted the importance of the experimental set-up phase
in a test.

Consequently, despite being unable to fulfil the aims of this investigation, several
interesting observations have been made about hollow reinforced concrete piers and the
non-linear behaviour of reinforced concrete. More importantly in the context of this
report, the importance of the experimental set-up phase has been highlighted, reinforcing
comments made earlier within this document.