Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete for Posttensioned

Precast Bridge Piers for Seismic Resilience

Cancan Yang, S.M.ASCE 1; and Pinar Okumus, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Precast concrete bridge substructures accelerate construction. Precast concrete piers can also limit residual displacements after
earthquakes when used with nonemulative connections. This paper investigates the use of ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) to elimi-
nate damage under moderate to high seismic activity for posttensioned self-centering precast piers. Large-scale laboratory testing was used to
assess damage in pier specimens. Specimens were constructed in segments, where the column segment above the foundation had varying
details: conventional concrete with mild steel reinforcing bars, UHPC with mild steel reinforcing bars, and UHPC without mild steel reinforc-
ing bars. Specimens were subjected to quasi-static cyclic lateral loading, allowing and disallowing shear slip. The use of UHPC led to minimal
damage at displacements much larger than the seismic demand. The difference in damage of UHPC segments with and without mild steel
reinforcement was negligible. A comparison of hysteretic responses of different specimens revealed that strength, stiffness, and energy
dissipation depended on shear slip more than the material type when shear slip was allowed. For tests without shear slip, specimens with
UHPC had higher strength and stiffness. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001906. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Advanced materials; Self-centering; Rocking; Low damage; Nonemulative connections; Accelerated bridge construc-
tion; Posttension; Seismic response; Seismic effects.

Introduction
Precast concrete bridge construction accelerates construction and
improves quality by moving critical construction activities to pre-
fabrication plants. Emulative and nonemulative precast concrete
substructure systems have been developed to take advantage of
precast concrete systems in seismic regions. Emulative precast con-
crete systems mimic cast-in-place construction by using socket,
grouted-duct, mechanically spliced column–footing connections,
or similar (Marsh et al. 2011). Precast concrete bridge pier systems,
developed to emulate monolithic concrete behavior, were proven to
have acceptable seismic response (Marsh et al. 2011), but suffer ir-
recoverable damage stemming from the formation of plastic hinges.
Substantial seismic damage to bridges, particularly to the ones that
connect lifelines, can lead to long downtimes, disruption of civilian
life, and may require costly repairs or reconstruction.
Large socioeconomic losses caused by earthquakes can be mi-
tigated by controlling seismic damage and maintaining functional-
ity of essential structures. Several strategies exist for controlling
damage. For emulative precast concrete systems, advanced mate-
rials have been used in the plastic-hinge regions of piers. These
materials include a combination of engineered cementitious compo-
sites (ECC), nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) shape-memory alloys (SMA),
and ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) connector fillers
(Tazarv and Saiid Saiidi 2015a), a combination of Ni-Ti SMA and
1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil, Structural, and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260 (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8596-2265. E-mail: cancanya@
buffalo.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Structural, and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260. E-mail: pinaroku@
buffalo.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 6, 2016; approved on
June 5, 2017; published online on September 23, 2017. Discussion per-
iod open until February 23, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
ECC, or rubber and steel elastomeric pads (Cruz Noguez and Saiidi
2012), or a combination of Cu-Al-Mn SMA and ECC (Hosseini
et al. 2015). For these systems, minimal plastic-hinge damage was
reported as a result of the additional ductility and improved crack
distribution of ECC and large strain recovery of superelastic SMAs.
Alternatively, seismic damage can be controlled and contained
using nonemulative precast concrete systems. Nonemulative sys-
tems (precast systems that do not emulate cast-in-place behavior)
develop nonlinear elasticity through a joint opening (Priestley
et al. 1999). These systems are typically accompanied by unbonded
posttensioning to achieve self-centering and limited residual dis-
placements (Hewes and Priestley 2002; Mander and Cheng 1997;
Yamashita and Sanders 2009). Energy dissipation can be provided
by internal energy-dissipating bars (Lee et al. 2007; Ou et al. 2007;
Palermo et al. 2007), replaceable yielding dampers (Chou and Chen
2006; ElGawady and Sha’lan 2011; Guerrini et al. 2014; Marriott
et al. 2009; Mashal and Palermo 2015; Solberg et al. 2009), friction
dampers (Morgen and Kurama 2004), or allowing shear slip be-
tween precast segments (Sideris et al. 2014b).
Although nonemulative systems can tolerate global damage bet-
ter than emulative systems, joint opening and closing in nonemu-
lative systems cause local damage in the form of concrete cracking,
spalling, or crushing near rocking interfaces. Attempts to mitigate
this damage have included encasing part of the column or the entire
column in fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) or steel jackets (Chou
and Chen 2006; ElGawady and Sha’lan 2011; Guerrini et al.
2014; Hewes and Priestley 2002; Zhu et al. 2006), using steel plates
as armor at rocking interfaces (Marriott et al. 2009; Solberg et al.
2009), and reducing seismic demand by elastomeric pads used as
built-in isolators (ElGawady and Sha’lan 2011). High-performance
materials such as ECC (Billington and Yoon 2004), steel fiber–
reinforced concrete with mild reinforcing bars (Trono et al.
2014), or analytical investigations of Ni-Ti SMA bars (Roh and
Reinhorn 2010) have shown to reduce damage when used with
rocking systems.
This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation
of a low-damage, nonemulative precast concrete segmental bridge

© ASCE 04017161-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161

 pier that used UHPC for damage control and unbonded posttension
for self-centering. The pier was prefabricated for accelerated bridge
construction and composed of a precast foundation, column seg-
ments, and a pier cap. Bridge piers with hollow cross sections,
which are reported to have consistently poor hysteretic behavior
(Calvi et al. 2005; Pinto et al. 2003) in cast-in-place applications,
may also benefit from UHPC to improve performance.
UHPC is a cementitious self-consolidating material typically
enhanced with discontinuous steel-fiber reinforcement and has con-
siderably higher compressive strength, sustained postcracking ten-
sile strength, and improved toughness compared with conventional
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
concrete. The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
worked with multiple state departments of transportations to imple-
ment UHPC for various bridge elements since 2002 (Russell and
Graybeal 2013). Previous uses of UHPC for bridge columns have
been mostly limited to monolithic or emulative applications. Tazarv
and Saiidi (2015b) showed that UHPC-filled duct connections of
precast concrete emulated cast-in-place concrete. Ichikawa et al.
(2016) concluded that a reinforced concrete core encased in a
UHPC jacket was superior to conventionally reinforced concrete in
terms of damage control. On the other hand, a precast posttensioned
segmental concrete column with UHPC hollow core in the plastic-
hinge region suffered significant torsion and failed when the UHPC
was crushed at the bottom segment (Ichikawa et al. 2016). Cover
spalling or crushing typically seen in conventional concrete was
avoided by replacing concrete with reinforced UHPC in the plastic-
hinge region. Using UHPC in the plastic-hinge region of a mono-
lithic bridge pier confined with FRP significantly increased both
strength and stiffness compared with normal concrete (Zohrevand
and Mirmiran 2012). Although lifecycle costs of structures incor-
porating UHPC are anticipated to be low because of enhanced
durability, the initial cost of UHPC is much higher than that of
conventional concrete.
To offset the higher initial cost of UHPC, this paper limited the
use of UHPC to the seismic damage–prone regions of precast col-
umns, namely, the bottom column segment right above the founda-
tion where rocking takes place. This segment was built with UHPC to
control seismic damage. In order to further reduce the cost and ac-
celerate construction, the feasibility of removing mild reinforcement
bars entirely from the UHPC bottom segment was also explored.
Large-scale quasi-static testing was used to investigate the im-
pact of UHPC and lack of steel reinforcement bars on seismic dam-
age in precast rocking bridge piers. Damage control with UHPC
was implemented on a precast concrete system developed by
Sideris et al. (2014b), where column segments did not have shear
keys. Shear slip, hence, was allowed in cases where friction was
overcome by the externally applied lateral force. The hysteretic
response of each specimen to cyclic loading was compared to under-
stand the impact of UHPC. Damage with and without UHPC was
compared visually and quantified by evaluating the dynamic proper-
ties of specimens measured before and after testing. Sources of en-
ergy dissipation, residual displacements, and stiffness and strength
degradation, and their relationship to damage were identified.
Research Significance
This paper demonstrates the role UHPC can play in controlling
seismic damage to segmental self-centering precast piers at the
rocking plane. Damage in the form of concrete spalling, cracking,
and posttension loss was documented by measuring the dynamic
properties of specimens before and after testing and by visual in-
spections. In addition, the efficacy of mild steel longitudinal and
confinement reinforcement within UHPC in resisting damage was
© ASCE 04017161-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161
demonstrated. Sources of energy dissipation, residual displace-
ments, and stiffness and strength degradation, as well as their rela-
tionship to seismic damage, were identified. Impacts of reinforced
and unreinforced UHPC on performance has also been evaluated in
piers where segmental shear slip can provide additional energy dis-
sipation. The paper presents unique test data and conclusions, which
can guide engineers and researchers in selecting low-damage mate-
rials for seismic applications for bridge columns.
Experimental Protocol
Specimens
Bridge pier specimens consist of a capacity-protected precast con-
crete foundation element, a capacity-protected precast concrete cap
beam, and five precast concrete hollow column segments. Three
specimens were tested. The difference between the three speci-
mens was the material of the bottom column segment. Specimen I
had conventional 34.5-MPa (5-ksi) compressive design strength
concrete for all column segments. Specimen II had an UHPC
bottom column segment with the same mild reinforcing bars as
Specimen I, and four 34.5-MPa (5-ksi) compressive-strength con-
crete upper column segments. Specimen III had an UHPC bot-
tom column segment without any mild reinforcing bars and four
34.5-MPa (5-ksi) compressive-strength concrete upper column seg-
ments. Specimen III was designed to demonstrate if there is a need
for mild reinforcement for UHPC specimens. All other column
segments had the same reinforcing bar amount and layout. An
elevation view, segment cross section, and mild steel reinforcement
layout of specimens are provided in Fig. 1.
UHPC was the Ductal JS1000 (Paris, France) mix (Lafarge
Canada 2009) of LafargeHolcim with mean characteristic compres-
sive and tensile design strength of 138 MPa (20 ksi) and 8 MPa
(1.2 ksi), respectively, and a modulus of elasticity of 50 GPa
(7,200 ksi). The mix has high tensile–strength steel fibers that are
0.2 mm (0.008 in.) in diameter and 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) in length.
The premix (silica fume, ground quartz, sand, and cement), steel
fibers, and admixture (water reducer) were provided by the
manufacturer. This mix is typically used for field-cast joints of
precast concrete bridge deck panels, developing characteristic
strength in 96 h after casting.
The tests were conducted at a 1–2.4 length-scale. Material prop-
erties were not scaled. From a similitude analysis, this translates to
2.4 for time and period scale and 0.42 for acceleration scale
(Anagnostopoulou 2009). Scaling was performed following the
gravity forces neglected prototype material method (Harris and
Sabnis 1999). This method is applicable where stresses attributable
to gravity are small and the same materials are used in both model
and prototype structures. The design of the pier specimens followed
the design by Sideris (2012) but was modified for UHPC and for
the constraints of the test setup used in this paper. The foundation,
column segments, and cap beam were connected to each other with
eight unbonded posttension strands. Posttensioning strands were
7-wire, 15.2-mm (0.6-in.) diameter low-relaxation strands, with
1,862 MPa (270 ksi) ultimate strength. Each unbonded strand
had 89 kN (20 kips) of posttension force, which was selected so that
strands were efficiently used without allowing them to yield at maxi-
mum considered earthquake (MCE) levels. The posttension strands
were fitted into ungrouted flexible PVC corrugated ducts with an
interior diameter of at least 22.9 mm (0.9 in.). There were no shear
keys between segments. A layer of silicone was applied between
each segment to reduce friction between concrete surfaces and
facilitate shear slip. Fresh silicone, a material with a low friction
J. Struct. Eng.
 25 25
Actuator bolt holes 635 Ducts for PT tendons
Duct for gravity tendons

419

64
Cap beam
Joint 5

177

254
886

635
Column segment 5
Joint 4

254
Column segment 4

64
Joint 3

127 381 127

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3048
Column segment 3
Joint 2
Gravity tendon
(b)
Column segment 2
Joint 1

Column segment 1
(with varying materials and design details) Joint 0

Bar size: #3

737
Foundation
Spacing: 76.2 mm

Duct for tie-down bars Anchorage end Bar size: #3

2743 Spacing: 63.5 mm
(a) (c)

Fig. 1. Specimen details: (a) elevation; (b) column cross-section views; (c) reinforcement layout (unit: millimeters)

coefficient, aims at allowing shear slip to add energy dissipation
through friction (Sideris et al. 2014b; Yang and Okumus 2017).
Test Matrix
Each specimen was tested under a quasi-static rate of loading
and at dynamic rates of loading. The spectral displacement and
velocity were calculated using the fundamental frequency obtained
through tests by Sideris et al. (2014a) and the response spectra es-
tablished by Anagnostopoulou (2009). The response spectra for de-
sign earthquake (DE) and MCE hazard levels were created for a
prototype bridge located near the City of Los Angeles, California,
and scaled to the testing model using 0.42 for acceleration scale and
2.4 for period scale (Anagnostopoulou 2009). In addition to cyclic
testing, impact-hammer testing was performed to identify modal
properties of the specimens.
Two quasi-static cyclic tests were conducted on each specimen.
The first quasi-static test, conducted using Test Protocol I, was per-
formed on specimens that had fresh silicone between segments,
allowing shear slip. The second quasi-static cyclic test, conducted
using Test Protocol II, was performed on specimens which were
previously tested but not damaged, and which had deteriorated
silicone between segments. Test Protocol II was preceded by Test
Protocol I and testing performed under dynamic rates of loading.
Impact-hammer testing before Test Protocol II ensured no perma-
nent damage occurred during tests prior to Test Protocol II. If
damage was evident by impact-hammer tests, specimens were
rebuilt before being tested under Test Protocol II. Rebuilding
involved disassembling specimens, removing damaged segments
(if any), replacing the damaged segments with new segments, or
moving segments with minor damage to the top of the pier, and
re-posttensioning. This ensured that specimens did not have accu-
mulated damage before any test. This paper discusses the results of
the quasi-static testing and impact testing only. The results of the
dynamic tests are out of the scope of this paper.
Impact-hammer tests were performed to measure the change in
dynamic properties (i.e., fundamental frequency and damping ratio)
of all specimens resulting from Test Protocols I and II. This test was
performed by creating a free vibration in longitudinal and trans-
verse bridge directions using an impact hammer instrumented with
an accelerometer.
Loading Protocols
Test Protocols I and II had quasi-static cyclic loading at an average
velocity of 0.25–1.27 mm=s (0.01–0.05 in:=s), applied using dis-
placement control. Loading paths for the two protocols are shown
in Fig. 2. In Test Protocol I, all specimens were tested to a peak
displacement amplitude of 31.2 mm (1.23 in.) (0.9% drift ratio),
corresponding to the response spectra displacement of the DE
(RSD-DE). An exception to this was Specimen I, which had a
larger peak lateral displacement [69.9 mm (2.75 in.) or 2.1% lateral
drift ratio]. At this larger peak displacement, Specimen I had con-
crete cross-section and posttension losses. In order to be able to
reuse specimens for other tests, Specimens II and III were tested
to a peak displacement of 31.2 mm. (1.23 in.). Specimen I was re-
built before Test Protocol II.
In Test Protocol II, all specimens were loaded until the maxi-
mum stroke of the actuator was reached or until specimens failed.
Failure was defined by excessive loss of posttension, risking the
stability of the specimen.
Instrumentation
Load on each posttension strand was measured using load cells.
Eight accelerometers, representing degrees of freedom of an ideal-
ized structural model, measured accelerations in transverse and
longitudinal bridge directions for impact-hammer testing. Gap
openings and shear slip at joints were measured using a string
potentiometer and LVDT, respectively. Global displacements of

© ASCE 04017161-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Loading time history for (a) Loading Protocol I; (b) Loading Protocol II
segments were also measured by string pots and a camera triangu-
lation system.
Test Setup
Cyclic loading was quasi-statically applied through one MTS
(MTS System Corporation, Eden Prairie, Minnesota) 978-kN
(220-kips) capacity hydraulic actuator with a 1,016-mm (40-in.)
stroke. The actuator was mounted to the specimens at the
midspan of the pier cap. Because the superstructure was excluded
from the test setup, the weight of the superstructure was simulated
using two posttension strands, which were placed on each side of
the cap beam and posttensioned to 91 kN (20.5 kips). These gravity
strands provided axial load corresponding to 2.5% of the column
axial-load capacity. The ratio of axial load including the internal
posttension force to the axial capacity was 12.3%.
Two steel bracings restrained the transverse movement of the
specimens during testing. A small gap and Teflon (Curbell Plastics,
Orchard Park, New York) polytetrafluorethylene plates were used
between the bracings and the cap beam to allow free movement in
the direction of loading. The foundation block was tied to the
strong floor using tie-down bars. The experimental setup is shown
in Fig. 3.
Results of Tests Performed with Test Protocol I
Global Response
The lateral force-displacement hysteretic response of Specimen I
up to peak displacement of 69.9 mm (2.75 in.) (2.1% drift ratio)
is shown in Fig. 4, separately from the other specimens. The lateral
Bolted threaded rods Sandwich plate
Actuator
Teflon plate
Strong wall
Gravity strands
Lateral restraint system
Tie-down bars
Fig. 3. Experimental setup
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161
(b)
force-displacement hysteretic response of all specimens are com-
pared in Fig. 5, for up to 31.2 mm (1.23 in.) peak displacement
amplitude (0.9% drift ratio), corresponding to RSD-DE. All spec-
imens had a large area under the load-displacement curves and
therefore had large energy dissipation. On the other hand, all spec-
imens had residual displacements upon removal of the load because
of shear slip and therefore had limited self-centering capability.
What can traditionally be interpreted as the deterioration of stiff-
ness in the hysteretic response resulted from rocking and shear slip,
not from damage to the specimens. The narrowing of the hysteretic
loop at large displacements, more evident in Fig. 4 because of the
larger peak displacement, is attributed to the reversal of only rock-
ing displacements upon unloading.
Posttension Force
Fig. 6 shows the average posttension force of all strands against
lateral displacement for all specimens. The posttension loss was
4.0, 4.2, and 7.6% of the initial posttension force at the end of the
cycle at RSD-DE for Specimens I, II, and III, respectively. The
force at which strands yield was calculated as 235 kN (52.7 kips),
which is 90% of the ultimate capacity for 15.2-mm (0.6-in.) diam-
eter strands. Posttension force remained below the nominal mini-
mum yield force in all strands. Therefore, material inelasticity did
not play a role in the posttension loss. The maximum axial stress
change caused by the variation of the forces in gravity strands was
within 1.0% of total axial stress at RSD-DE.
Displacement Source
Precast piers did not have shear keys or longitudinal reinforcement
between segments. Therefore, lateral displacement resulted from
shear slip, gap opening, or both, depending on loading and segment
Fig. 4. Hysteretic response of Specimen I under Test Protocol I up to
2.1% drift ratio
04017161-4 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5. Hysteretic response of (a) Specimen I; (b) Specimen II; (c) Specimen III under Test Protocol I up to 0.9% drift ratio

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6. Average posttension force versus lateral displacement under Test Protocol I for (a) Specimen I; (b) Specimen II; (c) Specimen III

surface conditions. Under Test Protocol I, all specimens had larger
shear slip than gap openings. Joint shear is plotted against shear slip
at each joint for all specimens in Fig. 7 for up to the cycle at RSD-
DE. Results from joints where virtually no shear slip was measured
were omitted from this figure. The force required to activate shear
slip was lower than 44 kN (10 kips) for all specimens. This force
is lower than the rocking force and therefore shear slip takes place
before rocking. The stiffening at large shear-slip amplitudes is
attributable to strands bearing against ducts and a nonproportional
increase in rocking compared to shear slip. Fig. 7 shows that the
large energy dissipation and low self-centering capability observed
in Fig. 5 mainly resulted from shear slip. Shear slip depends on
many factors, including surface characteristics, contact area, and
normal force, and was observed to occur in a random joint order
even though shear force was expected to be the same at each joint.
Although shear slip was asymmetric at individual joints because of
segment twisting in Specimens II and III, the global response
(Fig. 5) was symmetric because of symmetry in cumulative shear
slip of all joints.
Joint openings concentrated in the first three column segment
joints from the bottom for all specimens and were smaller than
shear slip displacements. The joint opening affected the shear-
slip response by changing segment contact area and posttension
force.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 7. Shear force versus joint shear slip under Test Protocol I for (a) Specimen I; (b) Specimen II; (c) Specimen III

© ASCE 04017161-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 8. Hysteretic response of (a) Specimen I; (b) Specimen II; (c) Specimen III under Test Protocol II up to failure displacement
Results of Tests Performed with Test Protocol II
Global Response
The lateral-force versus lateral-displacement hysteretic response of
specimens to Test Protocol II is shown in Fig. 8. The displacement
amplitude of the eighth set of loading cycles was 51 mm (2 in.),
which is the closest amplitude to RSD-MCE [47 mm (1.85 in.)].
For all specimens, the bilinear hysteretic curves virtually overlapped
with each other for the first four cycles of Specimen I, eight cycles of
Specimen II, and nine cycles of Specimen III, resulting in self-
centering but low energy dissipation. Rocking did not initiate until
12.7 mm (0.5 in.) of lateral displacement for any of the specimens.
Several abrupt degradations in strength were observed and attributed
to random and sudden shear slip at large displacements. As a re-
sult, the area under the hysteretic loops grew larger, indicating en-
ergy dissipation and partial loss of recentering capability. Shear slip
was offset by a decrease in gap opening, leading to a sudden de-
crease of posttension force. All specimens, however, maintained
their strength, stiffness, and self-centering capability throughout the
test, even when the actuator reached its displacement-loading capac-
ity of 488 mm (19.2 in.). This displacement corresponds to 14.6%
lateral-drift ratio, which is much larger than the ones expected at DE
or MCE hazard levels. The lateral strength plateaued at larger dis-
placements because of the yielding of strands.
Posttension Force
The average posttension force of strands is plotted against the
global lateral displacement for each specimen in Fig. 9. The time
KPT-SPI
(a)
Fig. 9. Average posttension force versus lateral displacement for Test Protocol II for (a) Specimen I; (b) Specimen II; (c) Specimen III
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161
(b) (c)
history of force in each posttension strand revealed that the sudden
drops of posttension force were concurrent with the degradations of
lateral strength shown in Fig. 8. The slopes (or increase) of post-
tension force in Fig. 9 for Specimens II and III (denoted K PT-II and
K PT-III , respectively) were higher and correspond to larger strand
elongations than the one for Specimen I (denoted K PT-I ). This dif-
ference was caused by the differences of conventional concrete and
UHPC to resist damage. Specimen I, with a normal concrete bottom
segment, had more damage at the rocking edge, causing a shift in
the pivot point of rocking. On the contrary, for specimens with
UHPC, the pivot point of rocking remained at the column bottom
edge, causing a larger gap opening at the segment–foundation joint.
Larger inelastic strand strains and larger wedge seating caused a
larger posttension loss (more than 90%) in Specimens II and III
than they did for Specimen I (68%) at failure. The maximum axial
stress change caused by the variation in forces in gravity strands
was within 3.5 and 17.0% of total axial stress at RSD-MCE and
maximum drift ratios, respectively.
Displacement Source
Gap opening controlled the overall performance during Test
Protocol II. Shear slip in all specimens was small, particularly when
compared to gap opening, and is not shown in this paper. Shear
slip did not exceed 16, 7, and 12% of the total displacement for
Specimens I, II, and III, respectively. Joint-slip time history con-
firmed that small random shear slip coincided with the sudden de-
crease of joint rotation, resulting in the momentary decrease of
posttension force and global lateral strength.
KPT-II KPT-SPIII
(b) (c)
04017161-6 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10. Moment versus joint opening at Joint 0 under Test Protocol II for (a) Specimen I; (b) Specimen II; (c) Specimen III

Gap opening controlled the overall performance during Test
Protocol II. At small lateral displacements of less than 25.4 mm
(1 in.), gap opening was comparable at each joint for each speci-
men. At the prerocking stage, where the response is similar to that
of a monolithic column with a constant increase in curvature along
the height, this response was expected. With the increase of lateral
displacement, gap opening concentrated at the bottom column
joint, causing the pier to rotate similarly to a rigid body for all spec-
imens. The relationship between moment and rotation at the bottom
column segment–foundation joint is displayed for each specimen in
Fig. 10. Moment-rotation curves demonstrated high self-centering
capability for all specimens. At large displacements, yielding of
posttension strands in Specimens II and III was more evident than
in Specimen I. The force needed to initiate rocking decreased with
larger displacements, primarily because of the posttension loss, and
secondarily because of loss of concrete cover.
Impact of UHPC on Seismic Response
The response of the three specimens was compared to understand
the enhancement of seismic response and damage control because
of UHPC and to understand whether mild steel reinforcing bars are
necessary for UHPC column segments. Strength, stiffness, energy
dissipation, self-centering, and damage were compared for all spec-
imens for Test Protocols I and II. Damage was also quantitatively
assessed by impact-hammer testing.
calculated as the average of values in the positive and negative
directions. For specimens under Test Protocol I, the stiffness of
specimens depended on shear slip. Specimen III, for which shear
slip was the most significant among all specimens, had a lower
lateral stiffness than the other specimens. Use of UHPC did not
change stiffness or strength for specimens where shear slip was
allowed. During Test Protocol II, shear slip was prevented as a re-
sult of degradation in the silicone layer between segments. Table 2
indicates that Specimen II and III had higher stiffness and strength
at larger displacements than Specimen I. Concrete spalling in
Specimen I led to stiffness and strength loss, even though postten-
sion loss in Specimen I was smaller because of the shift in rocking
pivot point. Specimens II and III, with negligible concrete spalling,
had minor differences in stiffness and strength.
Energy Dissipation and Self-Centering Capability
The hysteretic energy dissipation of the specimens is quantified by
using an equivalent viscous damping ratio (Chopra 2007). A higher
ratio value indicates higher energy-dissipation capacity. Energy dis-
sipation for a given cycle is computed by calculating the area under
the hysteresis loop. The equivalent stiffness was taken as the secant
stiffness of a given loop. Figs. 11(a and b) present a comparison of
the viscous damping ratio of all specimens under Test Protocols I
and II, respectively.
The self-centering capacity was quantified using a residual
displacement ratio, which was calculated as the ratio of the total

Strength and Stiffness

Tables 1 and 2 present the peak lateral displacement and force Table 2. Peak Lateral Displacement and Force at Each Loading Cycle of
at each loading cycle for specimens under Test Protocols I and II, Test Protocol II
respectively. The lateral-force and displacement amplitudes were Peak lateral Peak lateral Peak lateral force (kN)
displacement drift ratio
(mm) (%) Specimen I Specimen II Specimen III
Table 1. Peak Lateral Displacement and Force at Each Loading Cycle of 2.5 0.1 23.6 26.7 22.2
Test Protocol I 5.1 0.2 41.8 48.0 39.6
10.2 0.3 65.8 72.9 64.1
Peak lateral Peak lateral Peak lateral force (kN)
15.2 0.5 78.7 83.6 73.4
displacement drift ratio
20.3 0.6 85.0 90.3 78.3
(mm) (%) Specimen I Specimen II Specimen III
25.4 0.8 90.3 96.5 83.2
2.5 0.1 23.1 21.8 20.0 50.8 1.5 108.5 118.8 104.1
5.1 0.2 38.7 35.6 32.0 101.6 3.0 127.7 151.7 135.2
10.2 0.3 53.8 52.0 43.6 177.8 5.3 152.6 185.0 170.8
15.2 0.5 61.4 59.2 49.4 254.0 7.6 167.7 199.7 193.5
20.3 0.6 68.9 63.2 53.8 342.9 10.2 180.1 206.8 206.8
25.4 0.8 74.3 68.9 57.8 431.8 12.9 179.3 208.6 210.8
31.2 0.9 77.4 78.7 63.6 487.7 14.6 178.8 196.6 211.7

© ASCE 04017161-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161

 Lateral Drift Ratio (%)

Eq. Damping Ratio

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Peak Displacement at the Corresponding Cycle (mm)

(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Comparison of equivalent viscous damping ratios of specimens under (a) Test Protocol I; (b) Test Protocol II

Lateral Drift Ratio (%)

Residual Displacement Ratio

Peak Displacement at the Corresponding Cycle (mm)

(a) (b)

Fig. 12. Comparison of residual displacement ratios of specimens under (a) Test Protocol I; (b) Test Protocol II

residual displacement at the end of each cycle to the total peak
displacement at that cycle. Displacements were calculated as the
sum of displacements in positive and negative directions for each
cycle. Lower values of the residual displacement ratio indicate
higher self-centering capabilities. Figs. 12(a and b) provide a com-
parison of residual displacement ratio for all specimens under Test
Protocols I and II, respectively.
For all specimens under Test Protocol I, the viscous damping
ratio increased as the displacement amplitude increased. This trend
is caused by the increasing contribution of shear slip to lateral dis-
placement. Similarly, for all specimens under Test Protocol I,
residual displacements increased with increasing displacement am-
plitudes. Figs. 11(a) and 12(a) show that Specimens II and III had
better energy dissipation than Specimen I, but at the expense of
residual displacements. Similar to the stiffness, the differences be-
tween the equivalent viscous damping ratio and residual displace-
ment ratio stemmed from shear slip and not from material type
under Test Protocol I. Use of UHPC, therefore, did not alter energy
dissipation or self-centering.
Figs. 11(b) and 12(b) indicate that in the absence of shear slip
under Test Protocol II, specimens have small and similar equivalent
viscous damping ratios (less than 0.1), and residual displacement
ratios (less than 0.3). As expected, UHPC or reinforcing bars in
UHPC did not contribute to energy dissipation because the bottom
column segment acted as a rigid body with localized compressive
strains at the rocking edge, as opposed to well-distributed bending
strains. Because viscous damping and self-centering ratios are unit-
less, similar ratios can be expected at full scale.
Damage Assessment
Inspection of Posttension Loss
For Test Protocol I, the posttension loss was proportional to the
shear slip amount for all specimens. Small posttension losses in
Test Protocol II, for which shear slip was prevented at similar dis-
placement amplitudes as in Test Protocol I, confirm this conclusion.
Use of UHPC, therefore, did not affect the posttension loss under
Test Protocol I caused by shear slip.
Other factors, including use of UHPC, controlled the postten-
sion loss for Test Protocol II. Fig. 13 examines these factors, start-
ing at the cycle of 51 mm (2 in.) displacement because losses before
this displacement were negligible. Fig. 13(a) shows the slope of
posttension force with displacement (denoted K PT and shown in
Fig. 9) as a function of lateral displacement amplitude at each load-
ing cycle. The slope of posttension force, or increase in posttension
force, in Specimen I was smaller, which is attributable to the shift
of rocking pivot point toward the cross-section centerline caused
by cover concrete spalling and crushing. The strands yielded at a
larger displacement amplitude of 178 mm (7 in.) for Specimen I,
compared with the displacement amplitude of 254 mm (10 in.) for
Specimens II and III. Fig. 13(b) compares posttension loss ratio at

© ASCE 04017161-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161

 Lateral Drift Ratio (%)
PT Loss Ratio (%)
KPT (KN/mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Peak Displacement at the Corresponding Cycle (mm)
(a)
Fig. 13. Comparison of (a) posttension force increase; (b) posttension loss for specimens under Test Protocol II
the end of each loading cycle for specimens. Specimens II and III
had larger posttension losses. For Specimens II and III, the column
rotated around the column bottom edge, increasing forces in post-
tension strands. Higher posttension forces caused larger inelastic
strains and anchorage wedge seating, leading to higher posttension
losses in UHPC specimens.
Inspection of Changes in Stiffness
Damage to specimens was assessed by comparing the change
in stiffness of specimens caused by testing. For Test Protocol I,
Figs. 5–7 indicate that the differences of secant stiffness for each
specimen is highly depended on shear slip, rather than specimen
material type, for specimens with comparable posttension forces.
Under Test Protocol II, as displacements increased, all speci-
mens went through a decompression stage, a rocking or joint-
opening stage, and a stage where strands yielded, before failure
was reached. Only the stiffness change at the last stage is related
to damage in the form of strand yielding. To investigate accumu-
lated damage, Figs. 14(a and b) present the stiffness (K initial ) and
posttension force (PT initial ) at the beginning of each cycle, respec-
tively. Specimen I had the largest degradation of initial stiffness
after each cycle among all specimens, even though it had higher
posttension force at the beginning of each cycle. The main source
of this degradation was concrete spalling. Loss of posttension force
had a secondary effect on initial stiffness compared with concrete
spalling. Concrete spalling and posttension loss were not signifi-
cant enough to cause large residual displacements, even at large
displacements, for Specimen I.
Lateral Drift Ratio (%)
Normalized PTinitial
Normalized Kinitial
Peak Displacement at the Corresponding Cycle (mm)
(a)
Fig. 14. Comparison of (a) normalized initial stiffness; (b) normalized posttension force for specimens under Test Protocol II
© ASCE 04017161-9
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161
(b)
Inspection of Changes in Dynamic Properties
The damage to specimens in Test Protocols I and II was assessed
by measuring dynamic properties of specimens before and after
testing. The natural frequency and damping ratios of specimens
were obtained by impact-hammer testing. The fundamental fre-
quency was identified where Fourier amplitude spectra accelera-
tions peaked for the cap beam and Column Segments 5 and 3.
In order to identify the free-vibration part of the motion, a band-
pass zero-phase filter with a frequency range suitable to filter the
acceleration time-history response from other modes and noise was
used. The acceleration time-history response was fitted to the free-
vibration expression of a single-degree-of-freedom system with
classical damping (Chopra 2007). Coefficient of determination (R2 )
was also calculated to judge the fit. In addition, the fundamental
frequency obtained from this method was compared with frequen-
cies at which the Fourier amplitude spectra accelerations peaked.
The results from the two methods matched well.
Figs. 15(a and b) presents natural frequency and damping ratio
of each specimen in the direction of loading before and after each
test. Impact test data for Specimen II before Test Protocol II were
not available, and are shown as N/A in Figs. 15(a and b). The re-
sults of damping ratio calculations with R2 values lower than 0.9,
indicating a poor fit to the theoretical free-vibration expression, are
also omitted and shown by their respective R2 values in Fig. 15(b).
The posttension force on specimens affects their stiffness and
dynamic properties. Hence, the average posttension force of inter-
nal and gravity strands is also given in Fig. 15(c) before and after
each test. The target posttension force was 89 kN (20 kips) per
(b)
J. Struct. Eng.
 7%

Fundamental Frequency
6%

Damping Ratio (%)

5%
4%

(Hz)
3%

R2 = 0.81

R2 = 0.64
2%

N/A
N/A
1%
0%
SP I SP II SP III SP I SP II SP III SP I SP II SP III SP I SP II SP III
Test Protocol I Test Protocol II Test Protocol I Test Protocol II
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)
120

Average PT Force (kN)

Target PT force = 89 kN : Before test
100
: After test
80
60
40
20
0
SP I SP II SP III SP I SP II SP III
Test Protocol I Test Protocol II
(c)

Fig. 15. Variations in (a) fundamental frequency; (b) damping ratio; (c) average posttension force for specimens before and after Test
Protocols I and II

internal strand. Variations from the target posttension force were cameras during all tests. Each specimen was inspected in detail
small (less than 15%) and were caused by limitations of manual for damage on the exterior concrete surfaces after each test. Visible
posttensioning. The small difference between the posttension forces damage to strands, ducts, and interior concrete surfaces were doc-
in Fig. 15(c) and Figs. 6 and 9 are attributable to the weight of the umented by disassembling specimens after Test Protocol II.
actuator and inclusion of gravity strands. During Test Protocol I, all specimens had repairable damage. It
All specimens had similar fundamental frequencies of ap- should be recalled that Specimen I had twice the displacement of
proximately 10 Hz before Test Protocol I, similar to ones identified the other specimens under Test Protocol I. In all specimens, column
elsewhere (Sideris 2012) for similar specimens. This indicates segments were misaligned as a result of asymmetric and irrecov-
that replacing the bottom segment of piers with UHPC with or erable shear slip. Shear slip also caused silicone, placed to develop
without mild reinforcement does not considerably change seismic shear slip, to be pressed out of the joint interfaces. Damage to the
demand at small displacements. The initial damping ratios of all bottom column segment of specimens with varying concrete types
specimens were also similar, between 1.3 and 1.4%. In order to is shown on the faces perpendicular to the loading direction in
restore the stiffness after Test Protocol I, specimens were either Fig. 16. For Specimen I with normal concrete, concrete cracking
re-posttensioned (Specimen II and III) or rebuilt (Specimen I). initiated on top of the bottom segment and propagated downward
Specimens were rebuilt if a difference of more than 20% in funda- for 254 mm (10 in.). Concrete in one corner of the bottom segment
mental frequency was measured after testing. Specimen initial fun- spalled off along the full segment height. The first concrete spalling
damental frequencies were within 10 and 20% of each other for occurred at 25.4-mm (1-in.) displacement or a 0.7% drift ratio.
Test Protocols I and II, respectively. Recall that Test Protocol I on Damage was triggered by friction between segments and by bearing
Specimen I had twice the peak displacement amplitude of the other of strands against ducts. Specimens II and III with UHPC had no
specimens. visible damage at RSD-DE of 31.2 mm (1.23 in.) or 0.9% drift
For all specimens, the most significant loss in stiffness (decrease ratio.
in fundamental frequency) was found for Test Protocol II. Despite Under Test Protocol II, all specimens remained in a low-damage
the fact that the remaining posttension force in Specimen I after state where the confined core remained intact. Some concrete spall-
Test Protocol II was approximately four times that for other spec- ing occurred at upper column segments because of sudden shear
imens, the three specimens had similar fundamental frequencies slip at upper column joints. Fig. 17 shows damage to the bottom
after Test Protocol II. This is a quantitative indicator of severe con- column segment on the faces perpendicular to the loading direction at
crete damage in Specimen I. This damage did not occur in other the end of Test Protocol II. UHPC specimens had minor damage (edge
specimens. Damage to Specimen I was also evident from the high crushing) even at large displacements. The damage was confined to an
damping-ratio change (from 1.1 to 6.1%) of Specimen I under Test area smaller than 25.4 mm (1 in.) wide near the rocking edges and was
Protocol II. Evaluation of stiffness and damping ratios indicates in the form of the steel fibers breaking. The fibers breaking was
that both posttension loss and concrete damage degrade stiffness. audible at large displacements but fibers were able to hold concrete
together, preventing spalling. The comparison of damage in
Inspection of Visible Damage Specimens II and III showed that reinforcement bars in Specimen II
Visible damage, i.e., cracking, spalling, and crushing of concrete, did not contribute to damage protection. For Specimen I, concrete
as well as permanent shear slip, were monitored using video cover was lost, confinement reinforcement was exposed, and the

© ASCE 04017161-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 16. Comparisons of bottom segment damage after Test Protocol I

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 17. Comparison of bottom segment damage after Test Protocol II

rocking edges were entirely crushed. Spalling damage was spread
to an area 254 mm (10 in.) wide. The displacements at which
specimens failed under Test Protocol II, 15%, were well above
the displacements expected even during maximum-level
earthquakes. UHPC specimens had minor damage even at this
very large displacement level.
Upon disassembly of the specimens after Test Protocol II, it was
revealed that elongations in strands towards the edge of col-
umn cross section were visible, implying yield. None of the post-
tension strands fractured, except a single wire broken in one strand
located eccentrically in Specimen III. Localized bending of strands
was observed near segment joints resulting from shear slip. Several
cracks were detected in the anchorage chucks. Strand yield was
expected as maximum posttension force was measured to be
261 kN (58.6 kips), larger than the yield capacity.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper presented an experimental investigation of the response
of large-scale precast posttensioned concrete segmental column
specimens with UHPC to quasi-static cyclic lateral loading. UHPC
was used in the system to eliminate damage near the rocking
planes of segmental columns. In addition, to offset the high
cost of UHPC, elimination of mild steel reinforcement bars, includ-
ing confinement reinforcement, in UHPC was also investigated.

© ASCE 04017161-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161

 Table 3. Summary of the Improvement from Using UHPC
Shear slip Gap opening Stiffness and strength
Allowed Allowed Insignificant
Disallowed Disallowed Significant
The contribution of UHPC to damage tolerance was assessed by
comparing the response of columns with UHPC to a reference
conventional concrete column. Similarly, the contribution of mild
reinforcing bars to damage control was evaluated by comparing the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
response of UHPC columns with and without mild reinforcement
bars. To control the cost of the system, UHPC was used for only the
bottom column segment of the segmental pier. Specimens were
displaced to RSD-DE, RSD-MCE, and failure under two testing
protocols called Test Protocols I and II. In Test Protocol I, specimens
had fresh silicone between segments and were tested to a peak
displacement amplitude of 31.2 mm (1.23 in.). In Test Protocol
II, specimens had deteriorated silicone between segments and were
tested to a peak displacement amplitude of 487.7 mm (19.2 in.).
During Test Protocol I, the impact of UHPC on stiffness,
strength, and energy dissipation was minor because these were pri-
marily affected by shear slip. Specimens displayed high energy dis-
sipation but low self-centering capability because of shear slip. The
equivalent damping ratios and residual displacement ratios were
larger than 15 and 35%, respectively, at the RSD-DE cycle.
Posttension loss was small and less than 10% in all specimens
at RSD-DE (0.9% lateral drift ratio).
At RSD-DE, UHPC was effective in preventing damage. The
conventional concrete specimen had cover spalling and cracking at
RSD-DE in the bottom segment caused by Test Protocol I. Damage
to this specimen was related to shear slip and friction between seg-
ments. At the same displacement, there was no visible cracking,
spalling, or crushing in the UHPC specimens. The UHPC specimen
without reinforcing bars had identical damage to the one with
reinforcing bars, indicating longitudinal or confinement reinforcing
are not needed when UHPC is used for DE-level designs.
The impact of UHPC on strength and stiffness was evident when
shear slip was limited in Test Protocol II. The responses of all spec-
imens were governed by a gap opening at the column–foundation
joint. The stiffness and strength of UHPC specimens were higher
than those of conventional concrete because of elimination of dam-
age to concrete, particularly at large displacements. In all speci-
mens, the residual displacements remained smaller than 10 and
20% of the total displacement amplitude at MCE and failure level
displacements, respectively. Energy dissipation, mainly caused by
strand yielding, was minimal. The equivalent damping ratio was
below 20% for all specimens.
The accumulation of damage was evident in the conventional
concrete specimen from the decrease of the stiffness at the begin-
ning of each cycle. The accumulated damage was in the form of
concrete section loss and posttension loss. Posttension loss was
higher in UHPC specimens than in conventional concrete because
the pivot point of rocking shifted inside the cross section in conven-
tional concrete because of section loss. Specimens with UHPC, de-
spite having higher posttension losses, had smaller reductions in
initial stiffness, indicating better damage control. This was related
to the smaller cross-section loss in UHPC than in conventional
concrete.
Impact-hammer tests showed that all specimens with com-
parable posttension force had similar stiffness before testing. Re-
placing one segment of the column with UHPC with or without
reinforcement did not change the initial stiffness considerably, in-
dicating UHPC will not increase seismic demand at small
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161
Energy dissipation Self-centering Damage control
Insignificant Insignificant Moderate
Insignificant Moderate Significant
displacements. Re-posttensioning specimens that did not have vis-
ible signs of damage was sufficient to restore initial stiffness.
Approximately 50% loss in fundamental frequency was iden-
tified for all specimens after Test Protocol II. Specimen with con-
ventional concrete, despite retaining a larger posttension force, had
a smaller fundamental frequency and higher damping ratio com-
pared with UHPC specimens, quantifying damage in conventional
concrete.
All specimens, regardless of the bottom segment type, had
acceptable damage at DE and MCE. Acceptable damage is defined
as reparable damage where confined concrete remains undamaged.
UHPC specimens even without mild reinforcement had no visible
damage, indicating no repairs would be necessary after a major
earthquake. At a failure displacement much beyond the seismic
demand, damage to UHPC segments was confined to 4% of the
segment height near the rocking edges. Although the edges were
crushed, no spalling or section loss occurred. At this displacement,
the conventional concrete segment suffered severe concrete spall-
ing, with edge concrete crushing propagating to 40% the column
segment height and exposing reinforcement. The difference in dam-
age to the UHPC segments with and without mild steel reinforce-
ment was negligible, indicating that steel reinforcement, including
the confinement reinforcement, can be eliminated with UHPC to
further accelerate construction and reduce cost. The reduction in
initial cost is particularly beneficial given the higher initial material
cost of UHPC.
Because segmental shear slip can be a source of energy dissipa-
tion, UHPC was evaluated on specimens with and without shear
slip. The contribution of UHPC to stiffness, strength, energy dissi-
pation, self-centering, and damage control is summarized in Table 3
for cases with and without shear slip. The impact of UHPC on dam-
age protection was more pronounced for cases without shear slip,
partially a reflection of higher maximum drift ratios. In both cases,
the UHPC segments were successful in eliminating damage.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support pro-
vided by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
(MCEER) of University at Buffalo. Donation of labor and materials
by LafargeHolcim for the construction of the specimens is also ac-
knowledged. The results, conclusions, and opinions given in this
paper are the ones of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the funding agencies and the parties acknowledged.
References
Anagnostopoulou, M. (2009). “Seismic design and analysis of precast seg-
mental concrete bridge superstructure.” M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of Pavia,
Pavia, Italy.
Billington, S., and Yoon, J. (2004). “Cyclic response of unbonded post-
tensioned precast columns with ductile fiber-reinforced concrete.”
J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2004)9:4(353), 353–363.
Calvi, G. M., Pavese, A., Rasulo, A., and Bolognini, D. (2005). “Exper-
imental and numerical studies on the seismic response of R.C. hollow
bridge piers.” Bull. Earthquake Eng., 3(3), 267–297.
04017161-12 J. Struct. Eng.
 Chopra, A. K. (2007). Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to
earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall, New Delhi, India.
Chou, C.-C., and Chen, Y.-C. (2006). “Cyclic tests of post-tensioned
precast CFT segmental bridge columns with un-bonded strands.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(2), 159–175.
Cruz Noguez, C., and Saiidi, M. (2012). “Shake-table studies of a four-span
bridge model with advanced materials.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000457, 183–192.
ElGawady, M., and Sha’lan, A. (2011). “Seismic behavior of self-centering
precast segmental bridge bents.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0000174, 328–339.
Guerrini, G., Restrepo, J., Massari, M., and Vervelidis, A. (2014).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 09/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
“Seismic behavior of posttensioned self-centering precast concrete
dual-shell steel columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943
-541X.0001054, 04014115.
Harris, G. H., and Sabnis, G. (1999). Structural modeling and experimental
techniques, 2nd Ed., CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Hewes, J. T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (2002). “Seismic design and
performance of precast concrete segmental bridge columns.” Rep. No.
SSRP-2001/25, Univ. of California, San Diego.
Hosseini, F., Gencturk, B., Lahpour, S., and Gil, D. I. (2015). “An exper-
imental investigation of innovative bridge columns with engineered
cementitious composites and Cu-Al–Mn super-elastic alloys.” Smart
Mater. Struct., 24(8), 085029.
Ichikawa, S., Matsuzaki, H., Moustafa, A., ElGawady, M., and Kawashima,
K. (2016). “Seismic-resistant bridge columns with ultrahigh-
performance concrete segments.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0000898, 04016049.
Lafarge Canada. (2009). “Product data sheet: JS 1000.” 〈http://www.ductal
.com/JS1000_2009.pdf〉 (Jan. 15, 2015).
Lee, W., Jeong, H., Billington, S., Mahin, S., and Sakai, J. (2007).
“Post-tensioned structural concrete bridge piers with self-centering
characteristics.” Structural Engineering Research Frontiers, Proc., Re-
search Frontiers Sessions of the 2007 Structures Congress, Long
Beach, CA, 1–15.
Mander, J. B., and Cheng, C.-T. (1997). “Seismic resistance of bridge piers
based on damage avoidance design.” Technical Rep. No. NCEER-97-
0014, Univ. at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Marriott, D., Pampanin, S., and Palermo, A. (2009). “Quasi-static and
pseudo-dynamic testing of unbonded post-tensioned rocking bridge
piers with external replaceable dissipaters.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., 38(3), 331–354.
Marsh, L. M., Wernli, M., Garrett, B. E., Stanton, J. F., Eberhard, M. O.,
and Weinert, M. D. (2011). “Application of accelerated bridge con-
struction connections in moderate-to-high seismic regions.” Rep. 698,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Mashal, M., and Palermo, A. (2015). “High-damage and low-damage seis-
mic design technologies for accelerated bridge construction.” Structures
Congress 2015, ASCE, Reston, VA, 549–560.
Morgen, B., and Kurama, Y. (2004). “A friction damper for post-tensioned
precast concrete beam-to-column joints.” PCI J., 49(4), 112–133.
Ou, Y., Chiewanichakorn, M., Aref, A., and Lee, G. (2007). “Seismic
performance of segmental precast unbonded posttensioned concrete
bridge columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:
11(1636), 1636–1647.
© ASCE 04017161-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(12): 04017161
Palermo, A., Pampanin, S., and Marriott, D. (2007). “Design, modeling,
and experimental response of seismic resistant bridge piers with post-
tensioned dissipating connections.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2007)133:11(1648), 1648–1661.
Pinto, A., Molina, J., and Tsionis, G. (2003). “Cyclic tests on large-scale
models of existing bridge piers with rectangular hollow cross-section.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 32(13), 1995–2012.
Priestley, M., Sritharan, S., Conley, J. R., and Pampanin, S. (1999). “Pre-
liminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-storey precast
concrete test building.” PCI J., 44(6), 42–67.
Roh, H., and Reinhorn, A. M. (2010). “Hysteretic behavior of precast
segmental bridge piers with superelastic shape memory alloy bars.”
Eng. Struct., 32(10), 3394–3403.
Russell, H. G., and Graybeal, B. A. (2013). “Ultra-high performance con-
crete: A state-of-the-art report for the bridge community.” Rep. No.
FHWA-HRT-13-060, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
DC.
Sideris, P. (2012). “Seismic analysis and design of precast concrete seg-
mental bridges.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Sideris, P., Aref, A., and Filiatrault, A. (2014a). “Large-scale seismic test-
ing of a hybrid sliding-rocking posttensioned segmental bridge system.”
J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000961, 04014025.
Sideris, P., Aref, A., and Filiatrault, A. (2014b). “Quasi-static cyclic testing
of a large-scale hybrid sliding-rocking segmental column with slip-
dominant joints.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000605, 04014036.
Solberg, K., Mashiko, N., Mander, J., and Dhakal, R. (2009). “Performance
of a damage-protected highway bridge pier subjected to bidirectional
earthquake attack.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)
135:5(469), 469–478.
Tazarv, M., and Saiid Saiidi, M. (2015a). “Low-damage precast columns
for accelerated bridge construction in high seismic zones.” J. Bridge
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000806, 04015056.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2015b). “UHPC-filled duct connections for
accelerated bridge construction of RC columns in high seismic zones.”
Eng. Struct., 99(3), 413–422.
Trono, W., Jen, G., Panagiotou, M., Schoettler, M., and Ostertag, C. (2014).
“Seismic response of a damage-resistant recentering posttensioned-
HYFRC bridge column.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943
-5592.0000692, 04014096.
Yamashita, R., and Sanders, D. H. (2009). “Seismic performance of
precast unbonded prestressed concrete columns.” ACI Struc. J.,
106(6), 821–830.
Yang, C., and Okumus, P. (2017). “The influence of segment interface char-
acteristics on seismic performance of post-tensioned precast segmental
bridge piers.” PCI Convention and National Bridge Conf., Precast/
Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago.
Zhu, Z., Ahmad, I., and Mirmiran, A. (2006). “Seismic performance of
concrete-filled FRP tube columns for bridge substructure.” J. Bridge
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2006)11:3(359), 359–370.
Zohrevand, P., and Mirmiran, A. (2012). “Cyclic behaviour of hybrid
columns made of ultra high performance concrete and fiber rein-
forced polymers.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
.0000234, 91–99.
J. Struct. Eng.