State-of-the-Art Review

State-of-the-Art of Posttensioned Rocking Bridge

Substructure Systems
Sabina Piras, P.E., CPEng1; Alessandro Palermo, Ph.D., M.ASCE2; and M. Saiid Saiidi, Ph.D., F.ASCE3

Abstract: Posttensioned bridge rocking systems have emerged as an alternative to traditional ductility design where substructure elements,
such as columns and piles, are designed to dissipate energy through the formation of localized plastic hinges. Posttensioned rocking bridge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

systems have evolved from pure rocking structures to hybrid solutions that combine self-centering and dissipating capabilities, often in the
form of central posttensioning and dissipation devices, respectively. Posttensioned rocking bridges provided a resilient solution with little to
no damage or disruptions after a seismic event. For this reason, there has been increased interest amongst bridge asset managers and research-
ers in the development and application of these “low-damage” systems. This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of the evolution of post-
tensioned rocking bridge substructure systems, with an emphasis on column and joint details to reduce or eliminate local damage in bridge
piers. This review also includes energy dissipation solutions and examples of operational bridges that have adopted posttensioned rocking
column systems. This paper concludes with a comprehensive discussion that covers knowledge gaps and suggestions for future research.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001833. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Capacity design in the current bridge seismic design philosophy en-
sures that the most desirable energy dissipating mechanism forms
in the substructure as a result of a major earthquake (NZ Transport
Agency 2018; Caltrans 2019; Eurocode 8 2004). Substructure ele-
ments, such as piles and columns, are detailed to have a large duc-
tility to protect the structure from collapse and dissipate energy
through localized plastic deformations in the plastic hinges. How-
ever, this design approach can result in damage to critical structural
members and produce large residual lateral displacements that can-
not be recoverable after severe earthquakes (Alam et al. 2016).
For example, as a result of the 1995 Kobe earthquake, 100 rein-
forced concrete columns with residual inclinations greater than one
degree had to be demolished due to difficulty in repairing the dam-
aged column reinforcing bars, despite some demonstrating no sig-
nificant or apparent damage (Kawashima et al. 1998). The Kobe
earthquake demonstrated that minimizing residual drift is an impor-
tant design consideration to preserve the structural integrity of a
bridge following an earthquake, and as a consequence, the Japanese
seismic codes introduced an additional design check on the residual
drift of the bridge piers (Kawashima 1997).
Structural damage in bridges can lead to significant loss related
to both the repair process and prolonged traffic disruption (Kilanitis
and Sextos 2019). Strong earthquake events, including the 1999
Chi-Chi earthquake (Hsu and Fu 2003) and more recent Sichuan
earthquake in 2008, Chile earthquake in 2010, and Tohoku
1 Two main design philosophies that exist in earthquake engineering
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering,
Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand (corresponding
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5624-300X. Email: sabina
.piras@pg.canterbury.ac.nz; sabpiras@gmail.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering, Univ. of
Canterbury, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand.
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Nevada, Reno, NV 89557.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 29, 2020; approved on
November 18, 2021; published online on January 11, 2022. Discussion pe-
riod open until June 11, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
earthquake in 2011 (Kilanitis and Sextos 2019), have shown that
damage to bridge infrastructure can significantly impair emergency
response, create traffic disruption, and influence the functionality of
an entire road network. An engineering approach that focuses
solely on the concept of life-safety will not ensure community re-
siliency. To achieve truly resilient structures, bridge earthquake en-
gineering needs to embrace a modern definition of seismic risk that
considers several important factors such as financial losses associ-
ated with the repair, disruption to businesses, and the time to rein-
state services and activities (Sakai and Mahin 2004; Bruneau et al.
2003).
Low-damage seismic systems have emerged to address these is-
sues and limit the damage in bridge piers through innovative detail-
ing and technology, and by allocating seismic demands to
replaceable or sacrificial “dissipative fuses” in member connec-
tions. Successful implementation of these structural fuses can result
in a bridge with continued functionality following an earthquake
(Bruneau et al. 2003). Low-damage solutions are also not a new
concept and have been adopted for buildings for over 30 years
(Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission 2012); however, its
application in bridges is limited. This paper presents the evolution
of posttensioned rocking solutions for bridge substructures and its
application in operational bridges.
Design Philosophy: Plastic Hinge Design versus
Low-Damage Design
are conventional capacity design [Fig. 1(a)] and low-damage de-
sign [Fig. 1(d)]. Unlike capacity design, which is based on the con-
cept of intentionally designing weak links through the formation of
plastic hinges, low-damage design involves replacing plastic
hinges with a connection that can undergo similar or larger inelastic
deformations as a monolithic joint without causing physical dam-
age to the structure. Low-damage systems are designed to behave
elastically and return to its original position after an earthquake
by avoiding plastic hinging. As a result, it has a delayed onset of
yielding and increased displacement capacity compared with ca-
pacity designed systems, as demonstrated in Fig. 2.

© ASCE 03122001-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Expected seismic response of different design systems: (a) conventional capacity design; (b) pure rocking structure; (c) controlled damage
design; and (d) low-damage DCR with external dissipative devices.
Fig. 2. Comparison of the general force–displacement response of con-
ventional capacity design with low-damage design.
Rocking systems have evolved from pure rocking columns
[Fig. 1(b)], which rely only on its self-weight to achieve self-
centering or seismic isolation, to dissipative controlled rocking
(DCR) systems 1(d), which rely on the combination of unbonded
posttensioning for recentering capabilities and dissipation devices.
The same objectives of accommodating seismic demands are
achieved with both a pure rocking column and DCR column; how-
ever, a DCR column provides a managed rocking solution with the
inclusion of supplemental energy dissipation.
Evolution of Low-Damage Bridge Rocking Systems
Three primary “low-damage” bridge rocking systems have
evolved, which include pure rocking structures, controlled rocking
structures, and DCR structures. These three systems accommodate
seismic demands through rocking, or isolation, between its
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001
(c) (d)
structural elements. Localized plastic hinges are avoided by allow-
ing a rocking mechanism to form, thus resulting in a structure with
significantly less damage from earthquakes.
Pure Rocking
The earliest work on rocking focused on pure rocking structures in
which structures can uplift and their ability to self-center is purely
provided by self-weight. Pure rocking motion acts as a form of seis-
mic isolation, which allows the structure to deflect, rather than re-
strain the displacement and rotation at the critical joint, and results
in a larger structural period. The restoring force of a pure rocking
column is provided by gravity and has a negative stiffness when
rocking is excessive.
The concept of pure rocking [Fig. 3(a)] was initially introduced
by Housner (1963) who investigated the free rocking motion of
rigid bodies under free vibration and various types of motion.
Two main streams of design strategies for bridges based on pure
rocking are uplifting and stepping structural systems, and are the
closest to classical free rocking structures due to their reliance on
self-weight for self-centering. Both systems have no tension attach-
ment to the ground, but do have more than two support points. Typ-
ically, more than one support point is active at any point in the
rocking cycle (Kelly 2009).
Uplifting Systems
Uplifting systems, under seismic excitation, are enabled through the
separation of a part of the foundation from the supporting soil.
Bridge columns supported on foundations that are allowed to uplift
can undergo large deformations without suffering from significant
damage following a large earthquake. In bridges, uplifting can
occur in one of two ways: through the uplift of a shallow foundation
off the supporting soil [Fig. 3(b)], or through a pile cap free to rock
on its supporting piles [Fig. 3(c)]. Initial investigation into the appli-
cation of uplifting or rocking foundations for bridges is attributed to
McManus (1980). The dynamic response of rocking shallow foun-
dations has been further investigated by several researchers
03122001-2 J. Bridge Eng.
 (a) (b) (c)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(d)

Fig. 3. Examples of pure rocking systems: (a) pure rocking structure; (b) structure uplifting on a shallow foundation; (c) structure rocking on piles;
and (d) stepping structure. Left, displaced structure showing mode of movement. Right, South Rangitikei Viaduct in New Zealand using stepping
piers (image courtesy of Alan O’Brien).

(Sakellaraki and Kawashima 2006; Apostolou et al. 2007;
Deng et al. 2012b; Gelagoti et al. 2012; Antonellis and Panagiotou
2014) which includes large-scale pseudo-static cyclic tests (Negro
et al. 2000; Hung et al. 2011; Saad et al. 2012), shake table tests
with (Paolucci et al. 2008; Shirato et al. 2008; Antonellis et al.
2015) and without (Saiidi et al. 2002; Espinoza and Mahin 2008)
physical modelling of the soil, and small-scale shake table tests
that include physical modelling of the soil (Anastasopoulos et al.
2013) and centrifuge tests (Rosebrook 2001; Ugalde et al. 2007;
Gajan and Kutter 2008; Deng et al. 2012a; Hakhamaneshi et al.
2012; Liu et al. 2013; Allmond and Kutter 2014; Loli et al. 2014).
These studies have produced evidence that bridge structures
with uplifting foundations can provide recentering capabilities
and energy dissipation with small permanent deformations. Rock-
ing foundations have been utilized in the design of major bridges
such as the Rion Antirion Bridge in Greece (Pecker 2006), and
the retrofit of bridges, such as the Golden Gate Bridge in
San Francisco, California (Ingham 1995), the Carquinez Bridge
in Vallejo, California (Jones et al. 1997), and the Lions Gate Bridge
in Vancouver, British Columbia (Dowdell and Hamersley 2000).
Rocking foundations have also been proposed as a retrofit scheme
(Astaneh-Asl and Shen 1993).
Stepping System
Unlike uplift systems in which the pier and foundation assembly
rock together on the soil, stepping systems involve rocking of the
pier on the foundation. In a stepping system, the bridge pier is
free to rock from side to side with vertical separation of part of
the pier from the supporting foundation. Stepping systems were
first investigated by researchers such as Muto et al. (1960) and
Beck and Skinner (1973), and later by Chen et al. (2006), and
was adopted for the design of the South Rangitikei Viaduct in
New Zealand which opened in 1981. The Rangitikei Viaduct
spans over the Rangitikei River and is the fourth highest railway vi-
aduct and second longest viaduct in New Zealand, measuring 78 m
high and 315 m long. It is an all-concrete structure with twin-shafted
vertical piers carrying a continuous prestressed hollow box super-
structure of six spans. When an earthquake occurs, the bridge’s
tall concrete piers are free to rock from side to side with vertical sep-
aration, or “stepping,” between the column segments and the sup-
porting foundations. The pier bases can lift up to 130 mm to allow
energy and pressure to shift from one pier leg to the other, as
shown in Fig. 3(d). This stepping action limits the stresses in the re-
inforced concrete piers to values below yield levels. The rocking ac-
tion is controlled by torsional dampers installed in the pier bases.
Controlled Rocking
Free rocking has evolved into a multitude of new design strategies
such as “controlled rocking” with the addition of posttensioning as
a means of improving the resistance a free rocking structure would
have to collapse. Instead of wholly relying on self-weight to pro-
vide self-centering, where the tendency to self-center reduces dis-
placement, controlled rocking relies on both the initial
posttensioning force and elongation of the tendons to provide self-
centering. The first applications and extensions of controlled rock-
ing by posttensioning to bridge piers was proposed by Mander and
Cheng (1997) at the University of Buffalo, in which a precast
posttensioned concrete column with a rocking base-foundation
connection was validated experimentally and numerically. Postten-
sioned tendons connected the column to the footing and the longi-
tudinal column reinforcement was terminated at the beam–column

© ASCE 03122001-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001

 interface to enable column rocking. In addition, the authors used
steel plates at the rocking interface to prevent impact damage.
The columns were tested for cyclic drifts up to 5%, sustained
only minor cracking in the column and resulted in no residual dis-
placements due to the recentering mechanism. The authors sug-
gested limiting the axial load ratio to 10% (including gravity and
prestressing effects) to delay compression damage.
Hewes (2002) investigated the seismic design of precast seg-
mental bridge columns with unbonded posttensioned tendons but
with no additional energy dissipation devices. Circular columns
with varying aspect ratios and steel jackets of varying thickness
were subjected to a quasi-static push–pull analysis. The columns
were able to accommodate large nonlinear drifts up to 4% without
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
considerable strength degradation. Under large posttensioning
force, specimens with thicker steel jackets performed better by
achieving drifts up to 6% with only minimal capacity degradation.
For all tests, damage in the columns was minimal and was limited
to minor concrete crushing at the base of the pier. Cheng (2008)
also validated a simple rocking bridge frame with two columns
through shake table tests. This work was expanded by Zhou
et al. (2019) who conducted an experimental study on the seismic
response of a double-column rocking bridge with central unbonded
tendons that exhibited negative rocking stiffness. Additional stud-
ies have been carried out by Wang et al. (2018), Roh and Reinhorn
(2010), and Lee and Billington (2010).
Dissipative Controlled Rocking
The concept of a DCR connection, also called the hybrid connec-
tion (Stone et al. 1995) or hybrid PRESSS system (Priestley
1996), was initially developed at the University of Washington in
the early 1990s as a low-damage, ductile connection for precast
concrete buildings. Further development of this connection oc-
curred within a joint United States–Japan research program called
“PREcast Seismic Structural Systems” (PRESSS), coordinated by
the University of California, San Diego (Priestley 1991, 1996;
Priestley et al. 1999; Stanton et al. 1991, 1997; Stone et al.
1995). Guidelines for the design of PRESSS buildings are given
in the PRESSS Design Handbook (Pampanin et al. 2010).
The term “hybrid” alludes to the use of two materials: typically,
self-centering posttensioned bars or strands, and steel dissipative
devices. Hybrid connections aim to replace plastic hinges in a struc-
ture, in which self-centering and energy-dissipating properties are
adequately combined to achieve a target maximum displacement
with negligible residual deformations. Many of the connections
tested in the PRESSS program were for building structure applica-
tion. Research has since been extended for application to bridges
(Palermo et al. 2004; Wacker et al. 2005; Palermo et al. 2005,
2007; Palermo and Pampanin 2008; Marriott 2009; Guerrini
et al. 2015; White and Palermo 2016; Mashal and Palermo 2019;
Alam et al. 2020) as an efficient and promising alternative solution
to traditional monolithic systems. DCR systems, when applied to
column joints, combine self-centering unbonded posttensioned ten-
dons with energy-absorbing dissipaters to reduce structure damage
at the plastic hinge zone and residual displacements in the columns.
Various dissipation solutions have been developed for bridge col-
umns and are presented later in this paper.
The total moment capacity (MTOT) of the DCR joint is the sum
of the moment contributions from the unbonded posttensioning
(MPT), axial load (MN), and the energy dissipaters (MS). Section
moment capacities are evaluated around the centroid of the total
compressive force:
MTOT = MPT + MN + MS (1)
© ASCE 03122001-4
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001
A λ parameter is used to represent the ratio of self-centering and
energy-dissipation moment contributions and dictates the overall
energy-dissipation and self-centering behavior of the system:
MPT + MN
λ= (2)
MS
It is suggested that a value of 1.15 to 1.5 is adopted for λ in design
(Standards New Zealand 2006; Pampanin et al. 2010). This range
allows for sufficient self-centering and energy-dissipation abilities,
which results in small residual drifts and acceptable peak drifts
when compared with a monolithic system. An adequate ratio of self-
centering and energy-dissipation contributions results in a “flag-
shaped” hysteresis loop that passes through the origin, which is
an indicator of zero residual deformation after each cycle of loading,
as shown in Fig. 1(d). When subjected to design-level earthquake
loads, the bridge will recenter, allowing it to remain fully functional
while just suffering from minor cosmetic damage.
Various solutions have been proposed to protect the rocking in-
terface against spalling damage of the concrete under compressive
stresses when the column starts rocking. Columns tested by Mander
and Cheng (1997), Marriott et al. (2009), and Solberg et al. (2009) 受压区
had steel plates at the rocking plane (welded to the longitudinal re- 保护措施
bars) with matching plates in the top of the foundation. Palermo
et al. (2007) used steel angles around the column base, and White
and Palermo (2016) and Mashal and Palermo (2019) used steel jack-
ets which also provided confinement to the column after the DCR
joint was repaired.
Mashal (2015) utilized a hemispherical internal shear key to
provide more self-centering of the pier and to prevent sliding. In ad-
dition, Mashal (2015) used external shear keys to restrain both 界面防滑
twisting and sliding of the columns. Alternatively, Rahman and Re- 措施
strepo (2000) utilized short steel dowels that crossed the rocking in-
terface to provide shear restraint.
Damping Solutions for Bridges and DCR Connections
The main development from pure rocking systems to DCR systems
is the addition of energy dissipation. Various damping solutions
from energy dissipating bars to advance materials and technologies
have been developed and adopted to provide supplemental damp-
ing to dissipative controlled structures. Here, an overview of the
current damping solutions for bridge DCR connections is provided.
Internal Energy-Dissipating Bar Solutions
Yielding of steel reinforcing bars is a typical mechanism for energy
dissipation in reinforced concrete systems. Thus, solutions that rely
on the use of partially prestressed concrete have been proposed
which combine ungrouted, or unbonded, posttensioning and mild
steel reinforcement to limit the residual displacement of bridge
piers. The column longitudinal reinforcement that crosses the rock-
ing crack plane has been utilized as an effective means of energy
dissipation (Zatar and Mutsuyoshi 2000; Kawashima 2002; Ikeda
et al. 2002; Yoon 2002; Kwan and Billington 2003; Rouse and Bill-
ington 2003; Billington and Yoon 2004; Sakai and Mahin 2004;
Davis et al. 2017). Although this results in a self-centering mecha-
nism with an increase in displacement capacity, replacing the
yielded bars can be difficult and costly. As the residual strain capac-
ity of the longitudinal reinforcement reduces with each loading
cycle, a column’s residual capacity and ductility cannot be recov-
ered sufficiently (White 2014).
The use of couplers to connect replaceable dissipating bars to
the permanent reinforcement is an alternative solution to allow
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. (a) Internal dissipaters with couplers; and (b) externally mounted dissipaters. (Reprinted with permission from White 2014.)

for easier inspection and replacement of the bars following an
earthquake. This approach, illustrated in Fig. 4(a), was adopted
by Marriott (2009) and White (2014). It should be noted, however,
that the use of couplers in the plastic hinge region of a structure is
generally not permitted by design codes (NZ Transport Agency
2018) and couplers should be designed to exceed the characteristic
strength of the attaching bars. The replaceable bar segments are de-
bonded from the concrete to reduce strain concentrations and pre-
vent premature yielding of the bars under seismic loading. Various
debonding solutions include wrapping the bar segment with Grease
tape (White 2014) or rubber mastic tape overlaid with duct tape
(Nguyen et al. 2017), or by placing the bar into a plastic tube
and closing the tube ends by adhesive tape (Elsayed et al. 2015).
The result is a smooth profile to prevent interlock between defor-
mations with the surrounding concrete and to prevent friction or
chemical adhesion of concrete to the bars.
In addition, White (2014) necked the bars (reduced the diame-
ter) over a certain length to concentrate inelastic deformation to
an intended region of the bar. Specimens with a necked region in
the mild steel dissipating bars resulted in less cyclic stiffness deg-
radation due to less strain penetration and bond deterioration.
In general, a DCR connection with an internal source of energy
dissipation is fast to construct and cost-effective. However, follow-
ing an earthquake, it is difficult to inspect and repair the rebar.
External Energy-Dissipating Solutions
An alternative to internal steel dissipaters in a DCR connection is to
use external dissipaters. Replaceable external dissipative devices,
also known as plug-and-play dampers, are simple tension-
compression yielding axial members fabricated from mild steel
as shown in Fig. 4(b). These dissipative devices, also referred to

© ASCE 03122001-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001

 as either “wet” or “dry” buckling restrained fuse (BRF) dissipaters,
have been developed to perform similar to a buckling restrained
brace (BRB). In a “wet” dissipater, a turned-down circular steel
fuse (rod) is encased in a hollow section filled with epoxy or
grout. “Dry” BRF dissipaters, on the other hand, do not require a
solidifying filler to operate. Rather grooves are milled into the
rod to reduce the net cross-sectional area while preserving the orig-
inal diameter of the section. The outside diameter of the fuse re-
mains in direct contact with the hollow casing which provides
antibucking restraint (Marriott 2009; White 2014; Sarti et al.
2016; Liu 2018; Alam et al. 2020). 不同耗能装置
In addition to axial dissipative devices, there is a wide range of
alternative elastoplastic dampers that can be utilized such as high
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

force-to-volume dampers (Rodgers 2009), viscous dampers

(Marriott et al. 2009), friction dampers (Clifton 2005; Kurama
2004; Morgen and Kurama 2004), and U-shaped flexural plates
(Kelly et al. 1972). In general, these external devices can be attached
to the outside of the column and fixed to the foundation or pier cap-
ping beam. Because of this, external dissipative devices have the ad- (a)
vantage over internal dissipaters in that they make for simple, fast,
and cost-effective postearthquake replacement and inspection.

Rotational Elastomeric Bearings

An elastomeric bearing can be incorporated into the plastic hinge
region of a bridge column to provide a region of concentrated de-
formability at the joint. This application of elastomeric pads was
first explored in 2002 by Kawashima and Nagai (2002). The
concrete in the plastic hinge was replaced by high damping rubber
to increase deformation capacity and energy dissipation while
reducing concrete damage under extreme earthquake excitation
(Kawashima and Watanabe 2006).
(b)
Alternative solutions for incorporating elastomeric pads in post-
tensioned bridge piers has been proposed by Motaref et al. (2010),
ElGawady and Sha’lan (2011), Cruz Noguez and Saiidi (2012),
Motaref et al. (2014), Nikoukalam and Sideris (2017), and Jia et al.
(2020) in which a steel-reinforced elastomeric bearing assembly is
cast in a column just above the footing and below the pier capping
beam, as shown in Fig. 5(a). Compared with conventional reinforced
concrete columns, the elastomeric elements dissipated more energy,
resulted in a larger lateral load and drift capacity, and were free
from damage in the plastic hinge region when subjected to lateral seis-
mic loading. The dominating failure mode in the specimens was con-
crete crushing at the concrete–bearing interface due to large rotations (c)
causing a gap between the concrete and bearing. However, no damage
was observed in the bearings themselves and the assembly’s self- Fig. 5. Column dissipation solutions: (a) elastomeric bearing assembly
centering posttensioned bar remained under the yield force. (adapted from Motaref et al. 2010); (b) response of HSR column sub-
jected to lateral load (adapted from Sideris et al. 2014); and (c) resilient
column hinge (adapted from Mitoulis and Rodriguez 2017).
Other Dissipation Solutions
Sideris et al. (2014) experimentally investigated the seismic perfor-
replaceable steel reinforcement was provided around the rotational
mance of precast concrete segmental columns that incorporated hybrid
joint for flexural capacity. A series of numerical models were de-
sliding–rocking (HSR) joints and internal unbonded posttensioning
[Fig. 5(b)]. The HSR joints are designed to offer energy dissipation veloped to validate the system’s seismic performance. The numer-
through joint sliding while self-centering is provided from rocking at ical analysis indicated that while the total energy dissipation of the
the bottom of the column joint. When subjected to seismic ground mo- hinge was less than that of a conventional reinforced concrete col-
tion on a shake table, the sliding joints did not cause significant damage umn, the joint had recentering capabilities and resulted in reduced
to the system other than minor concrete spalling at the joint edges. residual displacement.
However, the system resulted in residual sliding which was able to
be restored through mechanical means.
Novel Materials
Another dissipation solution was developed by Mitoulis and
Rodriguez (2017) in which the hinge of a single-column pier uti- Shape Memory Alloys
lized curved bearing plates at the column joint rather than postten- Nickel–titanium (NiTi) alloy bars and other shape memory alloys
sioning as the self-centering mechanism [Fig. 5(c)]. In addition, (SMAs) are known for their super-elasticity (self-centering feature)

© ASCE 03122001-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001

 and temperature-related properties. SMA is a class of metal mate-
rials with large strain recovery capacity, which allows for large de-
formations and recovery to its original shape after unloading
(Tazarv and Saiid Saiidi 2016). SMA bars have a slightly lower
yield strength but higher ultimate strength compared with ASTM
A615 and ASTM A706 mild reinforcing steel. In addition, SMA
bars have a negligible residual strain; whereas steel bars exhibit
large permanent strains after yielding (Tazarv 2014). Analytical
and experimental testing of SMA bars and their applications at
the plastic hinging zones in a structure are discussed in DesRoches
et al. (2004), Youssef et al. (2008), Saiidi and Wang (2006), Saiidi
et al. (2009), Roh and Reinhorn (2010), and Varela and Saiidi
(2014) and suggest that the inclusion of SMA bars improves the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
seismic performance of bridge columns by reducing residual dis-
placements and damage when compared with a conventional
monolithic bridge column detail.
SMA reinforcement can be adopted as an internal bar dissipa-
tion solution by splicing the SMA bars to the main mild steel lon-
gitudinal reinforcement. SMA is up to 90% more expensive than
traditional steel reinforcement; however, implementation of SMA
is expected to add only 5% to the total material costs on a typical
bridge project if they are limited to the plastic hinge regions, as
done on the SR99 Alaskan Way off-ramp (Saiidi et al. 2017). Re-
search on an alternative substantially less expensive SMA alloys
made with copper as the main component has shown promising re-
sults (Varela and Saiidi 2014).
Liu et al. (2018) utilized NiTi SMA strands in series with un-
bonded steel strands by splicing the SMA and unbonded steel
strands with an upset headed coupler. The NiTi SMA strands func-
tion to limit the adverse effects caused by large axial loads on post-
tensioned self-centering columns. As the lateral displacement
increases, the axial load ratio of the column increases until the
NiTi SMA strands reach a loading plateau, resulting in a larger
(up to 21%) ultimate displacement capacity and smaller residual
displacement as compared with unbonded posttensioned columns
without the SMA strands.
Advanced Concrete Materials
The use of advanced concrete materials, such as engineered cemen-
titious composite (ECC), ductile fiber-reinforced cement composite
(DFRCC), and hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete (HyFRC), have
been investigated as a solution to provide energy dissipation and
improve the seismic performance of posttensioned rocking bridge
columns. In addition to reducing the postearthquake damage of
conventional reinforced concrete columns, these materials are ef-
fective in mitigating rebar corrosion and alkali–silica reaction.
ECC is a class of high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete
with a significant tensile ductility (4% strain). The seismic perfor-
mance of bridge columns built with ECC plastic hinges has been
investigated by Saiidi and Wang (2006), Saiidi et al. (2009),
Motaref (2011), Cruz Noguez and Saiidi (2012), Nakashoji and
Saiidi (2014), Mehrsoroush and Saiidi (2016), and Nazari et al.
(2017). This research showed that by using ECC in the vicinity
of the plastic hinge joints, cover concrete damage can be prevented
or reduced significantly.
DFRCC is a class of high-performance fiber-reinforced cemen-
titious composite that exhibits strain hardening behavior in uniaxial
tension and includes a low percentage by volume (roughly 2%) of
polymeric fibers (no steel). DFRCC was used for energy dissipation
in the plastic hinge zones of an unbonded posttensioned segmental
precast pier by Billington and Yoon (2004). Due to DRFCC’s
higher tensile ductility capacity, the plastic hinges constructed
with DRFCC can maintain its integrity under high cyclic tensile–
compressive loads through initiating and propagating cracks up
© ASCE 03122001-7
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001
to drift levels of 3%–6%, rather than immediate spalling like plastic
hinges constructed with conventional concrete.
HyFRC enhances the properties of concrete by using two or
more types of fibers. The positive interaction between the fibers re-
sults in a hybrid performance that exceeds the sum of the individual
fiber performances. HyFRC has been investigated specifically for
bridge column use by Haraldsson et al. (2013), Panagiotou et al.
(2015), and Trono et al. (2015). Eberhard et al. (2014) used
HyFRC shells at the column rocking interfaces to provide concrete
confinement, delay bar bucking and enhance column ductility. Re-
sults from quasi-static cyclic loading demonstrated that the HyFRC
shell was effective in limiting concrete spalling; however, it did not
significantly delay bar buckling and bar fracture.
Applications of DCR Systems for Bridges
Numerical and experimental research has validated the use of DCR
systems for bridge infrastructure. While not common, there have
been some successful applications of low-damage DCR systems
in operational bridges. Design standards and guidelines have
been published in both New Zealand and the United States that
relate to the seismic design of self-centering concrete systems
(Standards New Zealand 2006; ACI Innovation Task Group 5
2007, 2009; Pampanin et al. 2010); however, these documents pri-
marily focus on the behavior of wall systems.
Wigram–Magdala Link Bridge, Christchurch,
New Zealand
The Wigram–Magdala Link Bridge (Fig. 6) in Christchurch,
New Zealand is the first bridge in the world to implement a low-
damage DCR system (Routledge et al. 2019). The details adopted
for the Wigram–Magdala Link Bridge allow the structure to
undergo large deformations from a seismic event with minimal,
if not no, damage or residual displacement. The columns are
made of steel shells filled with concrete and incorporate vertical un-
bonded posttensioning and grooved dissipaters in the DCR connec-
tions. For better durability and aesthetic purposes, the dissipaters
are mounted inside the footings and pier capping beam but are
still accessible for inspection and replacement.
The total cost of the project was approximately US$5.6 million;
however, a cost analysis showed that incorporating the low-damage
details was approximately US$140,000 more expensive than a
cast-in-situ alternative (Mashal and Palermo 2019).
On November 14, 2016, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck the
Kaikoura region in New Zealand, resulting in complex rupturing of
many faults and severe damage to the ground near the epicenter.
The epicenter of the Kaikoura earthquake was located less than
100 km north of the Wigram–Magdala Link Bridge in Christ-
church. The earthquake was felt in Christchurch; however, a post-
earthquake inspection of the bridge showed no apparent damage
(Mashal and Palermo 2019).
Huangxulu Link Bridge, China
The Huangxulu Link Bridge is a two-span continuous girder bridge
with double-column rocking piers and is the first rocking bridge
constructed in China. External, replaceable energy dissipation de-
vices and unbonded posttensioned tendons were adopted in the
rocking piers, as shown in Fig. 7. The dissipating devices are
buckling-restrained fuse dissipaters and are connected to the
main longitudinal steel reinforcement through couplers. Steel plates
are set on the rocking interfaces to protect the local concrete from
J. Bridge Eng.
 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(b)
Fig. 6. (a) Wigram–Magdala Link Bridge, Christchurch, New Zealand (image by Alessandro Palermo); and (b) details of low-damage pier adopted
for the Wigram–Magdala Link Bridge (adapted from Routledge et al. 2017).
Fig. 7. Structural details of the Huangxulu Link Bridge rocking pier.
(Adapted from Han et al. 2019.)
crushing during rocking. Shear pins were installed in the middle of
the rocking interfaces to prevent large slip of the column. The shear
pins were constructed using concrete-filled steel pipes at the top of
the column and large-diameter (50 mm) steel bars at the bottom of
the column (Han et al. 2019).
Future Direction
Although the body of research as it relates to posttensioned rocking
bridge substructure systems is significant, the authors suggest that
future research extending the knowledge and application of DCR
bridge substructure systems would be desirable concerning (but
not limited to) the following.
• Influence of flexible foundations, such as monopiles, on the
rocking mechanism. Research has validated posttensioned
© ASCE 03122001-8
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001
rocking bridge columns supported on a rigid foundation; how-
ever, the contribution due to soil–pile–structure interaction has
been neglected and could be less forgiving in a rocking pier
with a single joint opening.
• Residual capacity of the system after subjected to subsequent
earthquake motions of various nature including near-field events.
This can be achieved through an experimental program that sub-
jects a DCR column to multiple ground motions without any
structural repairs to validate each component’s residual capacity.
• Further development on alternative seismic design philosophy
for low-damage details to allow for lower design-level earth-
quakes. Justification can be given since low-damage details en-
sure a reduction in service and quick repair following an
earthquake.
• Development of guidance, standards and specifications for the
design of DCR columns in bridge seismic design codes. This
should be supported by extensive numerical analysis on differ-
ent bridge typologies.
• Incorporation of sustainability through novel materials, such as
ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) or stainless-steel bars.
• Further research on system performance of bridges with postten-
sioned rocking columns and how they are influenced by geom-
etry and boundary conditions including pier height, bridge
typology, support and abutment fixity, soil conditions, seismic-
ity levels, and bridge alignment.
• Fragility functions for bridge systems including integral and
semi-integral supported deck, posttensioning only (no dissipa-
tion devices), and varying damping/recentering ratios.
Summary
Recent earthquakes, including the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, dem-
onstrated that bridges designed with conventional plastic hinges are
J. Bridge Eng.
 difficult to repair and the assessment of their residual capacity can
be cumbersome. Moreover, as a result of the 1996 Kobe earth-
quake, bridges that resulted in extensive residual displacements
led to full bridge replacement, which led to the importance of min-
imizing residual drift to preserve the structural integrity of the
bridge after an earthquake. The last three to four decades of re-
search have demonstrated the benefits of posttensioned rocking
piers and have proven to be an attractive solution for seismic resil-
ience. Research has focused on the development of technology and
design details, which have been validated through experimental
campaigns and analytical/numerical investigations.
Although each researcher had proposed a unique connection or
technology, it appears that the implementation has proven to be dif-
ficult. These laboratory solutions may be perceived as barriers to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
designers or constructors. There are currently two applications of
low-damage DCR systems in operational bridges at the time of
this paper’s publication; however, the technology and design has
not been introduced in any design standard.
This paper provides a state-of-the-art of research and develop-
ment of posttensioned rocking systems for bridge columns, from
its origin of pure rocking systems to its current application as low-
damage DCR systems. This paper concludes with suggestions for
future research to extend the knowledge and encourage the applica-
tion of posttensioned rocking bridge substructure systems.
Data Availability Statement
No data, models, or code were generated or used during the study.
References
ACI Innovation Task Group 5. 2007. Acceptance criteria for special un-
bonded post-tensioned precast structural walls based on validation test-
ing (ITG 5.1-07).
ACI Innovation Task Group 5. 2009. Requirements for design of a special
unbonded post-tensioned precast shear wall satisfying ACI-ITG5.1
(ITG 5.2-09).
Alam, M., A. Rahmzadeh, and F. Hossain. 2020. “A novel rocking steel
bridge pier system with enhanced seismic performance.” In Proc.,
IABSE-JSCE Joint Conf. on Advances in Bridge Engineering-IV,
8–17. Dhaka, Bangladesh: IABSE.
Alam, M., A. Rahmzadeh, F. Hosseini, R. Tremblay, and K. Islam. 2016.
“Research on the influencing factors for residual displacements of RC
bridge columns subjected to earthquake loading.” Bull. Earthquake
Eng. 14 (8): 2229–2257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9902-y.
Allmond, J. D., and B. L. Kutter. 2014. “Design considerations for rocking
foundations on unattached piles.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
140 (10): 04014058. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0001162.
Anastasopoulos, I., M. Loli, T. Georgarakos, and V. Drosos. 2013.
“Shaking table testing of rocking-isolated bridge pier on sand.”
J. Earthquake Eng. 17 (1): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469
.2012.705225.
Antonellis, G., A. G. Gavras, M. Panagiotou, B. L. Kutter, G. Guerrini,
A. C. Sander, and P. J. Fox. 2015. “Shake table test of large-scale bridge
columns supported on rocking shallow foundations.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (5): 04015009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0001284.
Antonellis, G., and M. Panagiotou. 2014. “Seismic response of bridges
with rocking foundations compared to that of fixed-base bridges at a
near-fault site.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (5): 04014007. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000570.
Apostolou, M., G. Gazetas, and E. Garini. 2007. “Seismic response of slen-
der rigid structures with foundation uplift.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
27 (7): 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.12.002.
© ASCE 03122001-9
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001
Astaneh-Asl, A., and J. H. Shen. 1993. “Rocking behavior and retrofit of
tall bridge piers.” In Structural Engineering in Natural Hazards
Mitigation, 121–126. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Beck, J. L., and R. I. Skinner. 1973. “The seismic response of a reinforced
concrete bridge pier designed to step.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
2 (4): 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9845.
Billington, S. L., and J. Yoon. 2004. “Cyclic response of unbonded postten-
sioned precast columns with ductile fibre-reinforced concrete.”
J. Bridge Eng. 9 (4): 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084
-0702(2004)9:4(353).
Bruneau, M., S. E. Chang, R. T. Eguchi, G. C. Lee, T. D. O’Rourke, A. M.
Reinhorn, M. Shinozuka, K. Tierney, W. A. Wallace, and D. Von
Winterfeldt. 2003. “A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance
the seismic resilience of communities.” Earthquake Spectra 19 (4):
733–752. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1623497.
Caltrans, S. D. C. 2019. Seismic Design Criteria Version 2.0.
Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission. 2012. Final Report Volume 3:
Low-Damage Building Technologies.
Chen, Y., W. Liao, C. Lee, and Y. Wang. 2006. “Seismic isolation of
viaduct piers by means of a rocking mechanism.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 35 (6): 713–736. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9845.
Cheng, C. T. 2008. “Shaking table tests of a self-centering designed bridge
substructure.” Eng. Struct. 30 (12): 3426–3433. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.engstruct.2008.05.017.
Clifton, G. 2005. “Semi-rigid joints for moments resisting steel framed seis-
mic resisting systems.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Auckland.
Cruz Noguez, C., M. Saiidi. 2012. “Shake table studies of a 4-span bridge
model with advanced materials.” ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 138 (2): 183–
192. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000457.
Davis, P. M., T. M. Janes, O. S. Haraldsson, M. O. Eberhard, and J. F.
Stanton. 2017. “Unbonded pretensioned columns for accelerated bridge
construction in seismic regions.” J. Bridge Eng. 22 (5): 04017003.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000992.
Deng, L., B. L. Kutter, and S. K. Kunnath. 2012a. “Centrifuge modeling of
bridge systems designed for rocking foundations.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (3): 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0000605.
Deng, L., B. L. Kutter, and S. K. Kunnath. 2012b. “Probabilistic seismic
performance of rocking-foundation and hinging-column bridges.”
Earthquake Spectra 28 (4): 1423–1446. https://doi.org/10.1193/1
.4000093.
DesRoches, R., J. McCormick, and M. Delemont. 2004. “Cyclic properties of
superelastic shape memory alloy wires and bars.” J. Struct. Eng. 130 (1):
38–46. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:1(38).
Dowdell, D., and B. Hamersley. 2000. “Lions’ gate bridge north approach:
Seismic retrofit.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Behaviour of Steel
Structures in Seismic Areas: STESSA 2000, 319–326. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Eberhard, M. O., J. F. Stanton, O. S. Haraldsson, G. Finnsson, P. M. Davis,
and M. J. Schoettler. 2014. “Development of a bridge bent system for
rapid construction and enhanced seismic performance.” In Proc., 10th
United States National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Oakland,
CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
ElGawady, M. A., and A. Sha’lan. 2011. “Seismic behavior of self-
centering precast segmental bridge bents.” J. Bridge Eng. 16 (3):
328–339. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000174.
Elsayed, W. M., M. A. Abdel Moaty, and M. E. Issa. 2015. “Effect of re-
inforcing steel debonding on RC frame performance in resisting pro-
gressive collapse.” HBRC J. 12 (3): 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.hbrcj.2015.02.005.
Espinoza, A., and S. A. Mahin. 2008. Shaking table and analytical investi-
gation of reinforced concrete bridge piers with foundations allowed to
uplift during earthquakes. Rep. No. UCB/SEMM-08, 3.
Eurocode, C. E. N. 2004. 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance.
Part, 1, 1998-1.
Gajan, S., and B. L. Kutter. 2008. “Capacity, settlement and energy dissi-
pation of shallow footings subjected to rocking.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (8): 1123–1141. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:8(1129).
J. Bridge Eng.
 Gelagoti, F., R. Kourkoulis, I. Anastasopoulos, and G. Gazetas. 2012.
“Rocking isolation of low-rise frame structures founded on isolation
footings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 41 (7): 1177–1197. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.v41.7.
Guerrini, G., J. I. Restrepo, M. Massari, and A. Vervelidis. 2015. “Seismic
behavior of posttensioned self-centering precast concrete dual-shell
steel columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 141 (4): 04014115. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001054.
Hakhamaneshi, M., B. L. Kutter, L. Deng, T. C. Hutchinson, and W. Liu.
2012. “New findings from centrifuge modeling of rocking shallow
foundations in clayey ground.” In Proc., ASCE GeoCongress, 195–
204. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061
/9780784412121.
Han, Q., Z. Jia, K. Xu, Y. Zhou, and X. Du. 2019. “Hysteretic behavior in-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
vestigation of self-centering double-column rocking piers for seismic
resilience.” Eng. Struct. 188: 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2019.03.024.
Haraldsson, O. S., M. Schoettler, G. Finnsson, P. M. Davis, and M. O.
Eberhard. 2013. “Seismic resistance of precast concrete bridge columns
made with unbonded pre-tensioning and hybrid fiber reinforced con-
crete.” In Proc., 7th National Seismic Conf. on Bridges and
Highways. Buffalo, NY: MCEER, State Univ. of New York.
Hewes, J. T. 2002. Seismic design and performance of precast concrete seg-
mental bridge columns. San Diego, CA: University of California.
Housner, G. 1963. “The behaviour of inverted pendulum structures during
earthquakes.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 53 (2): 403–417. https://doi.org
/10.1785/BSSA0530020403.
Hsu, Y. T., and C. C. Fu. 2003. “Seismic effect on highway bridges in Chi
Chi earthquake.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 17 (2): 47–53.
Hung, H. H., K. Liu, T.-H. Ho, and K.-C. Chang. 2011. “An experimental
study on the rocking response of bridge piers with spread footing foun-
dations.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 40 (7): 749–769. https://doi.org
/10.1002/eqe.v40.7.
Ikeda, S., S. Hirose, T. Yamaguchi, and S. Nonaka. 2002. “Seismic perfor-
mance of concrete piers prestressed in the critical sections.” In Proc., 1st
FIB Congress, 207–214. Osaka, Japan: Osaka Congress.
Ingham, T. 1995. “Seismic retrofit of the golden gate bridge.” In Proc.,
National Seismic Conf. on Bridges and Highways: “Progress in
Research and Practice”. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
Jia, J., K. Zhang, M. S. Saiidi, Y. Guo, S. Wu, K. Bi, and X. Du. 2020.
“Seismic evaluation of precast bridge columns with built-in elastomeric
pads.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 128: 105868. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.soildyn.2019.105868.
Jones, M., L. Holloway, and V. Toan. 1997. “Seismic retrofit of the 1927
Carquinez Bridge by a displacement capacity approach.” In Proc., 2nd
National Seismic Conf. on Bridges and Highways: Progress in
Research and Practice, 445–456. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
Kawashima, K. 1997. “The 1996 Japanese seismic design specifications of
highway bridges and the performance based design.” In Seismic Design
Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, edited by
H. Krawinkler and P. Fajfar, 371–382. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Kawashima, K. 2002. “Seismic design of concrete bridges.” In Proc., 1st
FIB Congress, 347–366. Osaka, Japan: Osaka Congress.
Kawashima, K., G. MacRae, J.-I. Hoshikuma, and K. Nagaya. 1998.
“Residual displacement response spectrum.” J. Struct. Eng.
124 (5): 523–530. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)
124:5(523).
Kawashima, K., and M. Nagai. 2002. “Development of a reinforced con-
crete pier with a rubber layer in the plastic hinge region.” Struct.
Earthquake Eng., Proc. JSCE 703 (59): 113–128.
Kawashima, K., and G. Watanabe. 2006. “Seismic performance of un-
bonded columns and isolator built-in columns based on cyclic loading
tests.” In Proc., Int. Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety, 40.
Guimaraes, Portugal: Univ. of Minho Azurem.
Kelly, J. M., R. I. Skinner, and A. J. Heine. 1972. “Mechanisms of energy
absorption in special devices for use in earthquake resistant structures.”
Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 5 (3): 63–88. https://doi.org/10.5459
/bnzsee.5.3.63-88.
© ASCE 03122001-10
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001
Kelly, T. E. 2009. “Tentative seismic design guidelines for rocking struc-
tures.” Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 42 (4): 239–274. https://doi
.org/10.5459/bnzsee.42.4.239-274.
Kilanitis, I., and A. Sextos. 2019. “Impact of earthquake-induced bridge
damage and time evolving traffic demand on the road network resil-
ience.” J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 6 (1): 35–48.
Kurama, Y. C. 2004. “A friction damper for post-tensioned precast concrete
moment frames.” PCI J. 49 (4): 112–133. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.
Kwan, W. P., and S. L. Billington. 2003. “Unbonded posttensioned con-
crete bridge piers. II: Seismic analyses.” J. Bridge Eng. 8 (2): 102–
111. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2003)8:2(102).
Lee, W. K., and S. L. Billington. 2010. “Performance-based earthquake en-
gineering assessment of a self-centering, post-tensioned concrete bridge
system.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 40 (8): 887–902.
Liu, R. 2018. “Multi-performance seismic design of low damage bridge.”
Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering,
Univ. of Canterbury.
Liu, W., T. C. Hutchinson, and B. L. Kutter. 2013. “Demonstration of com-
patible yielding between soil-foundation and superstructure compo-
nents.” J. Struct. Eng. 139 (8): 1408–1420. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000637.
Liu, X., J. Li, H.-H. Tsang, and J. Wilson. 2018. “Enhancing seismic per-
formance of unbonded prestressed concrete bridge column using
superelastic shape memory alloy.” J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct.
29 (15): 3082–3096. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X18783074.
Loli, M., J. Knappett, M. J. Brown, I. Anastasopoulos, and G. Gazetas.
2014. “Centrifuge modeling of rocking-isolated RC bridge piers.”
J. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43 (15): 2341–2359. https://doi.org
/10.1002/eqe.v43.15.
Mander, J. B., and C. Cheng. 1997. Seismic resistance of bridge piers
based on damage avoidance design. Technical Rep.
NCEER-97-0014. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research.
Marriott, D. 2009. “The development of high-performance post-tensioned
rocking systems for the seismic design of structures.” Ph.D. thesis,
Dept. of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, Univ. of
Canterbury.
Marriott, D., S. Pampanin, and D. Bull. 2009. “A probabilistic seismic loss
assessment of advanced post-tensioned precast bridge systems.” In
Proc., New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conf., 30.
New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Mashal, M. 2015. “Post-tensioned earthquake damage resistant technologies
for accelerated bridge construction.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and
Natural Resources Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury.
Mashal, M., and A. Palermo. 2019. “Low-damage seismic design for accel-
erated bridge construction.” J. Bridge Eng. 24 (7): 1–13. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001406.
McManus, K. 1980. “The seismic response of bridge structures free to rock
on their foundations.” M.E. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Natural Resources
Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury.
Mehrsoroush, A., and M. Saiidi. 2016. “Cyclic response of precast bridge
piers with novel column-base pipe pins and pocket cap beam connec-
tions.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (4): 04015080. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000833.
Mitoulis, S., and J. Rodriguez. 2017. “Seismic performance of novel
resilient hinges for columns and application on irregular bridges.”
J. Bridge Eng. 22 (2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943
-5592.0000980.
Morgen, B. G., and Y. C. Kurama. 2004. “A friction damper for post-
tensioned precast concrete moment frames.” PCI J. 49 (4): 112–133.
https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.
Motaref, S. 2011. “Seismic response of precast bridge columns with energy
dissipating joints.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Natural Resources
Engineering, Univ. of Nevada.
Motaref, S., M. S. Saiidi, and D. Sanders. 2014. “Shake table studies of
energy-dissipating segmental bridge columns.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (2):
186–199. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000518.
Motaref, S., M. S. Saiidi, and D. H. Sanders. 2010. “Experimental study of
precast bridge columns with built-in elastomer.” J. Transp. Res. Board
2202 (1): 109–116. https://doi.org/10.3141/2202-14.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Muto, K., H. Umemura, and Y. Sonobe. 1960. “Study of the overturning
vibrations of slender structures.” In Proc., 2nd World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, 1239–1261. Kanpur: National Information
Centre of Earthquake Engineering.
Nakashoji, B., and M. S. Saiidi. 2014. Seismic performance of square
nickel-titanium reinforced ECC columns with headed couplers. Rep.
No. CCEER-14-05, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Nevada, Reno, NV.
Nazari, M., S. Sritharan, and A. Aaleti. 2017. “Single precast concrete rock-
ing walls as earthquake force-resisting elements.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 46 (5): 753–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.v46.5.
Negro, P., R. Paolucci, S. Pedretti, and E. Faccioli. 2000. “Large scale
soil-structure interaction experiments on sand under cyclic loading.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 1191.
Upper Hutt, New Zealand: National Society for Earthquake
Engineering.
Nguyen, W., W. Trono, M. Panagiotou, and C. P. Ostertag. 2017. “Seismic
response of a rocking bridge column using a precast hybrid fiber-
reinforced concrete (HyFRC) tube.” Compos. Struct. 174: 252–262.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.04.058.
Nikoukalam, M. T., and P. Sideris. 2017. “Resilient bridge rocking col-
umns with polyurethane damage-resistant end segments and replaceable
energy-dissipating links.” J. Bridge Eng. 22 (10): 04017064. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001069.
NZ Transport Agency. 2018. Bridge manual, Third edition. Wellington,
New Zealand: NZ Transport Agency.
Palermo, A., and S. Pampanin. 2008. “Enhanced seismic performance of
hybrid bridge systems: Comparison with traditional monolithic solu-
tions.” J. Earthquake Eng. 12 (8): 1267–1295. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13632460802003819.
Palermo, A., S. Pampanin, and G. Calvi. 2004. “Use of “Controlled
Rocking” in the seismic design of bridges.” In Proc., 13th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 1–16. National Information Centre
of Earthquake Engineering.
Palermo, A., S. Pampanin, and G. M. Calvi. 2005. “Concept and develop-
ment of hybrid solutions for seismic resistant bridge systems.”
J. Earthquake Eng. 9 (6): 899–921.
Palermo, A., S. Pampanin, and D. Marriott. 2007. “Design, modeling,
and experimental response of seismic resistant bridge piers with
posttensioned dissipating connections.” J. Struct. Eng. 133 (11):
1648–1661. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:
11(1648).
Pampanin, S., D. Marriott, A. Palermo, and D. Bolognini. 2010. PRESSS
design handbook. Auckland, New Zealand: New Zealand Concrete
Society.
Panagiotou, M., W. Trono, G. Jen, P. Kumar, and C. P. Ostertag. 2015.
“Experimental seismic response of hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete
bridge columns with novel longitudinal reinforcement detailing.”
J. Bridge Eng. 20 (7): 04014090. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0000684.
Paolucci, R., M. Shirato, and M. T. Yilmaz. 2008. “Seismic behavior of
shallow foundations: Shaking table experiments vs numerical model-
ing.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 (4): 577–595. https://doi.org
/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9845.
Pecker, A. 2006. “Enhanced seismic design of shallow foundations:
Example of the Rion-Antirion bridge.” In Proc., 4th Athenian Lecture
on Geotechnical Engineering. Athens, Greece: Hellenic Society of
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Priestley, M. 1991. “Overview of PRESSS research program.” Precast/
Prestressed Concr. Inst. J. 36 (4): 50–57.
Priestley, M. 1996. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley and Sons.
Priestley, M., S. Sritharan, J. Conley, and S. Pampanin. 1999. “Preliminary
results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-story precast concrete
test building.” Precast/Prestressed Concr. Inst. J. 44 (6): 42–67.
Rahman, A., and J. I. Restrepo. 2000. Earthquake resistant precast concrete
buildings: Seismic performance of cantilever walls prestressed using
unbonded tendons. Research Rep. No. 2000-5, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
© ASCE 03122001-11
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001
Rodgers, G. W. 2009. Next generation structural technologies:
Implementing high force-to-volume energy absorbers. Ph.D. thesis,
Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Roh, H., and A. M. Reinhorn. 2010. “Hysteretic behavior of precast segmen-
tal bridge piers with superelastic shape memory alloy bars.” Eng. Struct.
33 (10): 3394–3403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.07.013.
Rosebrook, K. R. 2001. “Moment loading on shallow foundations:
Centrifuge test data archives.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California.
Rouse, M., and S. Billington. 2003. “Behavior of bridge piers with ductile
fiber reinforced hinge regions and vertical, unbonded posttensioning.”
In Proc., FIB Symp. on Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions,
432–433.
Routledge, P., B. McHaffie, M. Cowan, and A. Palermo. 2017. “Wigram–
Magdala link bridge – Low-damage details for a more efficient seismic
design philosophy.” In Proc., Austroads Bridge Conf. 2017, 11.
Sydney, Austrailia: Austroads.
Routledge, P., B. McHaffie, M. Cowan, and A. Palermo. 2019. “Wigram–
Magdala link bridge: Low-damage details for a more efficient seismic
design philosophy.” Struct. Eng. Int. 30 (2): 177–184. https://doi.org
/10.1080/10168664.2019.1679696.
Saad, A., D. H. Sanders, and I. Buckle. 2012. “Impact of rocking founda-
tions on horizontally curved bridge systems subjected to seismic load-
ing.” In Structures Congress 2012 - Proceedings of the 2012 Structures
Congress, 625–635. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Saiidi, M., B. Gopalakrishnan, and R. Siddharthan. 2002. “Shake table
studies of effects of foundation flexibility on seismic demand in sub-
standard bridge piers.” In Proc., ACI 5th Int. Conf., 553–569. Detroit:
American Concrete Institute.
Saiidi, M., M. O’Brien, and M. Zadeh. 2009. “Cyclic response of concrete
bridge columns using superelastic nitinol and bendable concrete.” ACI
Struct. J. 106 (1): 69–77.
Saiidi, M. S., M. Tazarv, S. Varela, S. Bennion, M. L. Marsh, I. Ghorbani,
and T. M. Murphy. 2017. Seismic evaluation of bridge columns with
energy dissipating mechanisms, Volume 2: Guidelines. Washington,
DC; The National Academies Press.
Saiidi, M. S., and H. Wang. 2006. “An exploratory study of seismic re-
sponse of concrete columns with shape memory alloys reinforcement.”
ACI Struct. J. 103 (3): 436–443.
Sakai, J., and S. A. Mahin. 2004. “Mitigation of residual displacement of
reinforced concrete bridge columns.” In Proc., 13th World Conf., on
Earthquake Engineering, 87–102. Japan: Public Works Research
Institute.
Sakellaraki, D., and K. Kawashima. 2006. “Effectiveness of seismic rock-
ing isolation of bridges based on shake table test.” In Proc., 1st
European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, 1–10.
Swiss Society for Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.
Sarti, F., A. Palermo, and S. Pampanin. 2016. “Fuse-type external replace-
able dissipaters: Experimental program and numerical modelling.”
J. Struct. Eng. 142 (12): 04016134. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0001606.
Shirato, M., T. Kouno, R. Asai, N. Nakani, J. Fukui, and R. Paolucci. 2008.
“Large-scale experiments on nonlinear behavior of shallow foundations
subjected to strong earthquakes.” Soils Found. 48 (5): 637–692.
Sideris, P., A. J. Aref, and A. Filiatrault. 2014. “Large-scale seismic testing
of a hybrid sliding-rocking posttensioned segmental bridge system.”
J. Struct. Eng. 140 (6): 04014025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000961.
Solberg, K., N. Mashiko, J. Mander, and R. Dhakal. 2009. “Performance of
a damage protected highway bridge pier subjected to bidirectional
earthquake attack.” J. Struct. Eng. 135 (5): 469–478. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:5(469).
Standards New Zealand. 2006. NZS 3101 concrete structures standard: Part
1–The design of concrete structures. Wellington, New Zealand.
Stanton, J. F., T. Hicks, and N. Hawkins. 1991. “PRESSS Project 1.3 -
Connection classification and evaluation.” PCI J. 36 (5): 62–71.
https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.
Stanton, J. F., W. C. Stone, and G. Cheok. 1997. “Hybrid reinforced precast
frame for seismic regions.” PCI J. 42 (2): 20–32. https://doi.org/10
.15554/pcij.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Stone, W. C., G. S. Cheok, and J. F. Stanton. 1995. “Performance of hybrid
moment-resisting precast beam column concrete connections subjected
to cyclic loading.” ACI Struct. J. 92 (2): 229–249.
Tazarv, M. 2014. Next generation of bridge columns for accelerated bridge
construction in high seismic zones. Reno, Nevada: University of
Nevada.
Tazarv, M., and M. Saiid Saiidi. 2016. “Low-damage precast columns for
accelerated bridge construction in high seismic zones.” J. Bridge Eng.
21 (3): 04015056. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000806.
Trono, W., G. Jen, M. Panagiotou, M. Schoettler, and C. P. Ostertag. 2015.
“Seismic response of a damage-resistant recentering posttensioned-
HYFRC bridge column.” J. Bridge Eng. 20 (7): 04014096. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000692.
Ugalde, J. A., B. L. Kutter, B. Jeremic, and S. Gajan. 2007. “Centrifuge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 05/20/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
modeling of rocking behavior of bridges on shallow foundations.” In
Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 25–
28. ICEGE.
Varela, S., and M. Saiidi. 2014. “Dynamic performance of innovative
bridge columns with superelastic CuAlMn shape memory alloy and
ECC.” Int. J. Bridge Eng. 2 (3): 29–58.
Wacker, J. M., D. G. Hieber, J. F. Stanton, and M. O. Eberhard. 2005.
Design of precast concrete piers for rapid bridge construction in seismic
regions. (No. WA-RD 629.1). Washington, DC: University of
Washington.
© ASCE 03122001-12
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 03122001
Wang, Z., J. Q. Wang, T. X. Liu, and J. Zhang. 2018. “An explicit analyt-
ical model for seismic performance of an unbonded post-tensioned pre-
cast segmental rocking hollow pier.” Eng. Struct. 161 (Jan): 176–191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.025.
White, S. 2014. “Controlled damage rocking systems for accelerated bridge
construction.” Masters thesis, Dept. of Civil and Natural Resources
Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury.
White, S., and A. Palermo. 2016. “Quasi-static testing of posttensioned non-
emulative column-footing connections for bridge piers.” J. Bridge Eng.
21 (6): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000872.
Yoon, J. K. 2002. Experimental and numerical studies of precast unbonded
posttensioned bridge columns with engineered cementitious compos-
ites. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Youssef, M. A., M. Alam, and M. Nehdi. 2008. “Experimental investiga-
tion on the seismic behavior of beam-column joints reinforced with
superelastic shape memory alloys.” J. Earthquake Eng. 12 (7): 1205–
1222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460802003082.
Zatar, W., and H. Mutsuyoshi. 2000. “Reduced residual displacements of
partially prestressed concrete bridge piers.” In Proc. 12th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 1111. Upper Hutt, NZ : New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Zhou, Y. L., Q. Han, X. L. Du, and Z. L. Jia. 2019. “Shaking table tests of
post-tensioned rocking bridge with double-column bents.” J. Bridge
Eng. 24 (8): 04019080. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0001456.
J. Bridge Eng.