Precast Bent Cap Systems

for Seismic Regions (NCHRP 12-74)

Emulative Component TestsInitial Results

15th Annual Caltrans/PCMAC Bridge Seminar

October 15, 2008
Eric Matsumoto, PhD, PE
California State University, Sacramento

Acknowledgements
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NCHRP 12-74 Research Team
Graduate Students: Jeremy Wright,
David Van Zanen, Arvind Gopalakrishna
Many other graduate and undergraduate
students, laboratory technicians, and faculty at
California State University, Sacramento

Presentation Message
FHWA/DOTs are greatly interested in
Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)
for entire United States
Precast concrete bent caps are one
approach to ABC
Initial results of emulative precast bent
cap-column connections show promise
for all seismic regions
Research should be completed in 2009
Implementation is expected

Overview
Background
Prototype/Specimen Design Basis
Specimen Fabrication and Assembly
Hysteretic Response
Preliminary Conclusions

Overview
Background
Prototype/Specimen Design Basis
Specimen Fabrication and Assembly
Hysteretic Response
Preliminary Conclusions

NCHRP 12-74 Research Team

PI: Jose Restrepo, PhD, UCSD
Co-PI: Eric Matsumoto, PE, PhD, CSUS
Consultants:
Mary Lou Ralls, PE Ralls Newman, LLC
Steve Mislinski, PE LAN Engineering
M.J. Nigel Priestley, PhD NPE
R. Jon Grafton Pomeroy Corporation

Contract Amount: $598K

Project Period: 2005 - 2009

NCHRP 12-74 Organization

NCHRP PANEL
AK AR CA MO OR NJ NY TX +

Research Team
TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
Lucian Bodgan, PE (Dywidag Systems Intl)
Reid Castrodale, PhD, PE (Stalite)
Robert Gulyas (Degussa)
Scott Harrigan, PE (Fort Miller)
Bill Spence, PE (Tidewater Skanska Bayshore)
Daniel Tassin, PE (IBT)

Precast Bent Cap Systems: Non-Integral

GSC

GP/CP

GD

Bolted

GD

Accelerated Bridge Construction

Lake Ray Hubbard: 43 Caps Saved 43 Weeks!
PC Caps Sought for:
Expedited construction
Reduced impact: Traffic
control (costs, safety)
Environment
Water crossings
Bridge widening
Repetitive use

Non-integral vs. Integral Systems

No moment
connectivity
ag

Non-integral Bent Cap

Framing
action
ag

Integral Bent Cap

(PCI Bridge Design Manual)

Precast Bent Cap Systems: Integral

Integral vs. Non-Integral Connections

Integral
Full continuity
redundancy; reduced ;
foundation; vertical
clearance; aesthetic;
connection challenge

Non-Integral
No moment transfer
simpler field connection;
Columns fixity at base

Project Objectives
Develop design methodologies,
connection details, and design and
construction specifications for precast
bent cap systems in seismic regions

Systems and methodologies for entire U.S.

Practical, cost-effective connection details
Design examples
Design and construction specifications with
commentary in AASHTO LRFD format

Implementation Plan

Non-Integral vs. Integral Tests

Non-Integral
CSUS/UCSD Tests (7)
CSUS: emulative (4)
UCSD: hybrid (3)
Non-Integral results also
apply to integral system

Integral
UCSD System Test (1)
Longitudinal PT, TBD

Research Approach
Non-Integral Systems
Determine/develop promising precast
connections according to ductility requirement;
distinguish ready to use vs. testing required
Design prototype CIP bridge per Task 193 and
establish specimen for interior bm-col connection
Fabricate and assemble scaled precast
specimens, as well as CIP control
Conduct specimen tests, using quasi-static
loading simulating gravity and seismic-induced
displacements
CSUS: Test extra specimen to dry run processes
and examine additional objectives

Research Approach
Task 193 Ductility Requirement
Design
Issue

SDC D
(Full)

SDC B
(Limited)

Sd1

0.5g

0.15g-0.3g

ID ERS

Required

Not Required

c Calc

Pushover

Implicit

Capacity
Protection

Required

Not Required

Detailing

Stringent

Liberal

Findings from Industry Survey

Precast Connections
Uncertainty regarding behavior
Hesitant to use for high seismicity without
validated design methodology
Projects assumed emulative behavior

Fabrication and Constructability

Congestion and tolerances are of concern
Prestressed caps may be advantageous
Hauling and lifting concerns due to weight

Research Approach
Non-Integral Systems
Determine/develop promising precast
connections; distinguish connections ready for
use vs. those requiring testing
Design prototype CIP bridge per Task 193 and
establish specimen for interior bm-col connection
Fabricate and assemble scaled precast
specimens, as well as CIP control
Conduct specimen tests, using quasi-static
loading simulating gravity and seismic-induced
displacements

Component Test Matrix

Test Unit
Preliminary Grouted Duct
Grouted Duct (Full ductility)

Location (Date)
CSUS (June 2007)
CSUS (July 2007)

CIP (Full ductility)

Cap Pocket (Full ductility)
Cap Pocket (Limited ductility)
Hybrid Specimens (3)

CSUS (August 2007)

CSUS (August 2007)
CSUS (Fall 2008)
UCSD (2007-08)

Grouted Duct Tests

(Hoops not shown)

Test Unit
Preliminary Grouted Duct
Grouted Duct (Full ductility)
CIP (Full ductility)
Cap Pocket (Full ductility)
Cap Pocket (Limited ductility)
Hybrid Specimens (3)

Location (Date)
CSUS (June 2007)
CSUS (July 2007)
CSUS (August 2007)
CSUS (August 2007)
CSUS (Spring 2008)
UCSD (2007-08)

Cap Pocket Tests

Plan

CPFD

CPLD

Test Unit
Preliminary Grouted Duct
Grouted Duct (Full ductility)

Location (Date)
CSUS (June 2007)
CSUS (July 2007)

CIP (Full ductility)

Cap Pocket (Full ductility)
Cap Pocket (Limited ductility)
Hybrid Specimens (3)

CSUS (August 2007)

CSUS (August 2007)
CSUS (Fall 2008)
UCSD (2007-08)

Overview
Background
Prototype/Specimen Design Basis
Specimen Fabrication and Assembly
Hysteretic Response of Emulative
Connections
Preliminary Conclusions

Prototype Design
2-span non-integral PC
girder overcrossing
with 3-col CIP bent
Superstructure: LRFD
Substructure: Capacity
Design,Task 193 (2006)
SDC D (SD1>0.5g) Design
Spectrum: SDS=1.5g;SD1=1.2g
: Demand (EDA/ESA),
Capacity (T: Push Over);
D 5 (L/T)
Capacity Protection
Joint Shear

Long & Transv

Transv

Strut and Tie Models

Help determine force
transfer mechanism
for unique connection
details
Modified
EFTM
(Sritharan, 2005)

Develop/validate STM
against tests/FEA

CIP STM may provide

good starting point for
Make everything
some connections
as simple as possible
(GD vs. Cap Pocket)
but no simpler.
Develop simplified
procedures for design

Modified External Force Transfer Mechanism

EFTM is deficient:
*Clamping mechanism only
*Inaccurate rebar requirements
*Joint failure at moderate
Task 193, 2006 uses EFTM but
eliminates stirrups in joint,
ignores extra bottom As reqt,
EFTM
& increases external stirrups
Modified EFTM, Task 193, 2007
Uses clamping & splice
transfer mechanisms
Requires additional As top
and bottom through joint;
Modified
increased external stirrups
EFTM
over hb; minimum jt stirrups

Task 193: 2006 vs. 2007

NI Joint Shear Reinforcement
2006

2007

Min Long Cap

Reinf. (Asjl)

Not
Specified

0.245Ast

Min Side Face

Reinf. (Assf)

0.1Acap

Cap Section View

Min Horizontal
Reinf. (Asjh)

0.1Ast

Col Reinf.
Embedded
Length (lac)

to top of
bent cap
reinf

Min Reinf.
Ratio Joint
Hoops (s)

Not Specified
For Non-Integral
every other
stirrups and long.
rebar intersection
as close as
practically
possible to top
of cap

s 0.40Ast/l2ac

Task 193: 2006 vs. 2007

Vertical Joint Shear Reinforcement
2006
Integral and Non-Integral
not Differentiated

Ast = Area of
column rebar

Asjv = 0.20 Ast

2007
Non-Integral Bent
Cap Distinguished

Asjvi = 0.135 Ast Asjvo = 0.175 Ast

Specimen Design
Focus: Capcolumn
connection performance
and comparison of PC
specimens to CIP
Based on Prototype
Size, detailing and
loading permit accurate
examination of forces at
face of joint
42% scaled portion of
prototype: 20/48=0.42
(dimensions, rebar, aggr)

5-ton specimen

Comparison of Joints
Specimen

Joint Design

Cast-In-Place

Design per Task 193

(2006)

Cast-In-Place

(Hoops not Shown)

Preliminary
Grouted Duct
Grouted Duct

Cap Pocket
Full Ductility

1.75 in diameter steel

corrugated ducts (full
height) for column
bars; 22 gage (0.03
in); Hoops placed
around ducts
18 in diameter, 16
gage (0.06 in) steel
corrugated helical
pipe with lock seam;
One hoop added at
each end for CPFD

Grouted Duct

(Hoops not Shown)

Cap Pocket

Overview
Background
Prototype/Specimen Design Basis
Specimen Fabrication and Assembly
Hysteretic Response of Emulative
Connections
Preliminary Conclusions

Specimen PlansColumn Details

Specimen PlansElevation

Fabricated Column

Specimen PlansBent Cap Detail

Cast-In-Place Joint

Assembly of Cast-In-Place Specimen

Bent Cap Form Assembled on Top of Column

Bent Cap Cast Monolithically with Column

Other Specimen Casting

Column

Bent Cap

Grouted Duct Joint

PGD Joint

Fabricated Bent Cap (GD)

GD SpecimenAssembly

During Cap Placement

Grouting Connection

After Cap Placement (PGD)

Grouted Connection

Cap Pocket Joint

Sonotube Dam
at Cap Top

Sand in Sonotube
Dam At Cap Top

Cap PocketAssembly

Bent Cap Placement

Cap Pocket Assembled

Casting and Vibrating Concrete

Finishing Concrete

Specimen Inversion (GD)

Test Setup and Loading

PV

PH

Overview
Background
Prototype/Specimen Design Basis
Specimen Fabrication and Assembly
Hysteretic Response
Preliminary Conclusions

Hysteretic Response CIP

Stable increasing loops, PH, large drift, minor joint distress
15% degradation at 5.8% drift (10) due to column bar
buckling; well fabricated. Minor degradation between cycles
East Elevation

Max Crack Width

0.025

Hysteretic Response GD
Stable increasing loops, PH, large drift, minor joint distress
20% degradation at second cycle at 3.9% drift (6) due to
column bar buckling, not joint behavior. Deformed hoop.
East Elevation

Max Crack Width

0.04 inches

Hysteretic Response CPFD

Stable increasing loops, PH, large drift, minor joint distress
20% degradation at second cycle of 3.3% drift (6) due to
column bar buckling, not joint behavior. Misplaced hoop.
East Elevation

Max Crack Width

0.009 inches

Load-Displacement
Initial Results

Displacement Decomposition
Bar Slip
included in FER

Displacement Decomposition
Initial Results

Bar Slip
Initial Results

Lac (close to cap top) ~35db >24db

Equivalent Viscous Damping

Comparison

Normalized Joint Stress

Prelim GD

Grouted Duct

0.050 in

0.040 in

Cast-In-Place

0.025 in

Cap Pocket FD

0.009 in

Preliminary Conclusions
Precast grouted duct and cap pocket connections
exhibited emulative behavior.
The use of Task 193 (2006) design provisions as the
basis for precast specimens resulted in appropriate
ductile performance associated with plastic hinging
and minor joint distress.
The necessity for more conservative Task 193 (2007)
provisions for joint design should be evaluated, given
the excellent performance of precast connections
using less stringent Task 193 (2006) provisions.
Constructability issues observed in fabrication and
assembly should be incorporated into construction
guidelines.

Presentation Message
9 FHWA/DOTs are greatly interested in
Accelerated Bridge Construction
techniques for entire United States
9 Precast concrete bent caps are one
approach
9 Initial results of emulative connections
show promise for all seismic regions
9 Research to be completed in 2009
9 Implementation is expected

Select References

INTERIM REPORT
Tobolski, M. J., J. I. Restrepo, E. E. Matsumoto, and
M. L. Ralls. 2006. Development of Precast Bent Cap
Concepts. SSRP Report No. 06/10. La Jolla, CA:
University of California, San Diego.

RECENT PCI JOURNAL ARTICLE ON TXDOT 1748

Matsumoto, E.E., Waggoner, M.C., Kreger, M.E.,
Vogel, J., Wolf, L., "Development of a Precast
Concrete Bent-Cap System," PCI JOURNAL, V. 53,
No. 3 (May-June, 2008): pp.74-99.

Conundrum: What is the Measure of Success?

KIDS?

MARRIAGE?