Articulo 1 - 2021

Engineering Failure Analysis 121 (2021) 105158
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal
Dynamic behavior and damage mechanisms of reinforced concrete

piers subjected to truck impact
Wuchao Zhao a, b, *, Jihong Ye a, Jiang Qian c
a
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Environmental Impact and Structural Safety in Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou,
Jiangsu 221116, China
b
Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Building Energy Saving and Construction Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221116, China
c
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, 200092 Shanghai, China
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: In this paper, the dynamic behavior and damage mechanisms of reinforced concrete (RC) piers
RC piers subjected to truck impact are investigated using finite-element (FE) simulations in LS-DYNA.
Impact Firstly, high-fidelity FE models of trucks and RC piers are established and verified against pre
Truck type
vious experimental data together with a real traffic accident. Then, an intensive parametric study
Damage mechanisms
is carried out to evaluate the effect of truck type on the impact force, failure mode, internal force,
Energy absorption
energy absorption, and reinforcement stress of RC piers. The simulation results show that the
impact force is greatly affected by the structural stiffness and mass distribution of the trucks. Big
differences exist in dynamic responses and failure modes of the piers under the impact of the
different trucks. Besides, the concrete plays a dominant role in the energy absorption of the piers
in the initial impact stage, and the energy dissipated by the reinforcements mainly depends on the
lateral deformation of the pier in the following stage. Finally, two typical failure processes of RC
piers subjected to truck impact are identified based on the interaction of shear and flexural
responses.
1. Introduction
In recent years, accidental collisions between RC bridge piers and vehicles occur frequently, which has seriously threatened
people’s safety as well as the operation of the transportation system. A study conducted by Lee et al. [1] demonstrated that vehicle
collision was the third cause of bridge failures in the United States between 1980 and 2012. Similarly, Cook et al. [2] reported that
about 19.2% of bridge collapses over 25 years in New York were induced by vehicular impact. Therefore, the dynamic behavior of RC
piers under vehicle impact should be carefully investigated for enhancing the security protection ability of bridge structures.
Although current bridge design codes [3] provide an equivalent static force (ESF) method for the anti-impact design of bridge
structures, vehicle-bridge collisions are complex and dynamic problems in nature. Many previous studies [4–7] clarified that, as the
amplification dynamic effects including inertia and strain rate effects have not been considered, the dynamic responses of RC com
ponents under impact loadings are quite different from those under static loadings. Besides, the vehicular impact forces imposed on
bridge piers are generally larger than the design value [8–10], especially for the high-velocity impact scenarios. Hence, the design ESF
* Corresponding author at: Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Environmental Impact and Structural Safety in Engineering, China University of Mining and
Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221116, China.
E-mail address: wuchaozhao@cumt.edu.cn (W. Zhao).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.105158
Received 21 July 2020; Received in revised form 28 November 2020; Accepted 1 December 2020
Available online 7 December 2020
1350-6307/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 121 (2021) 105158
values specified in current codes have raised many concerns on its applicability and accuracy to represent the real collision condition.
Over the past two decades, the dynamic responses of RC bridges subjected to impact loadings arising from vehicles or vessels have
aroused widespread attention. For bridge piers subjected to vessel collision, there exist many studies in previous literature [11–18]
investigating the responses and failure modes of piers using three simulation techniques, such as the high-resolution, medium-reso
lution, and low-resolution FE techniques. Due to the remarkable discrepancies between the structural behaviors of vehicles and vessels,
the responses of bridge piers subjected to vehicle collision is expected to be different from that under vessel collision [19]. Besides,
compared with the great achievements on the ship-bridge collision, further works are required to be conducted on the impact be
haviors of bridges subjected to vehicle collision.
El-Tawil et al. [8] conducted numerical simulations of light and medium trucks that impact bridge piers, and the results showed
that the ESF value in AASHTO-LRFD is unconservative in some cases. Using the same truck models, Abdelkarim and ElGawady [10]
performed a parametric study to examine the PIF and ESF of vehicle collision with bridge piers, and they believed that the peak of the
twenty-five milliseconds moving average is more suitable to evaluate the impact demand of RC piers. Using the ESF method, Saini and
Shafei [9] proposed an empirical equation for calculating the design impact force dependent on the vehicle’s velocity and mass.
Despite the ESF is readily utilized in the anti-impact design of RC piers, it is hard to predict the failure modes and ensure structural
safety [20,21]. To address this issue, Chen et al. [22] carried out a series of numerical simulations on the collisions between a medium
truck and elastic piers and then developed a coupled mass-spring-damper (CMSD) model to predict impact force time histories.
However, the nonlinear responses of bridge piers were neglected in the simplified model. On the other hand, several pulse models were
developed to predict the vehicular impact loading profile on RC piers [23,24]. In general, bridge piers are highly vulnerable to an
accidental collision with heavy trucks, while FE models of light and medium trucks have been utilized in current research studies on
vehicle-bridge collision problems. Lu et al. [25] found that the impact forces between vehicles and bridge superstructures mainly
depend upon the vehicle parameters, i.e. truck type and impact velocity. Besides, Chen et al. [26] pointed out that larger and heavier
vehicles may not necessarily produce a larger impact force. However, relatively little attention has been devoted to the effect of truck
type on the impact force and responses of bridge piers.
In terms of the impact behavior and design method of RC piers under vehicle impact, Sharma et al. [27] proposed a performance-
based framework for calculating the shear demand and capacity of RC piers subjected to vehicle impact. Yi et al. [28] numerically
investigated the impact behavior of RC piers under a medium truck impact and established an impact resistance evaluation procedure
using a probabilistic approach and the concept of ductility. Do et al. [7] explored the impact response and failure mode of RC piers
under different loading conditions. It was concluded that the engine’s mass has a significant effect on the impact force and damage of
RC piers. Chen et al. [29] developed an analytic approach for evaluating the shear performance of RC piers subjected to a medium truck
impact. Based on collected data, Buth et al. [30] pointed out that severe bridge damage occurs as a result of the collisions between
heavy trucks and piers. In this light, Cao et al. [31] examined the impact demands and damage modes of RC piers under tractor-trailer
impact. The results revealed that the sequence of trailer impact force plays a considerable role in the damage evolution. To characterize
the performance level of RC piers, Hosseini et al. [32] recommended the extremeness of vehicle impact should be categorized in terms
of the mass, velocity, and class of vehicles. Since the impact behavior of RC bridge piers subjected to vehicle collision is quite complex,
it is essential to conduct more studies to give fundamental insight into this philosophical problem.
In general, RC piers may suffer impact actions of different vehicles in their design service life, but large differences exist in the
stiffness and mass of the vehicles on the roadway. A study conducted by Tsang and Lam [33] indicated that vehicle stiffness signif
icantly affects the impact behavior of RC piers. Moreover, Agrawal et al. [34] found that 95% of vehicles involved in fatal traffic
accidents of vehicle-bridge collisions are trucks and tractor-trailers. In particular, a clear understanding of the failure behavior of RC
piers subjected to impact loadings imposed by various trucks is very important for the anti-impact design of RC piers. Therefore, this
paper aims to explore the effect of truck type on the impact force and damage evolution of RC piers which has been highlighted in the
literature [33,35] but still lack of in-depth research. To this end, High-fidelity FE models of trucks collision with RC piers are
established using the commercial program LS-DYNA. The accuracy of the models is verified against a drop-weight impact test and a
real accidental collision. Then, a comprehensive set of impact simulations are conducted to examine the impact force, internal forces,
and failure modes of RC piers subjected to truck collision. Special attention is paid to the effect of truck type on the impact behavior of
RC piers. Finally, the typical failure processes of RC piers subjected to truck impact are illustrated.
Table 1
Test conditions for safety barriers [36]
Test Vehicle Mass (t) Velocity (km/h)
TB11 Car 0.9 100

TB21 Car 1.3 80
TB31 Car 1.5 80
TB41 Rigid Truck 10.0 70
TB51 Bus 13.0 70
TB81 Tractor-trailer 38.0 65
2
2. Numerical modeling of truck impact
2.1. Truck and pier models
As mentioned above, accidental collisions between trucks and bridge piers are stochastic events in nature, and thus bridge
structures may undergo impact actions of different trucks. However, it is unrealistic to perform the impact analysis of bridge piers using
various truck FE models. According to European standard EN 1317 [36], the crash tests for safety barriers require several vehicle types
like cars, trucks in which the mass ranges from 10 t to 38 t. The specific test conditions are tabulated in Table 1. Similarly, the vehicle
classification could be applied to the impact analysis for bridge piers. Since the impact actions of light cars hardly threaten the safety of
bridge structures, only heavy trucks are considered in this study. Therefore, the publicly available FE models of four typical trucks,
including the 8 t Ford F800 truck, 16 t HGV truck, 30 t IVECO truck, and 38 t tractor-trailer are employed in this study, which have
been widely used in the open literature [9,20,27,37,38] to investigate the impact responses and performance of bridge piers. In the
modeling process of these trucks, the geometry of various components of each truck was digitized and imported into finite element
modeling software, and the truck components were tested to provide data for constitutive modeling. It should be mentioned that
previous studies [22,30] have shown that the cargo stiffness has a significant effect on the impact force when the cargo comes into
contact with a pier. However, mass elements are usually utilized to simulate cargos in the existing truck models. Namely, the collision
between cargo and pier could not be well captured in these cases. Thus, only the truck cargos are modified using solid elements with an
elastic modulus of 1000 MPa and firmly attached to the container bottom herein. Besides, the total mass of the truck models is adjusted
by change the density of the cargos based on the data listed in Table 1, and the detailed information of the truck FE models used in this
study is described in Table 2.
The RC piers selected in this study are circular in the cross-section and have a height of 6.0 m above the ground level, as shown in
Fig. 1(a). At the base, the foundation height is equal to the pier diameter. The fixed boundary condition of the foundation is achieved
by restraining lateral movements of the circumferential nodes and vertical movements of the nodes on the bottom surface. To simplify
the impact problem and better control the simulation variables, a cylinder with a height of 1.0 m is connected to the top of the piers to
represent the equivalent mass of bridge superstructure [39–42]. The weight of the cylinder is equal to 0.07fcA [27], where fc is the
concrete strength and A is the sectional area of the pier. Two pier models with two different top boundary conditions are presented in
Fig. 1 (b)-(c). The design parameters and reinforcement arrangement of the piers are tabulated in Table 3. The unconfined compressive
strength of concrete is assumed to be 26.8 MPa, and the yield strengths of longitudinal reinforcements and stirrups are 400 MPa and
335 MPa, respectively.
The continuous surface cap model (MAT_CSCM) [43] is used to simulate the dynamic behavior of concrete. CSCM is originally
developed for the impact analysis of roadside safety structures and has been widely used in previous studies [44–46]. This model
includes four isotropic constitutive formulations: a three stress-invariant shear surface with translation for pre-peak hardening, an
expanding/contracting hardening cap, damage-based softening with erosion, and strain rate effect. Besides, it provides a fast yet easy
approach to use default material properties selected as a function of the unconfined compression strength, maximum aggregate size,
and Poisson’s ratio, especially when test data are unavailable. The previous study [47] has found that key parameters, B (ductile
softening parameter) and pmod, has a great effect on the mechanical behavior of concrete. As recommended, B and pmod are set as 300
and 3.5 for the confined concrete. The element eroding technique is used to avoid severe element distortion during the impact, and
thus the value of ERODE is taken as 1.1. Based on a visco-plastic formulation, the strain rate effect of concrete is considered using the
dynamic increase factor [48,49], that is
Table 2
Information of the truck FE models.
Truck Total mass(t) Engine mass(t) Cargo mass(t) Velocity(km/h)
Class FE model
10 t rigid truck 10 0.64 4.88 40–100
16 t rigid truck 16 1.27 8.53
30 t rigid truck 30 1.09 21.95
38 t tractor-trailer 38 1.27 24.60
3
Fig. 1. Details of FE model for RC piers: (a) FE model; (b) Cantilevered pier; (c) Fixed-fixed pier.
Table 3
Configurations of the RC piers.
No. Diameter (m) Height (m) Longitudinal reinforcements Stirrups
C1 1.0 6.0 20C24 C16@200

C2 1.5 6.0 24C32 C16@200
⎧( )1.026α
⎨ 1
ε̇/ε̇s ε̇⩽30s−
fcd /fcs =
⎩ 1/3 − 1
γ(ε̇) ε̇ > 30s
Table 4
Material properties of the RC piers.
Type Material model Parameter Magnitude
Concrete *MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE Mass density 2350.0 kg/m3

Compressive strength 26.8 MPa
Maximum aggregate size 20.0 mm
B (Ductile softening parameter) 300
pmod 3.5
ERODE 1.1
Longitudinal rebar *MAT_PLASTIC_KINAMATIC Mass density 7800.0 kg/m3
Yield stress 400.0 MPa
Tangent modulus 1.5 GPa
C (strain rate parameter) 40.4
P (strain rate parameter) 5.0
Failure strain 0.12
Stirrup *MAT_PLASTIC_KINAMATIC Mass density 7800.0 kg/m3
Yield stress 335.0 MPa
Tangent modulus 1.5 GPa
C (strain rate parameter) 40.4
P (strain rate parameter) 5.0
Failure strain 0.12
4
⎧ ( )δ
⎪
⎨ ε̇/ε̇s ε̇⩽1s− 1
ftd /fts = ( )1/3

⎪
⎩ β ε̇/ε̇s 1
ε̇ > 1s−
( )− 1
where fcd and fcs is the dynamic and static compressive strengths (MPa); ε̇s =30 × 10-6s− 1; α = 5 + 9fcs /fc0 , in whichfc0 = 10
MPa; lgγ = 6.156α − 2; ftd andfts is the dynamic and static tensile strengths (MPa), ε̇s =10-6 s− 1; lgβ = 6δ - 2, in which
( )
δ = 1/ 1 + 8fc /fc0 .
The elastoplastic model with kinematic hardening (MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC) is employed to simulate the reinforcement
behavior. Besides, the Cowper-Symonds model [50] is utilized to account for the strain rate effect on the yield strength of re
inforcements, where the parameters are taken as C = 40.4 and p = 5. A plastic strain of 0.12 is assumed as the failure criterion for
reinforcements [51]. The details of material models and properties employed in the FE model are tabulated in Table 4.
Concrete and reinforcements are modeled by 8-noded constant stress solid elements and 2-noded Hughes-Liu beam elements,
respectively. The hourglass control based on the Flanagan-Belytschko approach is applied for the reduced integration solid elements to
avoid excessive hourglass energy. A perfect bond between the concrete and reinforcements is assumed and defined by the keyword
named CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGE_ IN_SOLID. After the careful convergence check, the mesh size of the pier elements is set as 50 mm.
The contact algorithm named CONTACT_ERODING_SINGLE_SURFACE is utilized to simulate the vehicle-pier interaction, where the
Coulomb friction coefficient is set as 0.3 to consider the sliding force and energy on the contact interface [8]. Moreover, the gravity
load is initiated through dynamic relaxation with implicit analysis prior to the explicit dynamic analysis.
2.2. Model validation
One critical aspect of numerical simulations is validation with experimental results or physical phenomenon to ensure the accuracy
of selected material models, boundary conditions, and contact algorithms adopted in the established FE model. In this study, two cases
for model validation are demonstrated.
In the first validation, two drop-weight impact tests on RC beams conducted by Kishi et al. [52,53] are simulated. Fig. 2 presents the
geometry and reinforcement layout of the tested beams which were impacted at mid-span by a 2000 kg drop-weight from a prescribed
height of 10 m. The striking head of the drop-weight had a hemispherical tip with a radius of 0.8 m. The steel outer-shell of the drop-
weight filled with steel balls and concrete was 1.0 m in diameter, 0.97 m in height. To reduce the anchoring length, two steel plates
with a thickness of 12 mm were welded to the main reinforcements at the beam end. The material properties and other design pa
rameters of the RC beams are summarized in Table 5. The material models, element types, and contact algorithm of the beams are
consistent with those in the established FE model of the RC pier.
Fig. 3 presents the comparisons between the simulation and test results of the beams. The contour plots in Fig. 3(a) are the effective
plastic strain distributions of concrete to represent the damage pattern of the beams. The beams suffer serious damage at the impact
point and several vertical cracks appear near the supports, which are well captured by the numerical simulation. Moreover, the peak
value, duration, and global trend of the predicted impact force agree well with the test results. In particular, the discrepancy in the
numerical and testing peak impact force is less than 5%. Due to the failure of the test equipment, the measured displacement at the
mid-span (D-1) of the beam B2 cannot be captured in the post-impact stage. Therefore, the measured displacement at the point D-2 is
utilized to verify the FE model. The predicted displacements of the beams are quite successful, and the peak displacements are captured
with reasonable accuracy. From these observations, it can be concluded that the simulation techniques, material models, and contact
algorithm adopted in the FE models can reproduce the impact process of RC components.
In the second validation, a real truck collision with an exterior RC pier of an overpass bridge in China [38] is modeled to further
confirm the accuracy of the FE models. Since there is no available data for the impact force and displacement of the pier, only the
failure profile of the bridge from the numerical simulation is compared with the crash photograph. Although the bridge did not
collapse in the real accident, the impacted pier suffered serious damage, and the deck of the bridge also tilted badly, as shown in Fig. 4.
It can be observed that a good agreement on the bridge failure pattern is achieved. Sufficient confidence in the modeling technique,
material model, and contact algorithm can be provided by these validations. Hence, the developed FE models of trucks and RC piers
can be used in the following impact scenarios.
Fig. 2. Dimensions and reinforcement layout of the beams [53] (unit: mm).
5
Table 5
Material properties and design parameters of the beams.
Type Impact height (m) Section Main rebars Shear rebars fc (MPa)
′
fy (MPa) fyv (MPa)
height (m)
B1 10 0.85 D29 D13@250 31.2 401 390

B2 20 1.00 D32 D16@250 30.4 375 390
Fig. 3. Comparisons of simulation and experimental results of the beams.
3. Impact behavior of RC piers
An intensive parametric study is carried out to explore the dynamic behavior of RC piers subjected to truck impact. To avoid the
large initial penetration, an initial distance between the trucks and piers is set as 50 mm. According to the speed limit for heavy trucks
on the roadway in China, the selected impact velocity ranges from 40 km/h to 100 km/h. Besides, a separate dynamic relaxation
analysis is conducted to incorporate permanent loads into the transient impact analysis. To facilitate the discussion of simulation
results, a unique descriptive name is used for each case. For example, M10-V80-D1.0-C represents that a cantilevered (C) pier with a
diameter (D) of 1.0 m is subjected to the impact of the 10 t rigid truck (M) with a velocity (V) of 80 km/h. On the other hand, M38-V60-
D1.5-F denotes that a fixed–fixed (F) pier with a diameter (D) of 1.5 m is subjected to the impact of the 38 t truck (M) with a velocity (V)
of 60 km/h.
3.1. Truck impact force
The impact force time histories of the trucks imposed on the cantilevered pier with a diameter of 1.0 m are shown in Fig. 5, in which
the impact velocities are 60 km/h, 80 km/h, and 100 km/h. It can be observed that several peak values exist in the time history curve of
impact force due to the interaction between the pier and trucks. In the impact process, the bumper, engine, and cargo impact the pier
successively. Unlike small cars, the engine and cargo of heavy trucks have a more significant effect on the impact force time history
than the bumper. For simplicity, the processes of the engine and cargo hitting the pier refer to the first impact stage and second impact
stage in this study, respectively.
For the impact force time histories of the 10 t truck and 30 t truck, the maximum impact force caused by the engine is reached in a
quite short time, followed by several smaller peak values. It should be mentioned that the dynamic effect on the pier response is
significant in the first impact stage, while most of the impact impulse appears in the second impact stage. On the other hand, for the
impact force of the 16 t truck, there is not a sharp division between the first and second impact stage, and the impact force varies with
time more gently than that of the other trucks. In this case, the impact force of the 16 t truck can be simplified as a half-sine impulse.
6
Fig. 4. FE model validation for an RC bridge subjected to truck impact.
Fig. 5. Impact force characteristics of these trucks.
7
Compared with the other trucks, the first peak impact force of the 38 t truck appears much later. After that, the impact force quickly
reduces, and a longer time interval exists between the first and second impact. The 38 t truck (tractor-trailer) delivers the impact force
less efficiently than the rigid trucks due to the existing pin connection between the tractor and trailer. In the second impact stage, the
cargo-induced impact force will last for a relatively long time. Therefore, it can be concluded that the various interior structure and
mass distribution of the trucks can result in a big difference in the impact force characteristics.
In general, the peak impact force increases with the impact velocity and truck mass. When the impact velocity increases from 80 k/
h to 100 km/h, more obvious spikes appear in the impact force time history of the 10 t truck. In particular, the first peak impact force of
the 30 t truck is much greater than that of the other trucks. It is mainly due to the fact that, as the contact area between the engine and
pier increases, the engine with a large size causes a larger impact force. Besides, with the increase of the impact velocity, the second
peak impact force of the 38 t truck gradually exceeds its first peak impact force. In general, the peak impact force is larger than the
design value of vehicular impact force in JTG D60-2015 (1.0 MN) [54] and AASHTO-LRFD (2.7 MN) [3], which demonstrates that the
constant design value in current standards is unconservative for the anti-impact design of bridge piers. Therefore, the truck type, truck
mass, and impact velocity should be taken into consideration for determining the impact force.
Fig. 6. Contours of impact force distribution along the pier height.
8
Previous studies have shown that the impact elevation has a significant effect on dynamic responses and failure modes of RC
columns [6,21,55]. Thus, determining the distribution characteristics of vehicular impact force is of significance for the anti-impact
design of bridge piers. Fig. 6 presents the contours of impact force distribution along the pier height. It can be observed that the
truck impact force varies in time and space due to the interaction between the pier and truck’s components during the impact process,
and a big difference exists in the impact force distributions of these trucks.
For the 10 t truck, the impact force mainly distributes between 0.5 m and 1.0 m above the ground, which coincides with the position
of the truck engine. As the height of the truck frame increases, the impact elevation of the 16 t truck is higher than that of the 10 t truck,
and the impact force mainly distributes in the range from 0.5 m to 1.3 m above the ground. Due to the progressive buckling of the truck
chassis beams under the impact velocity of 100 km/h, the impact elevation of the 16 t truck descends after 0.045 s. For the 30 t truck
with a large-size engine, the spatial distribution of impact force is wider, ranging from 0.5 m to 1.8 m above the ground in the first
impact stage. In the second impact stage, the impact force mainly concentrates around 0.6 m above the ground after the failure of RC
piers. When the 38 t truck hits the pier, the impact force distribution ranges from 0.6 m to 1.2 m above the ground in the first impact
stage; however, its distribution is much wider in the second impact stage due to the cargo impact.
Although these results reveal the variation in the spatial distribution of impact force from the trucks during the impact process, it is
necessary to simplify the actual impact force to a concentrated force imposed on the pier at a specific elevation. Based on the simu
lation results, the impact elevations of the 10 t truck, 16 t truck, 30 t truck, and 38 t truck can be taken as 0.7 m, 1.0 m, 0.9 m, and 0.9 m
above the ground. It should be mentioned that this simplified approach is slightly conservative for the anti-impact design of RC piers.
3.2. Failure modes of RC piers
The most unfavorable impact scenarios are selected from the parametric study to investigate the failure modes of the piers sub
jected to truck impact. The effective plastic strain on the longitudinal section is utilized to intuitively describe the damage evolution of
the piers.
The damage patterns of the piers subjected to impact loadings from the 10 t truck are presented in Fig. 7. The 1.0 m diameter piers
suffer local shear damage initiated at the impact point when the impact velocity is 100 km/h. Due to the influence of the top boundary
condition, the difference in the damage distribution of the piers above the impact point is observed in Fig. 7(a)-(b). For example, many
horizontal flexural cracks appear above the impact point on the rear side of the cantilevered pier; however, the fixed–fixed pier suffers
more serious shear damage at the top but less flexural cracks on the rear side. On the other hand, minor damage to the 1.5 m diameter
pier is observed when the impact velocity is 100 km/h, and the top boundary has a slight effect on the damage pattern of the piers (see
Fig. 7(c)-(d)). It is because the stiffness of the 1.5 diameter pier is much higher than that of the 10 t truck, and thus most of the impact
energy is dissipated through the truck deformation.
Fig. 8 shows the damage patterns of the piers under the 16 t truck impact. The flexural-shear failure of the pier at the base is
numerically obtained, and serious flexural damage occurs at the impact point on the rear side (see Fig. 8(a)-(b)). For the cantilevered
pier with a diameter of 1.0 m, flexural cracks above the impact point mainly distribute on the rear side. However, for the fixed–fixed
pier with a diameter of 1.0 m, several diagonal cracks are observed near the pier top. When the 1.5 m diameter piers are hit by the 16 t
truck with a velocity of 100 km/h, some flexural cracks appear at the impact point on the rear side, and the piers suffer shear damage at
the base.
The damage patterns of the piers under the 30 t truck impact are presented in Fig. 9. The pier failure is characterized by the concrete
crushing and cover spalling at the base due to the large first peak impact force, which indicates that the shear failure is the primary
failure mode of the piers. Especially, the fixed–fixed piers are prone to direct shear failure at the base. Also, serious compressive
Fig. 7. Damage patterns of RC piers under the 10 t truck impact.
9
damage of the concrete between the impact point and the base is observed when the pier diameter is 1.5 m.
As shown in Fig. 10, the flexural-shear failure of the 1.0 m diameter pier under the 38 t truck impact occurs until the impact velocity
reaches 60 km/h. However, the pier under the 30 t truck impact suffers serious shear damage when the impact velocity is 40 km/h.
This is because the existing pin connection between the tractor and trailer weakens the structural integrity of the 38 t truck. For the 1.5
m diameter pier impacted by the 38 t truck with a velocity of 80 km/h, a diagonal crack throughout the concrete core at the pier top is
caused by the cargo impact. Moreover, serious shear damage at the base is observed, and some horizontal flexural cracks at the impact
point are localized in the rear side. Besides, the fixed–fixed RC piers under impact loads are prone to shear failure.
From the above results, it can be found that the FE models can capture the failure patterns of bridge piers in real traffic accidents
[30,56,57]. In general, RC piers subjected to truck impact mainly suffer shear failure or flexural-shear failure at the base, and some
horizontal flexural cracks appear in the back part behind the impact point. For the fixed–fixed piers, more impact force is resisted by
the top support, and thus shear failure may occur at the pier top. Besides, the impact damage of the fixed–fixed piers is less than that of
the cantilevered piers. The impact action of light and medium vehicles hardly causes the pier failure, especially for the RC piers with a
large diameter. However, bridge piers usually suffer serious damage under heavy truck impact (see Figs. 8-10). Therefore, more
attention should be paid to the safety performance of bridge piers subjected to truck impact.
10
Fig. 11. Internal force distributions along the pier height for the case D1.0-C.
Fig. 12. Internal force distributions along the pier height for the case D1.0-F.
11
Fig. 13. Internal force distributions along the pier height for the case D1.5-C.
Fig. 14. Internal force distributions along the pier height for the case D1.5-F.
3.3. Internal forces of RC piers
Figs. 11-14 show bending moments and shear forces of the piers at the first and second peak impact forces. In the legend of these
figures, the 10 t truck, 16 t truck, 30 t truck, and 38 t truck represent the failure cases or the most unfavorable cases of the piers under
these truck impact, respectively. Unlike the internal force responses of piers under static force, both positive and negative bending
moments exist in the piers under truck impact. Moreover, the internal force distributions of the piers vary during the impact process,
and many high-order vibration modes participate in the impact responses. A larger variation in the internal force distributions at the
second peak impact force is due to the differences in the pier damage and truck stiffness.
As shown in Fig. 11, for the cantilevered pier with a diameter of 1.0 m under the impact of these trucks, the corresponding
maximum negative bending moments at the base are almost the same. It indicates that the flexural capacity of the pier can be taken as
1.9 MN⋅m. At the first peak impact force, the maximum positive bending moment appears at the impact point. In addition, the shear
forces of the pier below the impact point are greatly larger than those above the impact point. As a result, the region between the
impact point and the base is prone to shear failure or flexural-shear failure.
Fig. 12 presents the internal force distributions of the fixed–fixed pier with a diameter of 1.0 m. At the peak impact forces, negative
bending moments appear both at the base and top of the pier. In particular, the bending moment at the base is larger than that at the
top in the first impact stage but less than that at the top in the second impact stage. It further explains the phenomenon that the damage
of the fixed–fixed pier near the top is more serious than that of the cantilevered pier, as presented in Fig. 8. The shear force distributions
of the piers with different top boundaries are quite close at the first peak impact force, which indicates that the top boundary has a
slight influence on the shear responses of the piers in the first impact stage. However, the base shear force of the fixed–fixed pier is less
than that of the cantilevered pier in the second impact stage.
12
Fig. 13 shows the internal force distributions of the cantilevered pier with a diameter of 1.5 m. At the first peak impact force, the
bending moment and shear force of the pier under the impact of the 10 t truck and 38 t truck are quite close, which means their engine
impact actions are nearly the same. On the other hand, the positive bending moment and shear force of the pier under the 30 t truck
impact is larger than that under the impact of the other trucks. It is mainly attributed to the fact that the 30 t truck has the largest initial
stiffness which results in a great impulse in the initial stage. Due to the large stiffness and mass of the cargo, the 38 t truck generates a
larger second peak impact force, which results in the internal force distributions at the second impact stage is different from that under
the other truck impact. Moreover, the maximum positive bending moment appears at the impact point, and the negative bending
moments are almost equal at the two ends of the pier.
The internal force distributions of the fixed–fixed pier with a diameter of 1.5 m are shown in Fig. 14. In general, as the mass block
attached to the pier top has a large mass, the top boundary has a marginal effect on the internal force distributions at the peak impact
forces. At the second peak impact force of the 38 t truck, the bending moment at the top is larger than that at the base, and the shear
force above the impact point is also quite large. In this case, failure may occur near the pier top, as shown in some real accidents (see
Fig. 10(d)). Based on the internal forces of the pier, it can be concluded that the pier failure under the 30 t truck impact is mainly caused
by the engine impact, whereas the pier failure under the 38 t truck impact is mainly caused by the cargo impact.
Based on the numerical results of internal force, it can be found that the shear force and bending moment of the piers at the base are
quite larger than that at other positions. This is mainly because the impact elevation of the trucks is generally close to the pier base.
Thus, the responses of the piers near the base need to be carefully examined. The impact conditions of the truck models and the
dynamic responses and failure modes of the piers are summarized in Table 6, where the shear forces and bending moments of the piers
are extracted from the base section. In general, the top boundary has a minor effect on the peak impact force which depends on the
local stiffness of the pier. When the pier suffers minor damage, the base shear force is nearly equal to the peak impact force, which
Table 6
Impact responses of the RC piers under truck impact.
Truck type Impact velocity Pier diameter Top boundary PIF Shear force Bending moment Failure mode
(km/h) (m) (MN) (MN) (MN⋅m)
10 t truck 60 1.0 free 2.30 2.16 1.10 Minor damage

80 1.0 free 3.65 3.00 1.30 Flexural
100 1.0 free 7.66 6.26 1.91 Shear-flexural
60 1.5 free 2.13 2.05 1.35 Minor damage
80 1.0 fixed 4.28 3.07 1.36 Flexural
100 1.0 fixed 7.95 6.21 1.95 Shear-flexural
80 1.5 fixed 3.71 3.34 2.30 Minor damage
16 t truck 60 1.0 free 5.45 4.53 2.37 Flexural
80 1.0 free 6.26 4.86 2.44 Flexural
80 1.5 free 8.12 7.22 4.29 Flexural
60 1.0 fixed 5.53 4.61 2.38 Flexural
80 1.5 fixed 8.40 7.34 3.69 Flexural
30 t truck 40 1.0 free 9.55 6.21 2.25 Shear
60 1.0 free 13.66 5.63 2.14 Shear
80 1.0 free 17.58 5.82 2.05 Shear
100 1.0 free 21.33 5.68 2.06 Shear
80 1.5 free 21.98 14.69 4.63 Shear
100 1.5 free 25.63 14.52 4.19 Shear
40 1.0 fixed 9.88 6.41 1.97 Shear
60 1.0 fixed 14.58 6.58 2.09 Shear
80 1.5 fixed 23.41 14.96 4.01 Shear
100 1.5 fixed 30.30 15.08 3.87 Shear
38 t truck 40 1.0 free 2.23 2.18 1.24 Flexural
100 1.0 free 14.82 4.87 2.03 Shear
100 1.5 free 48.20 12.62 12.49 Shear
40 1.0 fixed 2.39 2.32 1.31 Flexural
13
Fig. 15. Comparison of PIFs from the current study and previous studies.
indicates that the bottom support provides most of the resistance for the pier in this case.
To further evaluate the precited PIFs of the trucks in this study, the predictions are compared to the simulation results in previous
studies [20,58], as shown in Fig. 15. For instance, Agrawal et al. [58] proposed an empirical formula to calculate the PIF (kN):
PIF = 19.4359Mv0.8824 V 1.2412
where Mv is the total mass of the vehicle (ton); V is the impact velocity (m/s). Similarly, based on an intensive parametric study, Do
et al. [20] established an equation for the PIF (kN):
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
PIF = 9.69.3 0.5me V 2 − 7345.9
where me is the mass of the vehicle engine (ton). It can be observed that the predicted PIFs of the 10 t truck are basically consistent with
that calculated by Eq. (4) but less than that calculated by Eq. (3). Since the flexural response of the pier under the 16 t truck under is
much significant, the PIF will be affected by the global stiffness of the pier. Thus, the PIFs of the 16 t truck are less than the calculated
results by Eqs. (3) and (4). For the PIFs of the 30 t truck, because of the difference in structural stiffness of the trucks, the predictions
generally agree with the calculated results by Eq. (3) but larger than that by Eq. (4). Besides, it can be observed that the predicted PIFs
of the 38 t truck are consistent with the calculated results by Eq. (4) except when the cargo hits the pier. Overall, this comparison can
provide us confidence for the rationality of these truck models.
4. Damage mechanisms of RC piers
4.1. Energy absorption characteristics
Fig. 16 shows the internal energy development of the concrete and reinforcements in the fixed–fixed pier with a diameter of 1.0 m,
where all the piers have failed. The impact energy absorbed by the pier under the 10 t truck impact is rather less than that under other
truck impacts. Besides, the internal energy of concrete increases sharply at the first peak impact force as the shear response of the pier is
significant, while the internal energy of reinforcements is quite less. In the second impact stage, the deformation of the pier increases,
14
Fig. 16. Energy absorption of the pier with a diameter of 1.0 m.
and the energy absorbed by the concrete and reinforcements further increases with the input energy. For the pier under the 16 t truck
impact, as the impact force increment is relatively gentle, the flexural response of the pier is obvious, and thus the internal energy of
concrete and reinforcements almost increases at the same time before t = 0.1 s. Then, the internal energy of the reinforcements in
creases more quickly and is finally larger than that of concrete. Since the impact force increment of the 16 t truck is relatively gentle,
the reinforcements have enough time to participate in the flexural response of the pier, while the shear effect on the pier responses is
not that significant.
When the 30 t truck hits the pier, since the impact force reaches its peak value in a short time, the internal energy of concrete
increases more rapidly than that of reinforcements in the first impact stage. After that, the internal energy of reinforcements further
increases with the pier damage. For the pier subjected to the 38 t truck impact, its internal energy development in the first impact stage
is similar to that under the 10 t truck impact. Due to the direct contact between the truck and concrete, the concrete damage develops
quickly, and thus the energy absorption of reinforcements lags behind the concrete. In the second impact stage, the internal energy of
reinforcements increases quickly and even exceeds that of concrete. The results illustrate that, in the early stage, the input energy is
mainly dissipated by the concrete. Namely, the pier concrete resists most of the truck impact force. As the pier deformation increases in
the later stage, the reinforcements start to absorb the input energy.
To investigate the effect of pier diameter on the energy absorption characteristic, Fig. 17 shows the internal energy of concrete and
reinforcements of the 1.5 m diameter pier under the 16 t truck and 30 t truck impact. In the two impact cases, the deformation of the
pier is quite small, and most of the impact energy is dissipated through the truck deformation. As the pier diameter increases, the
energy dissipated by the truck will increase with the contact area between the truck and pier. Comparing with the energy absorption of
the 1.0 m diameter pier (see Fig. 16), the concrete of the 1.5 m diameter pier absorbs most of the input energy under the same impact
conditions. Therefore, it can be found that the energy absorption of the reinforcements is mainly related to the pier lateral deformation.
Moreover, increasing the diameter is an effective way to improve the anti-impact capacity of RC piers.
4.2. Evolution of reinforcement stress
The stress evolution of the reinforcements is discussed herein to explore the damage mechanism of RC piers under truck impact.
Since the impact point of the trucks is quite close to the pier base, the region between the impact point and the base is prone to suffer
15
Fig. 17. Energy absorption of the pier with a diameter of 1.5 m.
Fig. 18. Selected reinforcement elements.
serious damage. Thus, only the reinforcement elements in this region are taken as the research objective, and the selected rein
forcement elements are shown in Fig. 18. R1 and R2 represent the longitudinal reinforcement elements at the base; R3 represents the
longitudinal reinforcement element behind the impact point; R4 represents the stirrup element on the shear diagonal crack, which is
0.4 m above the ground. The stress evolution of these elements in the cantilevered and fixed–fixed piers is selected from the following
failure cases: M10-V100-D1.0, M16-V80-D1.0, M30-V40-D1.0, and M38-V60-D1.0.
Fig. 19. Impact force time histories of the selected failure cases.
16
Fig. 20. Time histories of axial stress of the selected reinforcement elements.
17
Fig. 19 shows the time histories of impact force imposed by these trucks in the selected failure cases. It is quite clear that the truck
type has a significant influence on the impact force. The variation in the impact force characteristics of these trucks may cause different
damage mechanisms of RC piers. For the 10 t truck and 30 t truck, the maximum impact force appears in the first impact stage, and thus
the local response of the pier will be remarkable. However, the shear response induced by the first impact action of the 16 t truck is not
that significant. The impact duration of the 38 t truck is the longest, and the second impact action may greatly affect the global
response of the pier. Besides, it can be found that the top boundary has an insignificant effect on the impact force.
Fig. 20 presents the axial stress time histories of the reinforcement elements in the failure cases. It should be noted that the static
yield strengths of the longitudinal reinforcement and stirrup are 400 MPa and 335 MPa, respectively. Because of the existing axial
force, compressive stresses appear in the elements R1, R2, and R3 before the truck impact. In general, the stress evolution of these
elements varies among these impact scenarios due to the different impact actions of the trucks. However, for the cantilevered and
fixed–fixed piers, the development trends of reinforcement stress show no significant difference.
For the impact cases M10-V100-D1.0-C and M10-V100-D1.0-F, the reinforcement stresses are quite small in the initial impact stage.
When the impact force reaches its maximum value, the stress of the element R4 increases quickly, while the stresses of the elements R1
and R2 start to reduce. It indicates that the shear effect plays a dominant role in the local response of the piers. In the second impact
stage (t > 0.05 s), the tensile stress of the element R1 increases rapidly until yielding, and the large tensile stress appears in the element
R3. In other words, the flexural response of the pier increases. In the post-impact stage, the element R1 gradually bears compressive
stress, and the stress of the element R4 continuously exceeds its yield value. Thus, it indicates that the stirrups make a minor
contribution to resisting the shear damage of RC piers before the peak impact force but has a great influence on the post-impact
behavior of RC piers, which is consistent with the findings in [24]. Finally, the failure process of the pier can be described as:
serious shear damage occurs at the pier base in the first impact stage, and then followed by a remarkable flexural response; finally, the
pier fails in a shear-flexural failure mode.
For the impact cases M16-V80-D1.0-C and M16-V80-D1.0-F, the elements R1 and R2 exist large tensile and compressive stresses (t
less than 0.04 s), respectively. It shows that the flexural response of the piers is significant in the initial impact stage. As the impact
force increases, the elements R1, R3, and R4 reach their yield strength at the peak impact force, and the shear effect on the pier
response is gradually enhanced. On the other hand, the stress of the element R2 transfers from compressive to tensile stress due to the
dowel action of longitudinal reinforcements. As a result, the flexural damage weakens the shear capacity of the piers, and then the pier
suffers flexural-shear failure.
For the impact cases M30-V40-D1.0-C and M30-V40-D1.0-F, since the impact force reaches its maximum value in an extremely
short time, the elements R1 and R2 have no time to respond to the rapid change in loading. In this case, the shear-dominated damage
occurs at the pier base, and thus the element R4 yields after the peak impact force. In this case, the ductile flexural behavior of the pier
is weakened by the existing shear damage. After that, the elements R1 and R3 reach their yield strength in the second impact stage due
to the large lateral deformation of the pier. Finally, the pier collapses under combined actions of tension, shear, and moment.
For the impact cases M38-V60-D1.0-C and M38-V60-D1.0-F, the stresses of the reinforcement elements are quite less than their
yield strength in the initial impact stage. However, the element R4 yields quickly after the peak impact force, which indicates that a
large shear deformation occurs near the pier base. Then, the pier experiences a short period of free vibration, and the tensile stress of
the elements R1and R3 is transformed into compressive stress. In the second impact stage, the elements R1 and R3 start to yield in
tension again, and the tensile stress of the element R2 increases, implying that a large tensive force exists at the pier base. Finally, the
piers fail in a shear-flexural failure mode under the combined actions of tension, moment, and shear.
4.3. Damage mechanism of RC piers
Based on the results discussed above, it can be found that the stiffness characteristics and mass distributions of the trucks have
significant influences on the impact force, which further greatly affects the dynamic responses of RC piers. Although the shear or shear-
flexural failure is the common failure mode of RC piers subjected to truck impact, the underlying damage mechanisms are not identical.
Fig. 21 shows two typical failure processes of the pier subjected to truck impact.
For the impact action with a distinct peak value in the first impact stage, the pier is prone to serious shear damage or even shear
failure, and then its lateral deformation may increase rapidly due to the subsequent input energy. As a result, the pier starts to suffer
serious flexural damage until failure. On the other hand, when the impact force increment is relatively gentle, the flexural response of
the pier is dominant in the initial impact stage. Then, as the flexural damage and shear deformation increases, the pier is likely to fail in
a flexural-shear failure mode. It is worth noting that a main diagonal crack generally appears at the pier base in the post-impact stage,
and the concrete on the crack generally quits working. Finally, the reinforcements resist most of the impact loads.
5. Conclusion
This paper aims to explore the dynamic behavior and damage mechanisms of RC piers impacted by different trucks. FE models of
four typical trucks are utilized to investigate the influence of the truck type on the truck-pier impact simulation. An intensive para
metric study is conducted to examine various performance measures, such as impact force, internal force, energy absorption, and stress
18
Fig. 21. Failure process of RC piers under truck impact.
evolution of reinforcements. The main findings from the simulation results are drawn as follows:
(1) In the impact process, the bumper, engine, and cargo hit the pier successively, and the amplitude and loading position of the
impact force constantly changes. Two dramatic peak values exist in the time history of impact force, and thus the truck-pier
impact process can be divided into the first and second impact stages. The equivalent impact elevations of the 10 t truck,
16 t truck, 30 t truck, and 38 t truck can be taken as 0.7 m, 1.0 m, 0.9 m, and 0.9 m, respectively.
(2) Due to the differences in the structural stiffness and mass distribution of the four typical trucks, their impact forces acting on the
pier are quite different. As a result, the truck type has an obvious effect on the dynamic responses and failure modes of the pier.
The results further confirm that the equivalent static force is not suitable for the anti-impact design of RC piers, and the truck
type should be considered in the calculation of the impact force. Besides, the shear failure or flexural-shear failure is the
common failure mode of RC piers under the heavy truck impact.
(3) The input energy is mainly dissipated by the concrete in the initial impact stage, while the energy absorption characteristics of
the reinforcements depend on the lateral deformation of the pier in the later stage. Therefore, increasing the diameter is an
effective way to improve the anti-impact capacity of RC piers.
(4) The failure process of RC piers subjected to truck impact is related to the interaction between the shear and flexural responses.
For the impact action with a distinct peak value in the first impact stage, the shear response plays a dominant role in the pier
response first, and the existing shear damage weakens the bearing capacity of the piers in the later stage. When the impact force
increment is relatively gentle, the flexural damage of the pier is significant at the beginning, which further greatly affects the
shear capacity in the later stage.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(2020QN67).
19
References
[1] G.C. Lee, S.B. Mohan, H. Chao, B.N. Fard, A Study of US Bridge Failures (1980–2012), Buffalo, NY, 2013.
[2] W. Cook, P.J. Barr, M.W. Halling, Bridge failure rate, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 29 (3) (2015) 04014080.
[3] AASHTO-LRFD, Bridge design specifications, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2012.
[4] D. Zhao, W. Yi, S.K. Kunnath, Shear Mechanisms in Reinforced Concrete Beams under Impact Loading, J. Structural Engineering 143 (9) (2017) 04017089.
[5] S. Saatci, F.J. Vecchio, Effects of shear mechanisms on impact behavior of reinforced concrete beams, ACI Structural J. 106 (1) (2009) 78–86.
[6] W. Zhao, J. Qian, Resistance mechanism and reliability analysis of reinforced concrete columns subjected to lateral impact, International J. Impact Engineering
136 (2020), 103413.
[7] T.V. Do, T.M. Pham, H. Hao, Dynamic responses and failure modes of bridge columns under vehicle collision, Engineering Structures. 156 (2018) 243–259.
[8] S. El-Tawil, E. Severino, P. Fonseca, Vehicle Collision with Bridge Piers, J. Bridge Engineering. 10 (3) (2005) 345–353.
[9] D. Saini, B. Shafei, Performance of Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Bridge Columns Subjected to Vehicle Collision, J. Bridge Engineering. 24 (8) (2019) 04019074.
[10] O.I. Abdelkarim, M.A. ElGawady, Performance of bridge piers under vehicle collision, Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 337–352.
[11] Y. Wan, L. Zhu, H. Fang, W. Liu, Y. Mao, Experimental testing and numerical simulations of ship impact on axially loaded reinforced concrete piers,
International J. Impact Engineering. 125 (2019) 246–262.
[12] W. Wang, G. Morgenthal, Reliability analyses of RC bridge piers subjected to barge impact using efficient models, Engineering Structures. 166 (2018) 485–495.
[13] Y. Sha, H. Hao, Nonlinear finite element analysis of barge collision with a single bridge pier, Engineering Structures. 41 (2012) 63–76.
[14] G. Gholipour, C. Zhang, A.A. Mousavi, Nonlinear numerical analysis and progressive damage assessment of a cable-stayed bridge pier subjected to ship collision,
Marine Structures. 69 (2020), 102662.
[15] G. Gholipour, C. Zhang, A.A. Mousavi, Analysis of girder bridge pier subjected to barge collision considering the superstructure interactions: the case study of a
multiple-pier bridge system, Structure Infrastructure Engineering. 15 (3) (2019) 1–21.
[16] W. Fan, D. Shen, X. Huang, Y. Sun, Reinforced concrete bridge structures under barge impacts: FE modeling, dynamic behaviors, and UHPFRC-based
strengthening, Ocean Engineering. 216 (2020), 108116.
[17] Y. Song, J. Wang, Development of the impact force time-history for determining the responses of bridges subjected to ship collisions, Ocean Engineering. 187
(2019), 106182.
[18] P. Yuan, I.E. Harik, Equivalent Barge and Flotilla Impact Forces on Bridge Piers, J. Bridge Engineering. 15 (5) (2010) 523–532.
[19] C. Zhang, G. Gholipour, A.A. Mousavi, State-of-the-Art Review on Responses of RC Structures Subjected to Lateral Impact Loads, Archives of Computational
Methods in Engineering. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-020-09467-5.
[20] T.V. Do, T.M. Pham, H. Hao, Proposed design procedure for reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to vehicle collisions, Structures. 22 (2019) 213–229.
[21] G. Gholipour, C. Zhang, A.A. Mousavi, Effects of axial load on nonlinear response of RC columns subjected to lateral impact load: Ship-pier collision,
Engineering Failure Analysis. 91 (2018) 397–418.
[22] L. Chen, S. El-Tawil, Y. Xiao, Reduced Models for Simulating Collisions between Trucks and Bridge Piers, J. Bridge Engineering. 21 (2016) 04016020.
[23] R. Cao, S. El-Tawil, A.K. Agrawal, X. Xu, W. Wong, Behavior and Design of Bridge Piers Subjected to Heavy Truck Collision, J. Bridge Engineering.. 24 (2019)
04019057.
[24] T.V. Do, T.M. Pham, H. Hao, Impact force profile and failure classification of reinforced concrete bridge columns against vehicle impact, Engineering Structures.
183 (2019) 443–458.
[25] L. Xu, X. Lu, H. Guan, Y. Zhang, Finite-Element and Simplified Models for Collision Simulation between Overheight Trucks and Bridge Superstructures, J. Bridge
Engineering. 18 (2013) 1140–1151.
[26] L. Chen, H. Wu, T. Liu, Vehicle collision with bridge piers: A state-of-the-art review, Adv. Struct. Eng. 22 (2020), 1369433220953510.
[27] H. Sharma, S. Hurlebaus, P. Gardoni, Performance-based response evaluation of reinforced concrete columns subject to vehicle impact, International Journal of
Impact Engineering. 43 (2012) 52–62.
[28] N.H. Yi, J.H. Choi, S.J. Kim, J.H.J. Kim, Collision Capacity Evaluation of RC Columns by Impact Simulation and Probabilistic Evaluation, J. Advanced Concrete
Technology. 13 (2) (2015) 67–81.
[29] L. Chen, H. Wu, T. Liu, Shear Performance Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Piers Subjected to Vehicle Collision, J. Structural Engineering. 146 (4) (2020)
04020026.
[30] C.E. Buth, W.F. Williams, M.S. Brackin, D. Lord, S.R. Geedipally, A.Y. Abu-Odeh, Analysis of large truck collisions with bridge piers: phase 1. Report of
guidelines for designing bridge piers and abutments for vehicle collisions, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas, 2010.
[31] R. Cao, K. Agrawal Anil, S. El-Tawil, X. Xu, W. Wong, Heavy Truck Collision with Bridge Piers: Computational Simulation Study, J. Bridge Engineering. 24 (6)
(2019) 04019052.
[32] P. Hosseini, S.H. Ghasemi, M. Jalayer, A.S. Nowak, Performance-based reliability analysis of bridge pier subjected to vehicular collision: Extremity and failure,
Engineering Failure Analysis. 106 (2019), 104176.
[33] H.H. Tsang, N.T.K. Lam, Collapse of reinforced concrete column by vehicle impact, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering. 23 (2008) 427–436.
[34] A. Agrawal, C. Chen, Bridge vehicle impact assessment, University Transportation Research Consortium New York State Department of Transportation, 2008.
[35] M. Wu, L. Jin, X. Du, Dynamic responses and reliability analysis of bridge double-column under vehicle collision, Engineering Structures. 221 (2020), 111035.
[36] European Committee for Standardization, EN 1317-1 to 1317-5 Road restraint system, 1998.
[37] A.O. Atahan, G. Bonin, M. Karacasu, Development of a 30,000 kg heavy goods vehicle for LS-DYNA applications, Int. J. Heavy Veh. Syst. 14 (1) (2007) 1–19.
[38] W. Zhao, J. Qian, J. Wang, Performance of bridge structures under heavy goods vehicle impact, Computers and Concrete. 22 (6) (2018) 515–525.
[39] Y. Sha, H. Hao, Laboratory tests and numerical simulations of barge impact on circular reinforced concrete piers, Engineering Structures. 46 (2013) 593–605.
[40] X.C. Xu, R. Cao, S. El-Tawil, A.K. Agrawal, W. Wong, Loading Definition and Design of Bridge Piers Impacted by Medium-Weight Trucks, J. Bridge Engineering.
24 (6) (2019) 04019042.
[41] X. Zhang, H. Hao, C. Li, Experimental investigation of the response of precast segmental columns subjected to impact loading, International J. Impact
Engineering. 95 (2016) 105–124.
[42] W. Wang, G. Morgenthal, Development and assessment of efficient models for barge impact processes based on nonlinear dynamic finite element analyses,
Engineering Structures. 175 (2018) 617–627.
[43] J. Halquist, LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual version 971, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA, 2007.
[44] W. Fan, X. Xu, Z. Zhang, X. Shao, Performance and sensitivity analysis of UHPFRC-strengthened bridge columns subjected to vehicle collisions, Engineering
Structures. 173 (2018) 251–268.
[45] S. Auyeung, A. Alipour, D. Saini, Performance-based design of bridge piers under vehicle collision, Engineering Structures. 191 (2019) 752–765.
[46] R. Xie, W. Fan, B. Liu, D. Shen, Dynamic behavior and vulnerability analysis of bridge columns with different cross-sectional shapes under rockfall impacts,
Structures. 26 (2020) 471–486.
[47] B. Liu, W. Fan, W. Guo, B. Chen, R. Liu, Experimental investigation and improved FE modeling of axially-loaded circular RC columns under lateral impact
loading, Engineering Structures. 152 (2017) 619–642.
[48] CEB, Concrete structures under impact and impulsive loading, CEB-Bulletin D’Information, Comité Euro-International du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1988.
[49] L.J. Malvar, C.A. Ross, Review of strain rate effects for concrete in tension, ACI Materials J. 95 (6) (1998) 735–739.
[50] G.R. Cowper, P.S. Symonds, Strain-hardening and strain-rate effects in the impact loading of cantilever beams, Brown University, 1957.
[51] Y.C. Shi, H. Hao, Z.X. Li, Numerical derivation of pressure-impulse diagrams for prediction of RC column damage to blast loads, International Journal of Impact
Engineering. 35 (2008) 1213–1227.
[52] N. Kishi, T. Ohno, H. Konno, A. Bhatti, Dynamic response analysis for a large-scale RC girder under a falling-weight impact loading, International conference on
Advances in Engineering Structures, Springer, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Mechanics & Construction, 2006, pp. 99–109.
20
[53] N. Kishi, A.Q. Bhatti, An equivalent fracture energy concept for nonlinear dynamic response analysis of prototype RC girders subjected to falling-weight impact
loading, International J. Impact Engineering. 37 (1) (2010) 103–113.
[54] JTG, D60-2015, General Specifications for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts, Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, 2015.
[55] X.H. Zhang, H. Hao, C. Li, T.V. Do, Experimental study on the behavior of precast segmental column with domed shear key and unbonded Post-Tensioning
tendon under impact loading, Engineering Structures. 173 (2018) 589–605.
[56] N.L. Gomez, Performance of Circular Reinforced Concrete Bridge Piers Subjected to Vehicular Collisions, University of Massachusetts (2014).
[57] G. Liu, Behavior of bridge piers during vehicular impacts, The City College of New York, 2012.
[58] A.K. Agrawal, G.Y. Liu, S. Alampalli, Effects of truck impacts on bridge piers, Advanced Materials Research 639 (2013) 13–25.
21

Articulo 1 - 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Articulo 1 - 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Failure Analysis 121 (2021) 105158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

Dynamic behavior and damage mechanisms of reinforced concrete

TB11 Car 0.9 100

2. Numerical modeling of truck impact

2.1. Truck and pier models

10 t rigid truck 10 0.64 4.88 40–100

16 t rigid truck 16 1.27 8.53

30 t rigid truck 30 1.09 21.95

38 t tractor-trailer 38 1.27 24.60

C1 1.0 6.0 20C24 C16@200

Concrete *MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE Mass density 2350.0 kg/m3

ftd /fts = ( )1/3

2.2. Model validation

B1 10 0.85 D29 D13@250 31.2 401 390

Fig. 3. Comparisons of simulation and experimental results of the beams.

3. Impact behavior of RC piers

3.1. Truck impact force

Fig. 4. FE model validation for an RC bridge subjected to truck impact.

Fig. 5. Impact force characteristics of these trucks.

Fig. 6. Contours of impact force distribution along the pier height.

3.2. Failure modes of RC piers

Fig. 7. Damage patterns of RC piers under the 10 t truck impact.

Fig. 8. Damage patterns of RC piers under the 16 t truck impact.

Fig. 9. Damage patterns of RC piers under the 30 t truck impact.

Fig. 10. Damage patterns of RC piers under the 38 t truck impact.

3.3. Internal forces of RC piers

10 t truck 60 1.0 free 2.30 2.16 1.10 Minor damage

PIF = 19.4359Mv0.8824 V 1.2412

4. Damage mechanisms of RC piers

4.1. Energy absorption characteristics

Fig. 16. Energy absorption of the pier with a diameter of 1.0 m.

4.2. Evolution of reinforcement stress

Fig. 17. Energy absorption of the pier with a diameter of 1.5 m.

Fig. 18. Selected reinforcement elements.

4.3. Damage mechanism of RC piers

Fig. 21. Failure process of RC piers under truck impact.

Declaration of Competing Interest

You might also like