See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277304961

Seismic Performance of Precast Columns with Mechanically Spliced

Column-Footing Connections

Article in ACI Structural Journal · May 2014

DOI: 10.14359/51686624

CITATIONS READS

193 6,235

3 authors:

Zachary B. Haber M. Saiid Saiidi

University of South Florida University of Nevada, Reno
54 PUBLICATIONS 1,071 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 1,775 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Sanders
University of Nevada, Reno
92 PUBLICATIONS 1,603 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zachary B. Haber on 27 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
MS No. S-2012-286.R2
Seismic Performance of Precast Columns with
Mechanically Spliced Column-Footing Connections
by Zachary B. Haber, M. Saiid Saiidi, and David H. Sanders
This paper presents the results from a large-scale experimental
study that was conducted at the University of Nevada, Reno, NV.
Five half-scale bridge column models were constructed and tested
under reversed slow cyclic loading. The study focused on devel-
oping four new moment connections at column-footing joints for
accelerated bridge construction in regions of high seismicity.
The new connections were employed in precast columns, each
using mechanical splices to create connectivity with reinforcing
bars in a cast-in-place footing. Two different mechanical splices
were studied: an upset headed coupler and a grout-filled sleeve
coupler. Along with the splice type, the location of couplers within
the plastic hinge zone was also a test variable. All precast models
were designed with the intent to emulate conventional cast-in-place
construction and, thus, were compared with a conventional cast-in-
place test model. Results indicate the behavior of these new connec-
tions was similar to that of conventional cast-in-place construction
with respect to key response parameters, although the plastic hinge
mechanism could be significantly affected by the couplers.
Keywords: accelerated bridge construction; cyclic loading; ductility;
emulative; grout sleeve; mechanical coupler; plastic hinge.
INTRODUCTION
Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) has become
increasingly popular throughout the United States because
of its numerous advantages. In many cases, ABC methodol-
ogies have been shown to decrease bridge construction time
and reduce the overall project cost. To effectively execute
many of these projects, designers use prefabricated struc-
tural elements that can be manufactured off-site in parallel
with on-site construction, delivered to the site, and quickly
assembled to form a functional structural system. It is advan-
tageous to the bridge designer if ABC systems emulate
conventional cast-in-place (CIP) construction systems
because, if this can be achieved, typical analysis and design
procedures can be used. The difficulty with developing
emulative systems is usually in detailing of connections
because of their critical role in transferring forces and main-
taining stability of the structure. Substructure connections
are particularly critical in high seismic zones because they
should dissipate energy through significant cyclic nonlinear
deformations while maintaining their capacity and the integ-
rity of the structural system.
In recent years, much attention has been paid to substruc-
ture connections for ABC projects. A state-of-the-art report
was released by the Federal Highway Administration1 in
2009 that discussed prefabricated bridge system connection
details conceptualized and implemented by bridge engi-
neers. A similar report was recently released that discussed
connections for moderate-to-high seismic zones.2 Many of
the connections mentioned in these literature surveys have
ACI Structural Journal
TECHNICAL PAPER
been evaluated in laboratory studies, including grouted duct
connections,3,4 pocket-type connections,4 and column-in-
socket connects.5,6 The performance of these connections
was comparable to CIP baseline models, but the connections
may require unconventional design procedures or detailing
requirements. Mechanically spliced connections could
provide emulative behavior with minimal deviation from
conventional design procedures and details. Studies have
been conducted in Japan7 and Taiwan8,9 using grout-filled
sleeve splices within plastic hinge zones to make moment
connections in beam-column joints, column-footing joints, or
both. Other studies investigating the application of mechan-
ical splices within plastic hinge zones were conducted by
Lehman et. al.10 and Reetz et. al.11
Previous studies do not provide information as to how
mechanical splices can be used to design and construct
precast bridge columns that conform to United States stan-
dards. An experimental study was conducted at the Univer-
sity of Nevada, Reno, NV, to investigate the performance
of these devices in moment connections between precast
columns and CIP footings by testing five large-scale models
under cyclic loading. This paper summarizes the important
aspects of the study and the results.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Numerous advantages of ABC have created demand for
substructure elements and connections that can resist seismic
loads. This study aimed at developing and characterizing the
seismic performance of new bridge column elements that
use mechanical reinforcement splices for connecting precast
columns to CIP footings. Connections were developed with
intent to emulate conventional seismic design such that
standard design procedures may be used. The results of this
study provide valuable insight on the behavior and design
of precast column connections under seismic loads and the
performance of mechanical splices in hinge zones, which is
currently prohibited by most design codes.
CODE PROVISIONS AND COUPLER SELECTION
Most building and bridge seismic design codes have
provisions that place minimum performance requirements
on mechanical reinforcing bar splices. Usually in the form of
specified stress or strains before failure, these performance
standards constrain the application of the device depending
ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 1-6, January-December 2014.
MS No. S-2012-286.R2 received January 3, 2013., and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2014, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion is received within four
months of the paper’s print publication.
1
Table 1—Current code requirements for mechanically spliced bars
Stress criterion for
Code Splice designation spliced bar
Type 1 1.25fy
ACI
Type 2 1.0fu
Full-mechanical
AASHTO 1.25fy
connection (FMC)
Minimum capacity
Service
Caltrans None
6% for No. 11 and larger
Ultimate
9% for No. 10 and smaller
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm
Fig. 1—Schematic of selected couplers.
on the expected demand. Table 1 outlines the code require-
ments for mechanically spliced bars that are covered in this
paper.
The American Concrete Institute12 (ACI) and the Amer-
ican Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials13 (AASHTO) use similar stress-based criteria to
define the splice designation. The ACI Type 1 and AASHTO
full-mechanical connection (FMC) splices are required to
develop 1.25 times the specified yield strength of the spliced
reinforcing bar without failure, and neither splice is allowed
for use in regions with expected large inelastic deforma-
tions. The AASHTO FMC should also satisfy a maximum
slip requirement. ACI requires a Type 2 splice to develop the
specified ultimate tensile strength of the spliced reinforcing
bars. An ACI Type 2 splice can be placed in any given
section of a structural member regardless of the deformation
demand unless stated otherwise in other provisions.
Caltrans14,15 places splices in two categories: ultimate
splice and service splice. Capacity and demand, as well as
the maximum slip, are specified, and location of the splice
is restricted, resulting in the strictest provision. Splices used
in elements intended to undergo significant nonlinear defor-
mations and dissipate energy during an earthquake are cate-
gorized as an ultimate splice even though the coupler is not
2 ACI Structural Journal
Location
Strain criterion for spliced bar Maximum slip criterion restriction
Yes
None None
No
No. 3 to 14 = 0.01 in.
None
No. 18 = 0.03 in.
Maximum demand No. 3 to 6 = 0.01 in.
No. 7 to 9 = 0.014 in. Yes
>2% <ey
No. 10 to 11 = 0.018 in.
No. 14 = 0.024 in.
<2%
No. 18 = 0.03 in.
allowed in the plastic hinge zone. The use of a service splice
in such elements is prohibited altogether.
Two mechanical splices were selected for this study based
on a literature review16-18 and discussion with the sponsor.
A number of different splices were initially considered. The
factors that affected the final selection were Caltrans prequal-
ification, applicability of splices to rapid installation, and
consistent mechanical performance reported in the literature.
Figure 1 shows the two coupler devices that were selected.
The upset headed coupler (HC) creates connectivity between
bars through a steel collar assembly, composed of threaded
male and female sleeves. Tensile force is transferred through
the steel collar assembly, while compression is directly
transferred by bearing between the bars. Mild steel shims are
used to fill any gaps between the heads. The grouted sleeve
coupler is composed of a ductile cast iron sleeve in which
the spliced bars are inserted and the sleeve is filled with a
proprietary high-strength cementitious grout. Tensile and
compressive forces are transferred by the deformed ribs on
the reinforcing bars into the high-strength grout, and then to
the cast-iron sleeve.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Five half-scale reinforced concrete bridge column models
with circular sections were investigated in this study: one
conventional CIP benchmark column, and four precast
columns. The models were identical, except for plastic
hinge connection details. The test matrix for this study is
shown in Table 2.
Benchmark column
The benchmark column (CIP) was designed using Caltrans
Seismic Design Criteria (SDC)14 for a target design displace-
ment ductility of mD = 7.0 so that it would undergo large
inelastic deformations before failure. The geometry and rein-
forcement details of CIP were selected to be representative
of flexural-dominate columns commonly used in California
with modern seismic detailing. An aspect ratio (cantilever
height-column diameter) of 4.5, longitudinal reinforcement
ratio of approximately 2%, and transverse steel ratio of 1%
were used. The axial load used in the design was 226 kip
(1005 kN), which corresponded to an axial load index (ALI)
of 0.10 (ALI is defined as the ratio of the axial load to the
product of the gross cross section area and the specified
Table 2—Test matrix
Coupler details
Code qualification
Model identification Description Precast pedestal Type ACI AASHTO Caltrans
CIP Cast-in-place (benchmark) No — — — —
Upset headed coupler connection without partial
HCNP No Upset headed Type 2 FMC Ultimate
pedestal
Upset headed coupler connection with partial
HCPP Yes Upset headed Type 2 FMC Ultimate
pedestal
Grouted sleeve coupler connection without
GCNP No Grout-filled sleeve Type 2 FMC Service
partial pedestal
Grouted sleeve coupler connection with partial
GCPP Yes Grout-filled sleeve Type 2 FMC Service
pedestal

concrete compressive strength). CIP was half-scale, with

a 24 in. (610 mm) diameter, assuming a 48 in. (1220 mm)
diameter prototype, and 108 in. (2743 mm) height from the
top of the footing to the line of action of the lateral load. A
rectangular reinforced concrete head atop each column was
used to transfer lateral load from the actuator. The footings
were designed to remain elastic, and were post-tensioned
to the strong floor to prevent sliding and overturning under
lateral loads. Construction of CIP was completed by casting
the footing with the column cage in place, forming the
column, placing the reinforcement for the loading head, and
casting the column and loading head simultaneously.

Precast columns
Four precast column models were tested with different
column-footing connection details. Two models were
connected directly to the footing (denoted NP for no
pedestal), and two models were connected atop a precast
pedestal (denoted PP for precast pedestal), one-half column
diameter in height, to reduce the moment demand on the
spliced region. Each precast column was first cast as a hollow
shell that incorporated the main longitudinal and transverse
reinforcing steel. After connection to the footing, the core
was filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC), which is a
highly flowable concrete able to spread into place and encap-
sulate reinforcement without mechanical vibration.
Figure 2 shows the details of the HC connection without
a pedestal (HCNP). The precast shell for the HC models
had a reduced section at the base, which allowed for the
threaded collars to protrude from the shell and for working
room such that the reinforcing bars in the footing and those
in the column could be connected. A template was used to
align longitudinal bars in the footing and column shell to
meet the tight tolerances required to join the two bar sets
with a transition bar measuring approximately 12 bar diam-
eters (Fig. 2(b)). Each transition bar was manufactured to
fit in an assigned location around the cross section, which
is a process that could require extra construction time in the
field. Before installing these bars, a spiral was placed around
the bars protruding from the footing, and the column shell
was lowered onto a layer of bedding mortar on the footing.
Once the shell was plumb, transition bars were inserted, and
each HC was torqued to 150 ft-lb (203 N-m), as specified
Fig. 2—HC connection: (a) HCNP connection details; (b)
transition bar; and (c) connection region before closure
grouting.
by the manufacturer of the couplers, to complete the instal-
lation. It was found that even though transition bars were
customized to each location around the column, small steel
shims were required to fill gaps between heads. After instal-
lation of transition bars, the spiral was raised and tied around
the longitudinal bars (Fig. 2(c)), and the connection region
was formed and filled by pumping a cementitious grout. The
construction time for this connection could vary greatly,
depending on the alignment of longitudinal bars.
The grouted coupler (GC) connection details and
construction photos are shown with the pedestal (GCPP) in
Fig. 3(a). The grout sleeve couplers were cast into the base
of the column shell with PVC ducts protruding to allow for
pumping grout into the sleeves (Fig. 3(b)). A corresponding
pattern of longitudinal reinforcing bar dowels were cast in the
footing/pedestal that protruded seven bar-diameters from the
surface of concrete (Fig. 3(c)). The field end of the GC has
length and location tolerances for reinforcing bar dowels of
approximately 0.5 and 0.9 in. (13 and 23 mm), respectively,

ACI Structural Journal 3


Fig. 3—GC connection: (a) GCPP connection details; (b)
precast column shell; and (c) precast pedestal and connec-
tion dowels.
for No. 8 bars; these tolerances vary with bar size. Special
washers, supplied by the manufacturer of the coupler, were
placed on footing dowels to prevent bedding mortar from
entering the sleeves during column placement. After place-
ment and shoring of the column shell, the sleeves were pres-
sure-grouted using a hand pump according to manufacturer
specifications. Once the column-footing connections were
complete, the loading heads were formed, and the core and
head of each precast model was filled with SCC.
The precast pedestal dimensions and reinforcement details
were the same for HCPP and GCPP. Each pedestal was 12 in.
(305 mm) high (one-half column diameter), and was match-
cast to the footing. Reinforcing bar dowels passed through
the pedestals via 2.25 in. (57 mm) inner diameter corrugated
steel-sheet ducts that were filled with cementitious grout
before installing the precast column shells.
Materials
Four different types of materials were used to construct
the columns: 1) mild reinforcing steel; 2) conventional port-
land cement concrete; 3) SCC; and 4) cementitious grout.
Each column model was reinforced in the longitudinal
direction with 11 No. 8 Grade 60 steel bars. The longitu-
dinal bars for CIP and the GC were composed of A615 steel,
while those used in the HC models were composed of A706
steel. Longitudinal bars had the same average measured
yield stress of 67 ksi (461 MPa) and ultimate stresses of
111 and 95 ksi (764 and 654 MPa) for A615 and A706 steel,
respectively. In the transverse direction, a No. 3 A615 Grade
60 spiral with 2 in. (51 mm) pitch was used, which had an
average measured yield and ultimate stress of 82 and 111 ksi
(565 and 764 MPa), respectively.
Type II cement concrete with 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) maximum
course aggregate was used for the footings, the CIP column,
precast pedestals, and the precast column shells. The average
4 ACI Structural Journal
28-day compressive strength and standard deviation of
cylinder tests was 4334 and 613 psi (29.9 and 4.22 MPa).
The SCC used to cast the column shell cores had a
maximum course aggregate size of 0.5 in. (12.7 mm). Before
casting SCC, the slump flow was measured, and the mixture
was rated using the visual inspection index (VSI) as speci-
fied in ASTM C1611.19 The static segregation tendency of
the mixture was also tested according to ASTM C1610.20
The VSI was equal to 0.0 for SCC, which indicates a highly
stable mixture with no visual evidence of segregation or
bleeding. The measured slump flow for the HC and GC
batches was 25.3 and 20.3 in. (641 and 514 mm), respec-
tively. The average measured 28-day compressive strength
was 5240 and 4303 psi (36.1 and 29.6 MPa) for the HC and
GC batches, respectively.
There were three different types of prepackaged hydrau-
lic-cement grout used in the construction of the columns.
Standard 2 x 2 in. (51 x 51 mm) cubes were cast to test the
compressive strength of each grout type. The measured
average 28-day compressive strength of the first grout
type, used as bedding mortar for the column shells and
for grouting pedestal ducts, was 7713 psi (53.1 MPa). The
measured compressive strength for the second grout, used
for the closure region of the HC models, was 7319 psi (50.4
MPa), and the strength of the third type, used for filling
the GC, was 15,300 psi (107 MPa). This grout was a high-
strength proprietary mixture provided by the manufacturer
of the GCs.
Testing procedures
Each column model was instrumented with several layers
of foil-backed resistive strain gauges installed on the longi-
tudinal and transverse reinforcing bars. String pot and linear
variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were used to
record the column head displacement, plastic hinge curva-
tures, bond-slip at the base of the column, and rotations
at the column-pedestal joint. Tests were conducted at the
laboratory. Figure 4 depicts the cantilever configuration
setup that was used to conduct tests along with basic infor-
mation regarding instrumentation. Lateral load was applied
with a 220 kip (978 kN) servo-controlled hydraulic actu-
ator that was mounted to a reaction pylon. Column models
were subjected to slow cyclic loading using a drift-based
displacement-control loading protocol. Two full push-and-
pull cycles were completed at drift levels of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10% until failure, defined to be a drop
in lateral load. After failure, models were subjected to addi-
tional load cycles determined during the test. A nominally
constant axial load of 200 kip (890 kN) was applied to each
column model using a spreader beam, two hollow-core
hydraulic rams, and a nitrogen accumulator to control axial
load fluctuations.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Apparent damage
The observed damage was compared among the models at
drift levels corresponding to the limited yielding point (2%
drift), Caltrans minimum displacement ductility of 3 (4%
Fig. 4—Test setup.
drift), failure of the GC models (6% drift), and failure of
HC and CIP models (10% drift). Lines were drawn on the
precast column models to indicate coupler locations and the
pedestal-column joint within the hinge region. Dashed lines
shown on the HC models indicate the approximate locations
of HC layers, and solid lines on the GC model indicate the
top of the GC layer. The precast pedestals are also identified
using a solid line near the footing.
Figure 5 shows the cracking after the 2% drift ratio. All
five models exhibited well-distributed thin cracks. The pres-
ence of the GCs and precast pedestals added stiffness to the
sections resulted in reduced crack width in the respective
regions. Several vertical cracks were seen in the grouted
closure regions of the HC models. The weaker concrete in
the precast column shells resulted in the formation of some
crisscrossed inclined shear cracks.
As defined by Caltrans SDC,14 the minimum ductility
requirement for a seismic-critical column is mD = 3.
Processing of strain and displacement data (as discussed in
subsequent sections) indicated that 4% drift corresponded
to mD = 3 ± 0.2 for the five models. Figure 6 shows that the
damage sustained by the five models after the 4% drift ratio
is comparable. Spalling occurred in the plastic hinge of each
model within one-half column diameter from the footing.
Compressive force in the precast models was distributed
among steel reinforcing bars, concrete, and other materials
such as grout, steel ducts, and cast iron couplers; thus, the
extent of spalling was less severe than that of CIP. Shear
cracks connected flexural cracks, and joints opened at the
column-footing interface in HCPP, GCNP, and HCPP and at
ACI Structural Journal
the pedestal-column joint in HCPP and GCPP. Nevertheless,
the damage appeared to be repairable using standard tech-
niques such as epoxy injection of cracks and replacement of
spalled concrete.
After 6% drift (Fig. 7), extensive spalling was observed,
and multiple transverse bars were visible on each model.
Longitudinal reinforcement, couplers, and corrugated steel
ducts within the precast pedestal were also visible. During
the first cycle of 6% drift, the gaps in the pedestal joints at
the footing and column interface had widened in excess of
0.35 and 0.16 in. (9 and 4 mm), respectively, in both HCPP
and GCPP. Similarly, a 0.28 in. (7 mm) crack had formed
at the column-footing joint in GCNP during this cycle. It
was at this drift that some of the longitudinal bars in the GC
models fractured within the footing. Furthermore, both GC
models exhibited severe damage to the footing, including
extensive cracking and delamination of concrete due strain
penetration; this was not observed in the HC models or CIP
until 8.0% drift.
CIP and the HC models reached the 10% drift ratio when
longitudinal bars ruptured. Figure 8 displays the damage
sustained by the models after the second pull cycle of 10%
drift. Loose concrete and grout was removed from the hinge
regions before capturing the images. CIP and HCNP exhib-
ited a similar state of damage. The reinforcing cage was
completely visible on both faces of the column, longitudinal
bars had buckled, transverse bars were kinked, and damage
had penetrated into the confined concrete core. The damage
in HCPP appeared only slightly different due to the presence
of the precast pedestal. Spalling occurred within the grouted
5
Fig. 5—Observed damage after 2% drift: (a) CIP; (b)
HCNP; (c) HCPP; (d) GCNP; and (e) GCPP.
closure region above the pedestal, and reinforcement was
visible. Extensive delamination of the footing concrete
resulted in longitudinal bar buckling at the pedestal-footing
interface, and the confined concrete core was damaged.
Failure mechanisms and coupler inspection
One concern commonly associated with mechanical rein-
forcement splices is the failure mode. Although coupler
specifications call for failure to occur outside the splice zone,
this is not always the case. If these devices are to be used
in regions that demand large nonlinear cyclic deformations
such as column plastic hinge zones, it is critical that failure
does not occur in the splice. To determine the failure mecha-
nism and location in the test models, concrete was removed
from the plastic hinge regions and footings.
After removal of concrete, it was determined that the domi-
nant failure mode in all models was longitudinal bar fracture.
6 ACI Structural Journal
Fig. 6—Observed damage after 4% drift: (a) CIP; (b)
HCNP; (c) HCPP; (d) GCNP; and (e) GCPP.
Ruptured bars were found 3 to 10 in. (76 to 254 mm) above
the footing in CIP and HCNP, but approximately 4 to 5 in.
(102 to 127 mm) below the surface of the footing in the other
models. It was concluded that bar rupture below the footing
surface was caused by strain concentrations that developed
as a result of the presence of the grouted pedestal ducts and
cast-iron sleeves. The development of strain concentrations
within the footing is discussed in subsequent sections.
Mechanical splices were only removed from HCNP and
GCNP because they were subjected to the highest moment
demand and inelastic deformations. The upset-headed splice
did not display any indication of distress or damage. There
was, however, slack between the deformed heads within the
threaded splice collar, which is likely associated with perma-
nent localized deformations within the splice collar. The

Fig. 7—Observed damage after 6% drift: (a) CIP; (b)
HCNP; (c) HCPP; (d) GCNP; and (e) GCPP.
grouted-sleeves removed from GCNP did not exhibit any
damage, and the bond between the high-strength grout and
reinforcing bar was sound. There was, however, evidence of
strain penetration into the coupler sleeve, as shallow grout-
cone pullout was observed at both ends.
Force-displacement relationships
The measured force-displacement relationships for the
precast models (solid line) are plotted along with that of
CIP (dashed line) in Fig. 9. Exhibiting wide loops, stable
post-yield regions, and minimal strength degradation, the
measured response of CIP was as expected for a column
with modern seismic detailing. The measured response of
HCNP was approximately the same as that of CIP, except for
slight differences in peak load per drift level and pinching
during unloading. The first bar rupture occurred during
ACI Structural Journal
Fig. 8—Observed damage after 10% drift: (a) CIP; (b)
HCNP; and (c) HCPP.
the second cycle of –10% drift in both models. The reason
for the pinching is as follows: when longitudinal bars are
under tension, the headed ends within the threaded splice
collars separate, and a gap is formed. Upon reversal of the
load, these bars move toward each other, but a compressive
force is developed only after the gap is closed. The column
displaces slightly to close this gap, leading to pinching.
Although this behavior is clearly observable, the path of the
hysteresis loop varies only slightly from that of CIP. The
same pinching behavior was seen in the response of HCPP,
but did not cause significant deviation in the loops when
compared with CIP. The measured response of GC models
was also similar to that of CIP, except that pinching was not
observed. The primary difference between CIP and the GC
models was the drift capacity. CIP completed one full cycle
at the 10% drift ratio before first bar rupture, while GCNP
and GCPP experienced rupture during the 6% drift cycles.
The envelopes of the measured force-displacement rela-
tionships are shown in Fig. 10. The curves represent the
average envelope from the first cycle of the push-pull load-
ings. The termination point of each curve was taken to be
the drift level during which the first drop in lateral load
was recorded due to bar fracture. The initial stiffness up to
a lateral load of 35 kip (156 kN) was the same among the
five models, at which point the stiffness of HCPP decreased
slightly. At a lateral load of 53 kip (236 kN), GCPP began
to soften due to yielding, and subsequently followed a path
identical to that of HCPP. The paths of HCNP and GCNP did
not deviate from CIP until approximately 2.5% drift, which
corresponded to spalling of cover concrete. Despite these
subtle differences, the ultimate lateral load achieved by each
7
Fig. 9—Force-displacement response: (a) HCNP; (b) HCPP; (c) GCNP; and (d) GCPP.
Fig. 10—Average force-displacement envelope.
model was approximately the same. All five curves exhibited
similar ascending braches and stable post-yield plateaus.
Displacement ductility is a good metric to describe
the ability of a column member to undergo post-yield
displacements. Furthermore, some seismic design codes
such at Caltrans SDC14 place a minimum requirement on
the displacement ductility capacity on members subject to
large inelastic deformations. The displacement ductility was
determined by idealizing each force-displacement envelope
with an elasto-plastic curve (Fig. 11(a)). The slope of the
elastic branch is set such that the curve begins at the origin
and passes through the measured first longitudinal bar yield
point. The effective yield displacement DY,Eff is then deter-
mined by shifting the plastic branch such that areas A1 and
A2 are equal. The displacement ductility mD is the ratio of the
failure displacement and the effective yield displacement.
The elastoplastic curves and displacement ductilities for
each model are shown in Fig. 11(b). The first yield points
are marked on the elastic branch of each curve. Except for
HCNP, first yielding occurred at approximately the same
lateral displacement for all other models. The displacement
ductilities of CIP and HCPP both exceeded the target design
8 ACI Structural Journal
ductility of mD = 7.0. The larger effective yield displace-
ment of HCNP resulted in a displacement ductility that
was slightly less than the design target, but still exceeds the
ductility capacity specified by Caltrans SDC of mD = 5.0. The
ductility capacity of both GC models was mD = 4.5. Although
this did not meet the design target, it does indicate that the
GC connection can exceed Caltrans SDC minimum ductility
requirement of mD = 3.0.
Energy dissipation capacity
The energy dissipation was determined by calculating the
area enclosed by each force-displacement hysteresis loop.
The cumulative energy dissipated per drift level and the
percent difference of cumulative energy dissipated per drift
level normalized with respect to CIP are shown in Fig. 12(a)
and (b), respectively. All four precast models followed the
same energy dissipation trend per drift cycle as CIP. Before
2% drift, both HC models and GCPP dissipated 5 to 23%
more energy per drift level than CIP, while GCNP dissipated
±5.0% the amount of energy as CIP. After 2% drift, the
energy dissipation of the GC models remained within ±5.0%
of CIP, while the HC models dissipate 7 to 14% less energy
than CIP, perhaps due to the slight pinching in the hysteresis
curves caused by the presence of HCs, as explained previ-
ously. Despite the differences in energy dissipated among
the models, results are comparable to CIP results, and are
satisfactory because the differences could be the result of
variability in material properties and experimental scatter.
Measured strains
Reinforcing bar strains were recorded continuously
throughout loading. Figure 13 shows the longitudinal bar
strain profiles within the plastic hinge region of each model
at 2, 6, and 10% drift. The data reflects the average of
measurements recorded at peak displacement for the first
push-and-pull cycle of each drift level. Precast pedestals and
Fig. 11—Elastoplastic response: (a) calculation schematic;
and (b) elastoplastic curves and displacement ductilities.
grouted splices are represented in the plots by shaded and
hatched boxes, respectively.
As would be expected of a bridge column with modern
detailing, CIP exhibited well-distributed strain throughout
the plastic hinge, resulting in a large region over which
plastic rotation could occur. It can be observed that the
maximum longitudinal strains in CIP occur within one-half
column diameter from the footing surface, which correlates
well with the bar rupture locations identified after testing.
HCNP also displayed well-distributed strains throughout the
plastic hinge region. The maximum strains occurred approx-
imately one-half column diameter above the footing, and
were comparable to those in CIP. Well-distributed longitu-
dinal strains were not seen in GCNP and the models with
pedestals due to rigidity of grouted sleeves and ducts. The
GC sleeves within GCNP act as additional reinforcement,
stiffening the section. This is reflected in the strain measure-
ments at the midheight of the GC, which were an order of
magnitude lower than other strains within the hinge. The
inability of the GC region to contribute adequately to plastic
rotation of the hinge resulted in excess plastic deformations
above the coupler region and within the footing. A similar
phenomenon occurred in HCPP and GCPP due to the grout-
filled corrugated steel ducts in the pedestal. The grout-filled
ducts prevented accumulation of large strains, and forced
this strain to occur elsewhere within the hinge region. The
ACI Structural Journal
Fig. 12—Energy dissipation: (a) cumulative energy dissi-
pated per drift level; and (b) normalized cumulative energy
dissipation relative to CIP.
strains near the pedestal-footing interface and within the
footing tend to be larger than those observed in CIP. In
both these cases, strain concentrations occurred within the
footing, which resulted in localized plastic rotation and frac-
ture of longitudinal bars.
The test models had an aspect ratio of 4.5, which corre-
sponds to flexure-dominated members with moderate shear
intensity. As expected, wide shear cracks were not observed,
and the measured transverse bar strains were small. The
maximum spiral strain among all columns was 38 and 44%
of the measured yield strain of 5072 microstrains after
cycles of 6 and 8% drift, respectively. During cycles of 10%
drift, the maximum measured spiral strain in CIP was 49%
of yield. Buckling of longitudinal bar, however, resulted in
transverse bar kinking, which was followed by rupture of
spirals in compression zones. The maximum spiral strain in
the HC models was 28% of the yield strain after 10% drift
cycles. Although kinking of transverse bars was observed in
HCNP, the spiral did not fracture.
The pedestals altered the location of maximum transverse
strains. The maximum strains in CIP occurred one-half
column diameter from the footing surface, while the
maximum transverse strains in HCPP and GCPP occurred
one-half column diameter above the pedestal. This is because
corrugated ducts within the pedestal act as added reinforce-
9
Fig. 13—Plastic hinge strain profiles.
Fig. 14—Bond-slip rotation and pedestal-column joint
behavior.
ment, which inhibits formation of shear cracks that are
necessary for transverse bar strains to develop. This observa-
tion provides valuable insight for the design of columns with
pedestals and lower aspect ratios that are shear-dominated.
Plastic hinge curvature and rotation
The moment-curvature response was recorded at several
locations within the plastic hinge, and bond-slip rotation
was recorded at the column-footing interface using LVDTs
mounted on rods that protruded from the column face.
Figure 14 shows the bond-slip rotation and pedestal-column
joint rotation per drift ratio. The bond-slip rotation is compa-
rable for all models until 3% drift. After this point, the bond-
slip rotation for GCPP began to increase more rapidly with
each subsequent drift ratio compared with the other models.
This can be attributed to the inability of other sections within
GCPP to produce plastic rotation because of the presence
of the pedestal and GCs. The other models exhibit compa-
rable bond-slip rotations until failure. Figure 14 also shows
the rotational behavior of the joint between the pedestal and
precast column. The rotation of GCPP tends to be slightly
higher than that of HCPP for most drift ratios, but the
behavior of the two joints is comparable, indicating that the
behavior of this joint is independent of the coupler type.
Figure 15 depicts the moment-curvature response of
GCNP and HCNP from 1 to 7 in. (25 to 178 mm) above
the footing. The schematic in the figure shows that couplers
are contained within this gauge length. The moment-curva-
ture relationships were affected by the presence of couplers
within the column cross section. The HC models exhibited
10
Fig. 15—Moment-curvature response within regions with
splices.
increase curvatures in sections where couplers were located
due to bar-slip within the HC collars. Although this behavior
was suspected by examining the force-displacement rela-
tionships, it is confirmed by the moment-curvature relation
shown in Fig. 15. The GCs had the opposite effect, and GC
models experienced reduced curvature in sections where
the GC sleeves were located, thus reducing the curvature.
In the case of GCNP, this forced increased rotation at the
footing-column interface and above the coupler region.
Although large gaps were observed at the pedestal-column
and pedestal-footing interfaces, the curvatures measured at
these locations did not differ substantially from those of CIP.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
The mechanical splices and precast pedestal had one
noticeable effect on the performance of the column models:
an altered plastic hinge mechanism, which affected the drift
capacity. Figure 16 depicts the plastic hinge mechanisms
that were observed, which are identified by a hatch. As
expected, CIP exhibited plastic rotation that occurred over
a large length, resulting in well-distributed hinge behavior
(Fig. 16). The HC column models employed two layers of
11 upset-headed couplers. The presence of these couplers
resulted in slight concentrations of rotation at the coupler
layer from gap opening and closing between the deformed
heads within the coupler. Although this behavior was evident
in the force-displacement and energy dissipation response of
the HC columns, these couplers did not significantly affect
ACI Structural Journal
Fig. 16—Plastic hinge mechanisms.
the formation of the plastic hinge. That is, HCNP exhibited
a large, well-distributed hinge mechanism similar to that of
CIP. The same was essentially true for HCPP. The addition
of the 14.5 in. (368 mm) cast iron grout-filled sleeve resulted
in increased section stiffness within the coupler region,
which inhibited plastic rotation. Instead, plastic rotation
was forced outside the GC region, resulting in plastic hinge
mechanisms that differed from that of CIP. In GCNP, hinging
occurred within the footing and above the coupler regions.
This resulted in longitudinal bar buckling below the footing
surface after delamination of footing concrete, followed by
bar rupture, and ultimately led to a 6% drift capacity that was
lower than the capacity of CIP and HC models.
The pedestals were used to shift the coupler locations
away from the footing by 12 in. (305 mm), thus reducing the
moment demand on the connection region. The pedestals did
not significantly affect the progression of damage, energy
dissipation capacity, or the force-displacement behavior
of the column models. The pedestals did, however, cause
redistribution of longitudinal tensile strains. The grout-
filled corrugated steel ducts behaved similar to the cast-
iron grout-filled couplers by increasing the section stiffness
slightly, which resulted in concentrated hinging at the pedes-
tal-footing interface. This behavior resulted in strain concen-
trations in the footing, and ultimately caused bar rupture.
Lastly, the pedestals caused shear cracks to form further
from the footing compared with CIP, thus also shifting the
location of maximum transverse bar strain.
In summary, the behavior of the precast models was similar
to that of CIP. It was apparent, however, that the presence of
mechanical coupler devices and precast pedestals resulted in
the formation of nonconventional plastic hinge mechanisms,
ACI Structural Journal
particularly in the case of connections using grouted-sleeve
couplers. The behavior of shifted plastic hinge mecha-
nisms has been investigated in previous studies.21,22 These
studies have indicated beneficial effects of shifted plastic
hinges in nearly eliminating damage to joints and adjacent
members while facilitating post-earthquake damage repairs.
As expected, shifted plastic hinges should be accounted for
in design and construction regardless of whether couplers
or continuous bars are used. Lastly, it should be noted that
findings of the present study are applicable to columns with
design parameters that are comparable to those used in the
test columns (the reinforcement ratio, axial load level, and
aspect ratio). Additional studies might be warranted for
cases in which design parameters are substantially different
than those used in the present study.
CONCLUSIONS
The following key conclusions can be made from the
results presented in this paper:
• Mechanical bar splices are a viable option for use in ABC
substructures in seismic zones. The precast columns
using upset-headed and grouted-sleeve couplers exhib-
ited overall behavior, damage, and energy dissipation
that were comparable to those of CIP column for up to
6% drift;
• The addition of mechanical couplers to the plastic
hinge zone can alter the plastic hinge mechanism.
Shorter splices (less than four bar diameters), such as
the upset-headed (HC) splice, may not have a signifi-
cant effect on where plastic rotation occurs, whereas
larger splices (greater than 14 bar diameters), such as
the grouted-sleeve coupler (GC), are likely to change
11
 the plastic hinge behavior. In this study, it was observed
that the primary source of plastic rotation in columns
with GCs was within the upper part of the footing. The
shifting of plastic deformation into the footing reduced
displacement ductility and drift capacity of the GC
columns;
• The displacement ductility capacity of 4.5 measured in
the models with GCs exceeds the Caltrans minimum
ductility of 3, and might be sufficient for many bridges
subjected to strong earthquakes;
• Although the displacement and ductility capacities in
the HC models were high, the HC connections were
cumbersome to construct, and would require extra time
in the field because of the required tight bar length
tolerance. On the other hand, the construction of the GC
connections was relatively simple and quick; and
• Two models in this study employed a pedestal one-half
column diameter in height in which longitudinal bars
passed through grout-filled corrugated steel ducts.
The pedestal was intended to reduce the moment
demand over the coupler region to improve ductility.
No improvement in the drift or displacement ductility
capacity, however, was observed. The grout-filled corru-
gated steel ducts in the pedestal increase section rigidity,
thus inhibiting significant plastic rotation.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Zachary B. Haber is an Associate Bridge Engineer with
Parsons Transportation Group in Orlando, FL. He received his BS and
MS in civil engineering from the University of Central Florida, Orlando,
FL, and his PhD in civil engineering from the University of Nevada, Reno,
Reno, NV. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 408, Development
and Splicing of Deformed Bars. His research interests include large-scale
testing, advanced materials in civil engineering, and bridge engineering.
M. Saiid Saiidi, FACI, is a Professor of civil and environmental engi-
neering and the Director of the Center for Advanced Technology in Bridges
and Infrastructure at the University of Nevada, Reno. He is the founding
and former Chair and a current member of ACI Committee 341, Earth-
quake-Resistant Concrete Bridges. He is also a member of ACI Committee
318-D, Flexure and Axial Loads (Structural Concrete Building Code), and
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic
Concrete Structures.
ACI member David H. Sanders is a Professor at the University of Nevada,
Reno. He received his BS from Iowa State University, Ames, IA, and MS and
PhD from the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. He is a member of the
ACI Board of Direction. He is a former Chair of the ACI Technical Activities
Committee; ACI Committee 341, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges;
and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. His research inter-
ests include concrete structures with an emphasis on seismic performance of
bridges.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research presented in this paper was funded by the California
Department of Transportation. The support of S. El-Azazy, the Caltrans
project manager, is appreciated. The authors would like thank Headed
Reinforcement Corp. (HRC) and Splice Sleeve North America for donation
of the couplers used in this study. The technical input from C. Dahl and
J. Morente from HRC, M. Abukuwa from Splice Sleeve Japan, T. Yaman-
ishi from Splice Sleeve North America Inc., and J. Schroder of Schroder
& Associates, LLC is greatly appreciated. Special thanks are expressed
to P. Laplace, R. Nelson, and M. Lattin for their help with testing, and to
M. Tazarv and A. Mehrsoroush for their assistance with instrumentation
and data collection.
12
View publication stats
REFERENCES
1. Culmo, M. P., “Connection Details for Prefabricated Bridge Elements
and Systems,” Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-IF-09-010,
Mar. 2009, 568 pp.
2. Marsh, M. L.; Wernli, M.; Garrett, B. E.; Stanton, J. F.; Eberhard,
M. O.; and Weinert, M. D., “Application of Accelerated Bridge Construc-
tion Connections in Moderate-to-High Seismic Region,” NCHRP Report
698, 2011, 65 pp.
3. Ou, Y. C.; Wang, P. H.; Tsai, M. S.; Chang, K. C.; and Lee, G. C.,
“Large-Scale Experimental Study of Precast Segmental Unbonded Postten-
sioned Concrete Bridge Columns for Seismic Regions,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 136, No. 3, 2010, pp. 255-264.
4. Restrepo, J. I.; Tobolski, M. J.; and Matsumoto, E. E., “Development
of a Precast Bent Cap System for Seismic Regions,” NCHRP Report 681,
2011, 116 pp.
5. Motaref, S.; Saiidi, M.; and Sanders, D. H., “Seismic Response of
Precast Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Joints,” Report No.
CCEER-11-01, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, May
2011, 760 pp.
6. Kavianipour, F., and Saiidi, M., “Shake Table Testing of a Quar-
ter-Scale 4-Span Bridge with Composite Piers,” Proceedings, The 6th
International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management
(IABMAS), Stresa, Lake Maggiore, Italy, July 8-12, 2012.
7. Hironobu, A. et al., “Cyclic Loading Experiment of Precast Columns
of Railway Rigid-Frame Viaduct Installed with NMB Splice Sleeves,”
Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 27, No. 2, 2005, 20 pp.
8. Huang, S. W.; Yu, J. T.; Chiou, H. D.; Asakawa, T.; and Tsai, K. C.,
“Final Report of Experiment on Precast Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Assemblage,” Report, Chinese Society of Structural Engineering, 1997.
9. Wang, J. C.; Ou, Y. C.; Chang, C. K.; and Lee, G. C., “Large-Scale
Seismic Tests of Tall Concrete Bridge Columns with Precast Segmental
Construction,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 37,
2008, pp. 1449-1465.
10. Lehman, D. E.; Gookin, S. E.; Nacamuli, A. M.; and Moehle, J. P.,
“Repair of Earthquake-Damaged Bridge Columns,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 98, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 233-242.
11. Reetz, R. J.; Ramin, M. V.; and Matamoros, A., “Performance of
Mechanical Splices within the Plastic Hinge Region of Beams Subject to
Cyclic Loading,” Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Aug. 1-6, 2004.
12. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp.
13. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), “AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design,” Washington, DC, 2010.
14. California Department of Transportation, “Seismic Design Criteria
(SDC) Version 1.6,” Division of Engineering Services, Sacramento, CA,
2010, 160 pp.
15. California Department of Transportation, “Memo to Designers
(MTD) 20-9,” Division of Engineering Services, Sacramento, CA, Aug.
2001, 16 pp.
16. Rowell, S. P.; Grey, C. E.; Woodson, S. C.; and Hager, K. P., “High
Strain-Rate Testing of Mechanical Coupler,” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Report ERDC TR-09-8, Sept. 2009.
17. Paulson, C., and Hanson, J. M., “Fatigue Behavior of Welded and
Mechanical Splices in Reinforcing Steel,” NCHRP Report 10-35, Dec.
1991, 170 pp.
18. Noureddine, I. M., “Plastic Energy Absorption Capacity of No. 18
Reinforcing Bar Splices Under Monotonic Loading,” MS thesis, California
State University, Sacramento, CA, 1996, 108 pp.
19. ASTM C1611/C1611M-09, “Standard Test Method for Slump Flow
of Self-Consolidating Concrete,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2009, 6 pp.
20. ASTM C1610/C1610M-07, “Standard Test Method for Static Segre-
gation of Self-Consolidating Concrete Using Column Technique,” ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007, 4 pp.
21. Abdel-Fattah, B., and Wight, J. K., “Study of Moving Beam Plastic
Hinging Zones for Earthquake Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 31-39.
22. Saiidi, M.; Reinhardt, E.; and Gordaninejad, F., “A New Earth-
quake-Resistant Concrete Pier with FRP Fabrics and Shifted Plastic
Hinges,” Journal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures, V. 4, No. 5,
2009, pp. 927-940.
ACI Structural Journal