Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DETAILS
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK M. Saiid Saiidi, Mostafa Tazarv, Sebastian Varela, Stuart Bennion, M. Lee Marsh,
Iman Ghorbani, and Thomas P. Murphy; National Cooperative Highway Research
Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences,
FIND RELATED TITLES Engineering, and Medicine
Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
NCHRP
NATIONAL
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
Seismic Evaluation of
Bridge Columns with Energy
Dissipating Mechanisms
MEMBERS
Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental
Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock
Jennifer Cohan, Secretary, Delaware DOT, Dover
James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations (retired), Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, TX
Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Executive Director–CEO, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, FL
A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe
John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix
Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA
Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA
Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Power, Energy, and Infrastructure Group, BMO Capital Markets Corporation, New York
S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson Professor of Manufacturing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, MI
Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Melinda McGrath, Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Patrick K. McKenna, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City
James P. Redeker, Commissioner, Connecticut DOT, Newington
Mark L. Rosenberg, Executive Director, The Task Force for Global Health, Inc., Decatur, GA
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Davis
Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX
Pat Thomas, Senior Vice President of State Government Affairs, United Parcel Service, Washington, DC
James M. Tien, Distinguished Professor and Dean Emeritus, College of Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
Dean H. Wise, Vice President of Network Strategy, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Fort Worth, TX
Charles A. Zelle, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT, Saint Paul
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Michael Berube, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy
Mary R. Brooks, Professor Emerita, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and Chair, TRB Marine Board
Mark H. Buzby (Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy), Executive Director, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT
Steven Cliff, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento
Howard R. Elliott, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Audrey Farley, Executive Director, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. DOT
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
Heath Hall, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT
Brandye Hendrickson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT
Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT
Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Heidi King, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Bevan B. Kirley, Research Associate, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, and Chair, TRB Young
Members Council
Wayne Nastri, Acting Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA
Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL
Todd T. Semonite (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC
Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Richard A. White, Acting President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
K. Jane Williams, Executive Director, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT
Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Paul F. Zukunft (Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
M. Saiid Saiidi
Mostafa Tazarv
Sebastian Varela
Infrastructure Innovation, LLC
Reno, NV
Stuart Bennion
M. Lee Marsh
Iman Ghorbani
BergerABAM
Seattle, WA
Thomas P. Murphy
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
Mechanicsburg, PA
Subscriber Categories
Bridges and Other Structures
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2017
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 12-101 by Infrastructure Innovation,
LLC in collaboration with BergerABAM and Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
The principal investigator (PI) on this project was M. Saiid Saiidi. M. Lee Marsh of BergerABAM and
Thomas P. Murphy of Modjeski and Masters, Inc. were the co-PIs of the project. Senior research associate,
Mostafa Tazarv, and research associate, Sebastian Valera, performed the research under the supervision
of the PI. Stuart Bennion and Iman Ghorbani developed the design examples under the supervision of
M. Lee Marsh (Co-PI).
The research team is indebted to Dr. Amir Mirmiran of the University of Texas at Tyler for his feedback
on concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer tube columns.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Scott Arnold of FYFE Co. LLC, Mr. Dominique Corvez and
Mr. Paul White of Lafarge North America Inc., Mr. Kevin Friskel of Dynamic Isolation Systems Inc.,
Mr. Rich LaFond of Saes Smart Materials, and Mr. Edward Little of FiberMatrix Inc. for providing cost
estimates for novel materials.
Dr. Toutlemonde of Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, de l’Aménagement
et des Réseaux (IFSTTAR) is thanked for sharing UHPC design recommendations.
FOREWORD
By Waseem Dekelbab
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
This report describes the evaluation of new materials and techniques for design and
construction of novel bridge columns meant to improve seismic performance. These
techniques include shape memory alloy (SMA), engineered cementitious composite (ECC),
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), and rocking mechanisms. The report includes two volumes:
Volume 1: Research Overview and Volume 2: Guidelines. The guidelines cover a quantita-
tive evaluation method to rate novel columns as well as design and construction methods
for three specific novel columns: (1) SMA-reinforced ECC columns, (2) SMA-reinforced
FRP-confined concrete/columns, and (3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. More
than 2,250 analyses in the form of moment-curvature, pushover, cyclic, and dynamic simu-
lations were carried out to investigate the behavior of the selected columns and to develop
proposed design guidelines according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
and the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. The material in this
report will be of immediate interest to bridge owners.
The primary objective of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the
AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design is to prevent bridge collapse
in the event of earthquakes. Reinforced concrete bridge columns are designed to dissipate
earthquake energy through considerable ductile nonlinear action that is associated with
severe spalling of concrete and yielding of reinforcement. Proven detailing procedures have
been developed for reinforced concrete bridge columns that provide this type of behavior
and are intended to prevent bridge collapse. However, for columns to successfully dissipate
energy, they have to behave as nonlinear elements subject to substantial damage and possibly
permanent drift to the point that the bridge would have to be decommissioned for repair
or replacement. The impact of bridge closure on the traveling public and the economy is
significant. Therefore, alternative design approaches using advanced materials and uncon-
ventional seismic techniques are needed to improve current practice. Despite the superior
performance of columns with the innovative materials reported in the literature, design
guidelines and methods of structural analysis are not addressed in the current seismic
bridge design specifications. Research was needed to develop proposed AASHTO guidelines
to help bridge owners incorporate innovative seismic energy dissipation principles into
practice.
Research was performed under NCHRP Project 12-101 by Infrastructure Innovation, LLC
to develop (1) proposed guidelines for the evaluation of new techniques for the design and
construction of bridge columns with energy dissipation mechanisms meant to minimize
bridge damage and replacement after a seismic event and (2) design and construction concepts
based on new materials and techniques (e.g., post-tensioning, SMA, ECC, rubber pads, and
FRP wrapping) and analytical techniques (e.g., current design practice, direct displacement
based design, and substitute structure design method). The guidelines included analysis
procedures, evaluation criteria (e.g., constructability, serviceability, inspectability, seismic
and non-seismic system performance, and post-event repair), design procedures, construction
details, and detailed design examples.
A number of deliverables, provided as appendices, are not published but are available on
the TRB website (trb.org) by searching for “NCHRP Research Report 864.” These appendices
are titled as follows:
CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Introduction
3 1.1 Problem Statement
3 1.2 Research Objectives
4 1.3 Document Organization
64 Appendices A–I
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.
SUMMARY
1
2 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
(10) ease of construction, (11) inspectability, (12) maintenance, (13) post-earthquake repair
need, and (14) system performance. These parameters were quantified and scored with dif-
ferent weights. The overall evaluation result was converted to a five-star rating method to help
bridge owners and designers compare different alternatives and to make the final selection.
The current AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design uses displace-
ment ductility as the measure of deformability. However, this parameter may not be suitable
for novel columns since the yield mechanism in novel and conventional columns can be dif-
ferent. To address this difference, drift ratio was used as the design parameter in the present
report to evaluate deformability. A comprehensive parametric study was carried out to relate
the displacement ductility to the drift ratio for practical ranges of reinforced concrete bridge
column geometry and axial loading.
Three of the 39 novel columns were selected by the project panel for further investigation:
(1) SMA-reinforced ECC columns, (2) SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns, and
(3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. Comprehensive analysis, design, and construction
guidelines were developed for these three novel columns. Step-by-step comprehensive design
examples were developed for each of the three columns to better show the use of the proposed
guidelines. The framework used to develop these guidelines can be used by researchers to
develop guidelines for other existing or emerging novel columns.
The present document includes four main chapters and nine appendices (not printed
herein but available for download on TRB.org) summarizing the findings of the individual
tasks. The chapters address the main objectives of the project, and the appendices provide
background, summary of survey findings, modeling methods, and supporting information
that were utilized in the development of the proposed guidelines. Each chapter or appendix
may be used as a standalone document.
Overall, this report aims to draw the bridge engineering community’s attention to the
potential benefits of the use of advanced materials in bridge columns by providing introduc-
tory information, design guidelines and examples, and assessment of new bridge column
technologies.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
3
4 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
conducted under Phase III of the project that consisted of three tasks: (9) develop guidelines with
detailed examples for each concept, (10) qualitatively identify the benefits and potential economic
impact of the proposed guidelines, and (11) prepare Interim Report 3. The proposed guidelines
and the design examples were updated based on the project panel comments under Task 12 of
Phase IV. A final report documenting the summary of all previous tasks was prepared under
Task 13 of the NCHRP 12-101 project.
CHAPTER 2
5
CHAPTER 3
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 7
3.1.3 Materials
3.1.3.1 SMA
In absence of sufficient information about SMA with other alloys, only nickel-titanium
(NiTi) superelastic reinforcing SMA bars are proposed for use as bridge column longitudinal
bars at time of this writing. Nonlinear material model and mechanical properties for NiTi SE
reinforcing SMA bars should conform to Fig. 3.1.3.1-1 and Table 3.1.3.1-1. A symmetric stress-
strain material model based on the expected tensile properties is permitted for the design of
SMA-reinforced columns.
Currently, only plain undeformed SMA bars are available ranging from No. 4 (Ø13 mm) to
No. 18 (Ø57 mm). It is suggested that the austenite finish temperature (Af) (the temperature below
which the bar is no longer superelastic) of NiTi SE SMA be equal to or less than the smaller of 14°F
8 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
Stress
Nonlinear k3=a.k1
Model
b .fy
k2 k1
fy
k1
k2
Strain (%)
er eu
Source: Tazarv and Saiidi, 2014b
(–10°C) and the “average low temperature” (a metrological measure) of the site of the structure less
9°F (5°C). The density and Poisson’s ratio of SMA may be considered as 405 lb/ft3 (6,500 kg/m3) and
0.33, respectively (McCormick, 2006). Coefficient of thermal expansion of SE SMA can be taken
as 6.1 × 10–6/°F (11 × 10–6/°C) (Otsuka and Wayman, 1998). Electrical resistivity of SE SMA is
32.3 µW-in. (820 µW-mm) (Faulkner et al., 2000). Research has shown that welding of NiTi SMA
should not be permitted since SMA may become brittle by reacting to oxygen, nitrogen, and hydro-
gen at high temperature (Schlossmacher et al., 1997). A recent study showed that steel will corrode
faster if coupled NiTi SMA steel bars are submerged in chloride solution (Alarab et al., 2016). There-
fore, in absence of extensive test data, the use of NiTi SMA bars coupled with steel bars in marine
environments (e.g., underwater columns) shall be avoided.
3.1.3.2 ECC
The stress-strain relationship for unconfined ECC is allowed to be the same as that utilized
in practice for the unconfined conventional concrete with no tensile strength (Fig. 3.1.3.2-1a).
The secant modulus of elasticity (EECC) shown in the figure should be used in the calculation of
uncracked properties of ECC sections. The confined compressive strength of ECC, f ′ce, shall be
calculated based on Motaref’s model as shown in Fig. 3.1.3.2-1b.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 9
Stress
Stress
Tension Tension
0.005 0.002 eue ef ece
Strain Strain
Compression
EECC
f 'ue
Compression
EECC=1400( f 'ECC)1/3(ksi)
f 'ECC
EECC=5100( f 'ECC)1/3(MPa) f 'ce
(a) Unconfined ECC (b) Confined ECC
Source: (b) Motaref et al., 2011.
where Asp is the area of the transverse reinforcement, fyh is the yield strength of the transverse
reinforcement, s, is the spacing of the transverse reinforcement, and D′ is the core concrete
diameter measured from center to center of the transverse reinforcement. f ′ce shall be taken equal
′ when f ′l /f ECC
to f ECC ′ is less than 0.035.
where rs is the volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement relative to the core and esu is the
transverse reinforcement strain at the peak stress (may use values presented in AASHTO SGS
Table 8.4.2-1).
A complete stress-strain relationship for confined ECC may conform to Eq. 3.1.3.2-6:
f ce′ Xn
f ECC = (3.1.3.2-6)
n −1+ Xn
where
ε
X= (3.1.3.2-7)
ε ce
ef is the strain in the descending branch where stress drops to f ′ue. ef may be calculated as:
10 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
0.35
Circular SMA-ECC Sections
Elastic Stiffness Ratio (Ieff / Ig)
0.3
ASMA /Ag =0.04
0.25 ASMA /Ag =0.03
0.1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Axial Load Index, P / ( f'ECC Ag)
(a) Circular Sections
0.35
Rectangular SMA-ECC Sections
Elastic Stiffness Ratio (Ieff / Ig)
0.3
ASMA /Ag =0.04
0.25 ASMA /Ag =0.03
0.1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Axial Load Index, P / ( f'ECC Ag)
(b) Rectangular Sections
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 11
20 1
Hysteretic Damping (%)
0.8
15
yFlag-Shaped / y RC
0.6
10
Recommended
RC Columns 0.4
5 Dwairi et al. (2007) Dwairi et al. (2007)
Priestley et al. (2007) 0.2 Priestley et al. (2007)
Billah and Alam (2015) Billah and Alam (2015)
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ductility Ductility
(a) Hysteretic Damping (b) Flag-Shaped Damping (wFlag) over RC
Damping (wRC)
12 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
25
Sd versus Nonlinear Displacement Demands
20 Results for 93 Columns under EQ1
Displacement (in.)
15
10
SDC-D (5%)
5 Sd for EQ1 (5%)
Disp. Demand (3.2%)
Short Period Limit
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (sec)
(a) Original Spectral Displacements
25
Sd versus Nonlinear Displacement Demands
20 Results for 185 Analyses (EQ1, EQ3)
Displacement (in.)
15
10
Amplified SDC-D (5%)
5 Disp. Demand (3.2%)
Short Period Limit
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (sec)
(b) Amplified Spectral Displacements
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 13
10
9 Practical
8 Range
7
∆ pd
µD = 1 + (3.1.4.6-1)
∆ yi
where Δpd is the plastic displacement demand and Δyi is the idealized yield displacement cor-
responding to the idealized yield curvature. This measure for SMA-reinforced columns usually
results in a misleading value since the yield strain of SMA bars is 5 times higher than that of steel
bars resulting in a higher idealized (effective) yield displacement and thus a lower calculated
ductility even though the displacement capacity of a SMA-reinforced column may substantially
exceed that of a comparable conventional column. Drift ratio, the ratio of column lateral displace-
ment to the column height, was proposed as an alternative measure to estimate the deformation
capacity and demand of novel columns, including SMA-reinforced ECC columns.
Because current bridge seismic codes utilize displacement ductility rather than the drift capac-
ity in design, it was important to determine the relationship between ductility and drift ratio so
that displacement ductilities for conventional columns in current codes can be translated to drift
ratios that may be utilized in novel column design. An extensive parametric study on conven-
tional RC columns was conducted to establish a relationship between the displacement ductility
and drift ratio for these columns (Appendix H). Fig. 3.1.4.6-1 shows the condensed result of the
parametric study. Equations were developed to relate drift ratio and ductility and are listed in
Table 3.1.4.6-1. Detailed results of the parametric study are presented in Appendix H. Linear
14 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
D
L
D
L
Pinned
Joint
interpolation is allowed for intermediate aspect ratios. Alternatively, the following equation can
be used for intermediate aspect ratios:
where µ is displacement ductility and Ar is the column aspect ratio (Fig. 3.1.4.6-2). For single-
column bents, the aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the column height to the column side
dimension parallel to the loading direction. For multi-column bents, the aspect ratio is the ratio of
a portion of the column length (length of column from point of maximum moment to the point
of contraflexure) to the column side dimension parallel to the loading direction. The full column
length is used if one end of the column is pinned.
Conventional
Member Novel Columns
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Single-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Aspect Ratio 4:
Multiple-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Note: “ ” is the drift ratio demand (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility demand.
Use linear interpolation for intermediate aspect ratios.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 15
multiplied by the deformability factor, W, which should be taken as 1.2 for SMA-reinforced ECC
columns. Linear interpolation can be used for intermediate aspect ratios. Extrapolation for a col-
umn with a lower aspect ratio than 4 is valid if the column behavior is dominated by flexure.
Available test data on the SMA-reinforced ECC columns (Saiidi et al. 2009; Nakashoji and
Saiidi 2014; Tazarv and Saiidi 2015a) confirm that these columns even with a low aspect ratio
of 4.5 can withstand more than 10% drift ratio demand. The mode of failure for these columns
was SMA bar fracture at higher drifts.
Mu
Mu Actual Actual
Mp Mp
My
Moment
Moment
My
Idealized Idealized
ØYi ØYi
Øy Øu Øy Øu
Curvature Curvature
(a) Conventional RC Sections (b) SMA-Reinforced Sections
16 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
moment, see Sections 3.1.4.8.1 and 3.1.4.8.2, and the associated forces (e.g., shear and overturn-
ing axial forces) in an essentially elastic manner. This design approach is known as capacity
design and is outlined in the AASHTO SGS.
where fye (ksi) is the expected austenite yield strength of the longitudinal column-reinforcing
SMA bars and dbl (in.) is the nominal diameter of longitudinal-column reinforcing SMA bars.
Nakashoji and Saiidi (2014) showed utilizing all available test data that the plastic hinge length
of SMA-reinforced ECC columns can be conservatively estimated using the equation presented
in AASHTO SGS (2011).
1% Limit
1
(Low Residual)
0.8
SMA/ECC Column Test
0.6 (Tazarv and Saiidi, 2014b)
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Drift Ratio (%)
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 17
ØYi L2 Lp
∆c = + (Øu − ØYi ) L p L − (3.1.5.2-1)
3 2
where ØYi is the idealized yield curvature calculated using the idealized method (Appendix H,
Fig. H-1), Øu is the ultimate curvature associated with either SMA bar fracture or core ECC fail-
ure, L is the column height from point of maximum moment to the point of contraflexure, and
Lp is the analytical plastic hinge length.
Column drift capacity (dc) is defined as the ratio of the column displacement capacity to the
column height as
∆c
δc = (3.1.5.2-2)
L
3.1.5.2.1 Minimum Drift Capacity. The recommended minimum drift ratio capacity
for SMA-reinforced ECC columns is listed in Table 3.1.5.2.1-1. The drift ratios correspond
to the minimum displacement ductility capacity for conventional columns. Columns shall
be designed to provide at least this level of drift ratio. Linear interpolation can be used for
intermediate aspect ratios.
ØsVn ≥ Vu (3.1.5.3-1)
in which:
Vn = Vc + Vs (3.1.5.3-2)
Where the strength reduction factor, Øs, is 0.9, Vn is the nominal shear capacity of member,
Vs is the reinforcing steel contribution to shear capacity, and Vc is the ECC contribution to
shear capacity:
Conventional
Member Novel Columns
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Single- or multi-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Note: “ ” is the drift ratio capacity (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility capacity.
Use linear interpolation for intermediate aspect ratios.
18 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
where Vc1 is based on AASHTO SGS (2011) and Vc2 is according to the JSCE Concrete Library 127
(2008) as
Pu
v c = 0.032α ′ 1 + ′ ≤ min ( 0.11 f ECC
f ECC ′ )
′ , 0.047α ′ f ECC (3.1.5.3-5)
2 Ag
fs
α′ = + 3.67 − µ D (3.1.5.3-6)
0.15
f s = ρs f yh ≤ 0.35 (3.1.5.3-7)
4 Asp
ρs = (3.1.5.3-8)
sD ′
where Ag is the gross area of the member cross-section (in.2), Pu is the ultimate compressive force
acting on the section (kips), Asp is the area of the spiral or hoop reinforcing bar (in.2), s is the pitch
of the spiral or spacing of hoops or ties (in.), D′ is the core diameter of the column measured from
′ is
center of spiral or hoop (in.), fyh is the nominal yield stress of transverse reinforcing (ksi), f ECC
the nominal ECC compressive strength (ksi), µD is the displacement ductility demand calculated
from drift demand, and a′ is the ECC shear stress adjustment factor.
Vc 2 = Vcd + V fd (3.1.5.3-9)
where Vcd and Vfd are, respectively, the contribution of ECC and fiber to shear capacity. The ECC
contribution to shear strength is as follows:
where
where Pu is the design axial compressive force, Mu is the design bending moment, Mo is the bend-
ing moment necessary to cancel stress due to axial force at extreme tension fiber corresponding
to design bending moment Md , bw (in.) is the width of member (in the case of circular section
with diameter of D, bw = 0.55D), d (in.) is the distance from the extreme compression fiber to the
centroid of extreme longitudinal tension reinforcement, pw = ASMA/(bw.d) (in the case of circular
section, pw = ASMA/Ag), ASMA is the column longitudinal SMA reinforcement area (in.2), and gb is
a safety factor and may be taken as 1.3.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 19
f vd.bw. z
Vfd = (3.1.5.3-12)
γ b tan (βu )
where fvd is the design tensile strength of ECC (may be taken as 0.29 ksi) and must be taken as
zero when it is smaller than 0.2 ksi, z is the distance from location of compressive stress resultant
to the centroid of tensile steel and may generally be taken as 0.87d, bu is the angle of the diagonal
crack surface to the member axis and may be taken as 45°.
For members that are reinforced with circular hoops, spirals, or interlocking hoops or spirals,
the nominal shear reinforcement strength, Vs is:
π nAsp f yh D ′
Vs = (3.1.5.3-13)
2 s
where n is the number of individual interlocking spirals or hoops within the spacing s. Refer to
AASHTO SGS for the calculation of Vs for other types of cross-sections.
where f ′ECC is the nominal ECC compressive strength (ksi), A g is the gross area of member
cross-section (in.2), ASMA is the column longitudinal SMA reinforcement area (in.2), fy is the
nominal austenite yield strength of SMA bars, and the upper limit strength modifier for
ECC is
z1 = 1 − 0.02 f ECC
′ ≤ 0.85 for f ECC
′ ≤ 11.6 ksi (3.1.5.4-2)
The axial load capacity for steel reinforced ECC sections was based on the JSCE Concrete
Library 127 (2008) and was modified in this section to include SMA bars.
20 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
be short- and long-term deformations. Serviceability for conventional RC and ECC is addressed
through the minimum shrinkage and temperature reinforcement requirement. The relatively
high transverse reinforcement to satisfy seismic design requirements in novel columns exceeds
the minimum shrinkage and temperature reinforcement requirement AASHTO LRFD.
3.1.5.7.1 Shrinkage and Creep. In the absence of test data, the ECC shrinkage strain may
be assumed to be 0.00046 after 1 year of drying. Other shrinkage parameters can be based on
current AASHTO LRFD requirement for concrete. Creep coefficient of ECC may be assumed to
be 1.5. These recommendations are according to the JSCE Concrete Library 127 (2008). Sample
test data are shown in Fig. 3.1.5.7-1.
3.1.5.7.2 Axial Deformations. Instantaneous axial deformation due to loads and long-
term shortening due to shrinkage and creep should be determined for ECC columns only when
these columns are post-tensioned. Design of post-tensioned ECC columns is beyond the scope
of this report.
The estimation of deformations in SMA-reinforced ECC elements at a limit state of service-
ability should be based on two assumptions: (1) strain is proportional to the distance from the
neutral axis of the cross-section and (2) ECC and SMA are linear elastic materials with moduli
of elasticity specified in section 3.1.3. Analysis can be performed assuming perfect bond between
reinforcing SMA bars and ECC.
Creep coefficient
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 21
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2). Since the austenite yield strength of
SMA bars is usually lower than the steel bar yielding, higher longitudinal reinforcement than con-
ventional columns is expected, but the reinforcement area should be within the specified range.
3.1.6.2.2 SMA Bar Size. The available size of reinforcing SMA bars is presented in
Table 3.1.6.2.2-1.
µ sp Hsp 0.1β
= (1 − 0.18β ) (3.1.6.3-1)
µCIP Lsp
where µsp is the displacement ductility capacity of a mechanically spliced column, µCIP is the
conventional non-spliced cast-in-place column displacement ductility capacity, b is the cou-
pler rigid length factor obtained from the splice tensile tests or the coupler manufacturer
(a range from 0 to 1), Hsp is the distance between the coupler end to the column adjoining member
interface (Fig. 3.1.6.3-1), and Lsp is the splice length. Hsp should be taken 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) when
couplers are installed at the column to adjoining member interface. Fig. 3.1.6.3-1 is intended to
clarify the parameters in Eq. 3.1.6.3-1. SMA bars require two splices as shown in Fig. 3.1.7.2-1.
In this case, the coupler properties in Eq. 3.1.6.3-1 should be based on the coupler that is near
the column end.
Since there is a linear relationship between the displacement ductility and the drift ratio,
the ratio of the spliced to cast-in-place (CIP) column ductilities presented in the equation is
approximately the same as the ratio of the spliced to CIP column drift ratios. More information
can be found in the NCHRP Project 12-105 final report.
22 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
Cap Beam
Couplers
Lsp
Hsp
Footing
Pu ≤ 0.15 f ECC
′ Ag (3.1.6.4-1)
Reinforcing Reinforcing
Steel Bar Steel Bar
Cast-in-Place Precast
Reinforcing Column Reinforcing
Column
SMA Bar SMA Bar
Reinforcing Reinforcing
Grout
Steel Bar Steel Bar
Filled
Ducts
Not all
reinforcement Footing Footing
are shown for clarity
(a) Cast-in-Place Detailing (b) Precast Detailing
Source: Tazarv and Saiidi, 2014a.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 23
3.1.8 References
AASHTO. (2011). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO. (2014). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
Alarab, L. A., Ross, B. E., and Poursaee, A. (2016). Corrosion Assessment of Coupled Steel Reinforcement with
Ni-Ti–Based Shape Memory Alloy in Simulated-Concrete Pore Solution. ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 8, 6 pp. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001565.
ASTM. (2007). Standard Test Method for Tension Testing of Nickel-Titanium Superelastic Materials, F2516-07,
West Conshohocken, PA.
Billah, A. H. M. M., and Alam, M. S. (2015). Damping-Ductility Relationship for Performance Based Seismic
Design of Shape Memory Alloy Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier. Proceeding of Structures Congress 2015,
ASCE, 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479117.042.
Dwairi, H. M., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2007). Equivalent Damping in Support of Direct Displacement-
Based Design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11(4), 512–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601033884.
Faulkner, M. G., Amalraj, J. J., and Bhattacharyya, A. (2000). Experimental Determination of Thermal and
Electrical Properties of Ni-Ti Shape Memory Wires. Smart Materials and Structures, 9(5), 632–639.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/9/5/307.
Haber, Z. B., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. H. (2013). Precast Column-Footing Connections for Accelerated Bridge
Construction in Seismic Zones, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-08, 612 pp.
JSCE Concrete Library 127. (2008). Recommendations for Design and Construction of High Performance
Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites with Multiple Fine Cracks (HPFRCC). Japan Society of Civil
Engineers.
McCormick, J. P. (2006). Cyclic Behavior of Shape Memory Alloys Materials Characterization and Optimization,
PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, 351 pp.
Motaref, S., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. (2011). Seismic Response of Precast Bridge Columns with Energy Dis-
sipating Joints, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-11-01.
Nakashoji, B., and Saiidi, M. S. (2014). Seismic Performance of Square Nickel-Titanium Reinforced ECC Columns
with Headed Couplers, Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-14-05, 252 pp.
Otsuka, K., and Wayman, C. M. (1998). Mechanism of Shape Memory Effect and Superplasticity (pp. 27–48).
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
24 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
PCI MNL-116-99. (1999). Manual for Quality Control for Plants and Production of Structural Precast Concrete
Products, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 328 pp.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalski, M. J. (2007). Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures.
Pavia: IUSS press.
Saiidi, M. S., O’Brien, M., and Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. (2009). Cyclic Response of Concrete Bridge Columns
Using Superelastic Nitinol and Bendable Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 106(1), 69–77.
Schlossmacher, P., Haas, T., and Schüssler, A. (1997). Laser-Welding of a Ni-Rich TiNi Shape Memory Alloy:
Mechanical Behavior. Journal De Physique IV France, 07(C5, No. C5), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1051/
jp4:1997539.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2014a). Next Generation of Bridge Columns for Accelerated Bridge Construction in
High Seismic Zones, Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-14-06, 400 pp.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2014b). Reinforcing NiTi Superelastic SMA for Concrete Structures. In Journal of
Structural Engineering. ASCE; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001176.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2015a). Low-Damage Precast Columns for Accelerated Bridge Construction in High
Seismic Zones. In Journal of Bridge Engineering. ASCE; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000806.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2015b). Design and Construction of Bridge Columns Incorporating Mechanical Bar
Splices in Plastic Hinge Zones, Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-15-07, 149 pp.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 25
FRP Jacket
Concrete
Reinforcing
Gap
SMA Bars
Footing
Figure 3.2.1-1. SMA-reinforced
FRP-confined plastic hinge detail
at column base.
26 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
Stress
k3=a.k1
Nonlinear
Model
k2 ß.fy
k1
fy
k1
k2
Strain (%)
er eu
Source: Tazarv and Saiidi, 2014b.
SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete bridge columns are suggested for sites in which the 1-sec
period acceleration coefficient, SD1, is greater than 0.3, which is equivalent to the seismic design
category (SDC) C or D according to AASHTO SGS (2011). Conventional bridges located in these
sites are expected to undergo large inelastic deformations under strong earthquakes. While there is
no adverse effect in using SMA-reinforced FRP-confined columns in bridges under SDC A and B,
bridge owners may take advantage of the enhanced durability of SMA and the ease of construction
with FRP tubes that serve as permanent formwork, even though there is no benefit from the seismic
performance perspective because of the relatively small seismic demand in SDC A and B.
3.2.3 Materials
3.2.3.1 SMA
In the absence of sufficient information about other SMA with other alloys, only nickel-titanium
(NiTi) superelastic reinforcing-SMA bars are suggested for use as bridge column longitudinal
bars at time of this writing. The available NiTi bars are composed of approximately equal amount
of nickel and titanium. NiTi with other compositions meeting the requirements specified in
these guidelines shall be permitted. Nonlinear material model and mechanical properties for SE
NiTi reinforcing SMA bars should conform to Fig. 3.2.3.1-1 and Table 3.2.3.1-1. A symmetric
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 27
stress-strain material model based on the expected tensile properties is permitted for the design
of SMA-reinforced columns.
Currently, only plain undeformed SMA bars are available ranging from No. 4 (Ø13 mm) to
No. 18 (Ø57 mm). It is proposed that the austenite finish temperature (Af) (the temperature below
which the bar is no longer superelastic) of NiTi SE SMA be equal to or less than the smaller of 14°F
(–10°C) and the “average low temperature” (a metrological measure) of the site of the structure
less 9°F (5°C). The density and Poisson’s ratio of SMA may be considered as 405 lb/ft3 (6500 kg/m3)
and 0.33, respectively (McCormick, 2006). The coefficient of thermal expansion of SE SMA can
be taken as 6.1 × 10–6/°F (11 × 10–6/°C) (Otsuka and Wayman, 1998). Electrical resistivity of SE
SMA is 32.3 µW-in. (820 µW-mm) (Faulkner et al., 2000). Research has shown that welding of NiTi
SMA should not be permitted since SMA may become brittle by reacting to oxygen, nitrogen, and
hydrogen at high temperature (Schlossmacher et al., 1997). A recent study showed that steel will
corrode faster if coupled NiTi SMA steel bars are submerged in chloride solution (Alarab et al.,
2016). Therefore, in absence of extensive test data, the use of NiTi SMA bars coupled with steel bars
in a marine environment (e.g., underwater columns) shall be avoided.
where f c′ is the unconfined cylinder compressive strength of concrete, ka is the section efficiency
factor, and fl is the confining pressure
f l = 2 E f nf t f εfe D (3.2.3.2-2)
where Ef is the modulus of elasticity of FRP, nf is the number of FRP layers, tf is the thickness of each
FRP layer, D is the section diameter (or the equivalent diameter for a non-circular section), and
Tension
ecu e 't eco
Strain
Compression
unconfined
f 'c
E2 1
confined
f 'cc
Figure 3.2.3.2-1. FRP-confined
concrete stress-strain model.
28 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
where f *fu is the guaranteed FRP design tensile strength reported by the manufacturer and CE is
the environmental reduction factor according to Table 3.2.3.2-1. The ratio of fl /f c′ shall not be
less than 0.08.
The maximum compressive strain (ecu) can be calculated as
fl εfe 0.45
ε cu = ε co 1.5 + 12kb ≤ 0.01 (3.2.3.2-4)
f c′ εco
where unconfined strain, eco, can be taken as 0.002. ka and kb are the section efficiency factors
(1.0 for circular sections). For a rectangular section with a width of b and a depth of h,
Ae b 2 Ae h 0.5
ka = and k =
Ac h Ac b
b
b ( h − 2r )2 + h (b − 2r )2 (3.2.3.2-5)
− ρ
c c
1− h b g
Ae 3 Ag
=
Ac 1 − ρg
where rc is the radius of the corner of the effective confining area, rg is the longitudinal SMA
reinforcement ratio, and Ag is the cross-section area.
The complete stress-strain relationship of an FRP-confined concrete is calculated as
( E c − E 2 )2 2
E c ε c − ε c 0 ≤ εc ≤ ε ′t
fc = 4 f c′ (3.2.3.2-6)
f c′+ E2 ε c ε t′ < εc ≤ εcu
where ec is the FRP-confined concrete strain, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, which
for normal weight concrete is
and
f cc′ − f c′
E2 =
εcu
(3.2.3.2-8)
2 f c′
ε t′ =
Ec − E 2
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 29
Stress
Tension
Strain
Compression
confined #1
confined #2
Combined
The confinement provided by an FRP jacket alone may not be sufficient to achieve large displace-
ment capacities. Thus, supplementary transverse steel reinforcement may be needed in addition to
the FRP jacket. Note that the confinement effect by an FRP jacket may be added to the confinement
effect by the transverse steel reinforcement in a way that the confined concrete stress at each strain
is the summation of the stresses calculated with each method as shown in Fig. 3.2.3.2-2. The strain
capacity to be used in analysis is the greater of that from the two methods.
Ec Ieff = My Øy (3.2.4.2-1)
30 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
0.2
Circular SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined
0.05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Axial Load Index, P / ( f'c Ag)
(a) Circular Sections
0.2
Rectangular SMA-Reinforced FRP-Confined
Concrete Sections
Elastic Stiffness Ratio (Ieff / Ig)
0.05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Axial Load Index, P / ( f'c Ag)
(b) Rectangular Sections
20 1
Hysteretic Damping (%)
0.8
15
yFlag-Shaped / y RC
0.6
10
Recommended
RC Columns 0.4
5 Dwairi et al. (2007) Dwairi et al. (2007)
Priestley et al. (2007) 0.2 Priestley et al. (2007)
Billah and Alam (2015) Billah and Alam (2015)
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 34 5 6 7
Ductility Ductility
(a) Hysteretic Damping (b) Flag-Shaped Damping (wFlag) over RC
Damping (wRC)
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 31
ratios. The average ratio of flag-shaped hysteretic damping to that of RC columns was 63%. Based
on these findings, the damping ratio of SMA-reinforced columns is proposed to be 3.2%, which
is 64% of the 5% damping ordinarily used for RC columns.
Note that the damping ratio and the modification factor for damping are based on the find-
ings of the parametric study presented in the SMA-reinforced ECC design guideline. The hys-
teretic behavior of an RC member is dominated by the longitudinal reinforcement behavior,
thus the damping of the SMA-reinforced ECC columns can be adopted for SMA-reinforced
FRP-confined concrete columns.
∆ pd
µD = 1 + (3.2.4.6-1)
∆ yi
where Δpd is the plastic displacement demand and Δyi is the idealized yield displacement correspond-
ing to the idealized yield curvature. The calculated ductility for SMA-reinforced columns from this
equation may be misleading because the yield strain of SMA bars is 5 times higher than that of steel
bars, resulting in a higher idealized yield displacement and thus a lower calculated displacement
ductility even though the displacement capacity of a SMA-reinforced column may substantially
exceed that of a comparable conventional column. Drift ratio, the ratio of column lateral top dis-
placement to the column height, is proposed as an alternative measure to estimate the deformation
capacity and demand of novel columns including SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns.
Because current bridge seismic codes utilize displacement ductility rather than drift capacity in
design, it is important to determine the relationship between ductility and drift ratio so that dis-
placement ductilities for conventional columns in current codes can be translated to drift ratios that
may be utilized in novel column design. An extensive parametric study on conventional RC columns
was conducted to establish a relationship between the displacement ductility and drift ratio for these
columns (Appendix H). Fig. 3.2.4.6-1 shows the condensed result of the parametric study. Equations
were developed to relate drift ratio and ductility and are listed in Table 3.2.4.6-1. Detailed results of
the parametric study are presented in Appendix. H. A linear interpolation is allowed for intermediate
aspect ratios. Alternatively, the following equation can be used for intermediate aspect ratios:
where Ar is the column aspect ratio (Fig. 3.2.4.6-2). For single-column bents, the aspect ratio is
defined as the ratio of the column height to the column side dimension parallel to the loading
32 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
10
9 Practical
8 Range
D
L
D
L
Pinned
Joint
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 33
direction. For multi-column bents, the aspect ratio is the ratio of a portion of the column length
(length of column from point of maximum moment to the point of contraflexure) to the col-
umn side dimension parallel to the loading direction. The full column length is used if one end
of the column is pinned.
3.2.4.8.1 Moment Demand. The column design moment is the smaller of that obtained
from (a) the demand at the design level earthquake and (b) the idealized plastic capacity of the
column cross-section. The column design moment obtained from (a) and (b) shall not be less
than the column failure moment (Mu) when the column failure moment is greater than 1.2 times
the idealized plastic moment (Mu ≥ 1.2Mp).
The general approach for conventional columns is that the plastic moment calculated using the
idealized method is approximately the same as the actual plastic moment capacity, thus the maxi-
mum possible moment demand is the plastic moment. This condition may not always be true for
novel columns. The SMA-reinforced member moment-curvature (or force-displacement) rela-
tionship is usually tri-linear (Fig. 3.2.4.8.1-1). When the moment (or force) demand calculated
from linear analysis falls on the third branch, the plastic moment (or force) calculated using the
idealized method might be significantly lower than the demand. In this case, the column failure
moment should be used as specified.
3.2.4.8.2 Shear Demand. The column shear demand is the smaller of that obtained from
(a) the demand at design level earthquake and (b) the shear associated with 1.2 times the plastic
moment calculated using the idealized method. The column shear obtained from (a) and (b)
Conventional
Member Novel Columns
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Single-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Aspect Ratio 4:
Multiple-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Note: “ ” is the drift ratio demand (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility demand
Use linear interpolation for intermediate aspect ratios.
34 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
Mu
Mu Actual Actual
Mp Mp
My
Moment
Moment
My
Idealized Idealized
ØYi ØYi
Øy Øu Øy Øu
Curvature Curvature
(a) Conventional RC Sections (b) SMA-Reinforced Sections
shall not be less than the shear associated with 1.44 times the idealized plastic moment when
the calculated failure moment exceeds 1.2Mp (Mu ≥ 1.2Mp). All possible plastic hinge locations
should be considered in the determination of shear forces using (b).
3.2.4.8.3 Column Adjoining Member Force Demand. Column adjoining members (e.g.,
footings, cap beams, and connections) are designed to resist the overstrength plastic hinging
moment, see sections 3.2.4.8.1 and 3.2.4.8.2, and the associated forces (e.g., shear and overturn-
ing axial forces) in an essentially elastic manner. This design approach is known as capacity
design and is outlined in the AASHTO SGS.
1.2
1% Limit
1
(Low Residual) SMA-Steel Confined
0.8 Concrete Column Test
0.6 (Saiidi et al., 2009)
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Drift Ratio (%)
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 35
minimum and maximum longitudinal reinforcement ratios, maximum aspect ratio). The ana-
lytical results are shown up to the failure point (drift capacity) of each column. The confining
effect of the transverse steel was ignored. Appendix I presents complete information regarding
material properties, modeling methods, and the variables. It can be seen that the residual drift
ratios for all columns are less than 1.0%. The left cluster of the data (solid black lines), mid-cluster
of the data (solid gray lines), and the bottom-right cluster of the data are respectively for columns
with aspect ratios of 4, 6, and 8. The residual-peak drift relationships measured in a conventional
RC bridge column test (dashed gray line) as well as an SMA steel-confined concrete column test
(dashed black line) are also shown in the figure.
where fye (ksi) is the expected austenite yield strength of the longitudinal column reinforcing
SMA bars and dbl (in.) is the nominal diameter of longitudinal column reinforcing SMA bars.
Nakashoji and Saiidi (2014) showed utilizing all available test data that the plastic hinge length
of SMA-reinforced columns can be conservatively estimated using the equation presented in
AASHTO SGS (2011). Nonetheless, transverse steel is needed to increase the FRP-confined column
displacement capacities in high seismic zones because of the low strain capacity of FRP-confined
concrete. Therefore, the ultimate displacement capacity is governed by steel confinement.
ØYi L2 Lp
∆c = + (Øu − ØYi ) L p L − (3.2.5.2-1)
3 2
where ØYi is the idealized yield curvature calculated using the idealized method (Appendix H,
Fig. H-1), Øu is the ultimate curvature associated with either SMA bar fracture or confined con-
crete failure, L is the column height from point of maximum moment to the point of contra
flexure, and Lp is the calculated plastic hinge length.
Column drift capacity (dc) is defined as the ratio of the column displacement capacity to the
column height as
∆c
δc = (3.2.5.2-2)
L
3.2.5.2.1 Minimum Drift Capacity. The proposed minimum drift ratio capacity for
SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns is listed in Table 3.2.5.2.1-1. The drift ratios
36 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
Conventional
Member Novel Columns
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Single- or multi-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Note: “ ” is the drift ratio capacity (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility capacity.
Use linear interpolation for intermediate aspect ratios.
correspond to the minimum displacement ductility capacity for conventional columns. Col-
umns shall be designed to provide at least this level of drift ratio. A linear interpolation can be
used for intermediate aspect ratios.
s n ≥ Vu
ØV (3.2.5.3-1)
in which:
Vn = Vc + Vs + 0.95Vf (3.2.5.3-2)
where the strength reduction factor, Øs, is 0.9, Vn is the nominal shear capacity of member,
Vs is the reinforcing steel contribution to shear capacity, Vc is the concrete contribution to
shear capacity, and Vf is the FRP contribution to the shear. Vc and Vs are computed according
to AASHTO SGS and are repeated here for circular columns:
Vc = 0.8vc Ag (3.2.5.3-3)
Pu
v c = 0.032α ′ 1 + f c′≤ min ( 0.11 f c′ , 0.047α ′ f c′) (3.2.5.3-4)
2 Ag
fs
α′ = + 3.67 − µD (3.2.5.3-5)
0.15
f s = ρs f yh ≤ 0.35 (3.2.5.3-6)
4 Asp
ρs = (3.2.5.3-7)
sD ′
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2), Pu is the ultimate compressive force
acting on section (kips), Asp is the area of spiral or hoop reinforcing bar (in.2), s is the pitch of
spiral or spacing of hoops or ties (in.), D′ is the core diameter of column measured from center
of spiral or hoop (in.), fyh is the nominal yield stress of transverse reinforcing (ksi), f c′ is the nomi-
nal concrete compressive strength (ksi), µD is the displacement ductility demand calculated from
drift demand, and a′ is the concrete shear stress adjustment factor.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 37
For members that are reinforced with circular hoops, spirals, or interlocking hoops or spirals,
the nominal shear reinforcement strength, Vs, is:
π nAsp f yh D ′
Vs = (3.2.5.3-8)
2 s
where n is the number of individual interlocking spirals or hoops within the spacing s. Refer to
AASHTO SGS for the calculation of Vs for other types of cross-sections.
The contribution of FRP to shear strength is calculated according to ACI 440.2R-08 (2008)
as follows:
where nf is the number of FRP layers, tf is the thickness of each FRP layer, a is the angle
between the direction of the FRP principal fibers and the longitudinal axis of the member,
D is the diameter of the column (or the largest side dimension), and
where ffu is the FRP design tensile strength including the environmental reduction factor.
The sum of shear strengths provided by the steel and FRP shall be limited to
where Ae is the effective area of the cross-section for shear resistance (0.8Ag).
where f cc′ is the maximum compressive strength of an FRP-confined concrete section (ksi), Ag is
the gross area of member cross-section (in.2), ASMA is the column longitudinal SMA reinforce-
ment area (in.2), fy is the nominal austenite yield strength of SMA bars, and Ø is 0.75 and 0.7 for
members with spirals and ties, respectively.
38 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
factors (AASHTO LRFD, Table 3.10.7.1-1) may be used to reasonably size the columns and
their adjoining members, only for preliminary design under the load combination of “Extreme
Event I.” Nevertheless, SMA-reinforced FRP-confined columns should be analyzed and
designed according to the present guideline for seismic loads.
3.2.5.7.1 Shrinkage and Creep. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014)
shall be used to compute shrinkage and creep of concrete. Service load stresses of an FRP
jacket shall not exceed the creep-rupture stress limit, which is 0.2ffu for glass FRP (GFRP),
0.3ffu for Aramid FRP (AFRP), and 0.55ffu for carbon FRP (CFRP). ffu is the FRP design ten-
sile strength including the environmental reduction factor. Note that the stress that has to be
checked for the creep-rupture is the section maximum tensile stress due to the interaction
of axial loads and bending moments in the axial direction of the member under service load
combinations.
3.2.5.7.2 Axial Deformations. Instantaneous axial deformation due to loads, and long-
term shortening due to shrinkage and creep, should be determined for concrete columns only
when these columns are post-tensioned. Design of post-tensioned FRP-confined concrete col-
umns is beyond the scope of this report.
The estimation of deformations in SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns at a limit
state of serviceability is based on two assumptions: (1) strain is proportional to the distance from
the neutral axis of the cross-section and (2) concrete and SMA are linear elastic materials with
moduli of elasticity specified in 3.2.3. The contribution of the FRP jacket to axial stiffness may
be neglected. Analysis can be performed assuming perfect bond between reinforcing SMA bars
and FRP-confined concrete.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 39
where Ag is the gross area of the member cross-section (in.2). Since the austenite yield strength of
SMA bars is usually lower than the steel bar yielding, higher longitudinal reinforcement than con-
ventional columns is expected, but the reinforcement area should be within in the specified range.
3.2.6.2.2 SMA Bar Size. The available size of reinforcing SMA bars is presented in
Table 3.2.6.2.2-1.
µ sp Hsp 0.1β
= (1 − 0.18β ) (3.2.6.3-1)
µCIP Lsp
where µsp is the displacement ductility capacity of a mechanically spliced column, µCIP is the
conventional non-spliced CIP column displacement ductility capacity, b is the coupler rigid
length factor obtained from the splice tensile tests or the coupler manufacturer (a range from
0 to 1), Hsp is the distance between the coupler end to the column adjoining member interface
(Fig. 3.2.6.3-1), and Lsp is the splice length. Hsp should be taken as 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) when couplers
are installed at the column to adjoining member interface. Fig. 3.2.6.3-1 is intended to clarify
the parameters in Equation 3.2.6.3-1. SMA bars require two splices as shown in Fig. 3.2.7.2-1.
40 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
Cap Beam
Couplers
Lsp
Hsp
Footing
In this case, the coupler properties in Eq. 3.2.6.3-1 should be based on the coupler that is near
the column end.
Since there is a linear relationship between the displacement ductility and the drift ratio, the
ratio of the spliced to CIP column ductilities presented in the equation is approximately the
same as the ratio of the spliced to CIP column drift ratios. More information can be found in
the NCHRP Project 12-105 final report.
Pu ≤ 0.15 f c′ Ag (3.2.6.4-1)
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2) and f ′c is the nominal concrete
compressive strength (ksi). A higher axial load value may be used provided that pushover
Reinforcing Reinforcing
Steel Bar Steel Bar
Cast-in-Place
Reinforcing Reinforcing
SMA Bar SMA Bar
2-in. Gap 2-in. Gap
Precast Column
Reinforcing
Steel Bar Pocket
Connection
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 41
analysis including the P – Δ effect is performed to compute the maximum drift capacity of
the column.
3.2.8 References
AASHTO. (2011). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO. (2014). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
Alarab, L. A., Ross, B. E., and Poursaee, A. (2016). Corrosion Assessment of Coupled Steel Reinforcement with
Ni-Ti–Based Shape Memory Alloy in Simulated-Concrete Pore Solution, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 8, 6 pp.
ACI 440.2R-08. (2008). Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening
Concrete Structures, Reported by American Concrete Institute Committee 440, 80 pp.
ASTM. (2007). Standard test method for tension testing of nickel-titanium superelastic materials, F2516-07, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Billah, A. H. M. M, and Alam, M. S. (2015) Damping-Ductility Relationship for Performance Based Seismic
Design of Shape Memory Alloy Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier. Proceeding of Structures Congress 2015,
ASCE, 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479117.042.
Dwairi, H. M., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2007). Equivalent Damping in Support of Direct Displacement-
Based Design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11(4), 512–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601033884.
42 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
Haber, Z. B., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. H. (2013). Precast Column-Footing Connections for Accelerated Bridge
Construction in Seismic Zones, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-08, 612 pp.
Faulkner, M. G., Amalraj, J. J., and Bhattacharyya, A. (2000). Experimental Determination of Thermal and
Electrical Properties of Ni-Ti Shape Memory Wires. Smart Materials and Structures, 9(5), 632–639. https://
doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/9/5/307.
McCormick, J. P. (2006). Cyclic Behavior of Shape Memory Alloys Materials Characterization and Optimization,
PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, 351 pp.
Nakashoji, B., and Saiidi, M. S. (2014). Seismic Performance of Square Nickel-Titanium Reinforced ECC Columns with
Headed Couplers, Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-14-05, 252 pp.
Otsuka, K., and Wayman, C. M. (1998). Mechanism of Shape Memory Effect and Superplasticity, 27–48.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
PCI MNL-116-99. (1999). Manual for Quality Control for Plants and Production of Structural Precast Concrete
Products, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 328 pp.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalski, M. J. (2007). Displacement-based Seismic Design of Structures.
Pavia: IUSS press.
Saiidi, M. S., O’Brien, M., and Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. (2009). Cyclic Response of Concrete Bridge Columns
Using Superelastic Nitinol and Bendable Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 106(1), 69–77.
Schlossmacher, P., Haas, T., and Schüssler, A. (1997). Laser-Welding of a Ni-Rich TiNi Shape Memory Alloy:
Mechanical Behavior. Journal De Physique IV France, 07(C5, No. C5), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1051/
jp4:1997539.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2014). Reinforcing NiTi Superelastic SMA for Concrete Structures. In Journal of
Structural Engineering. ASCE; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001176.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2015a). Low-Damage Precast Columns for Accelerated Bridge Construction
in High Seismic Zones. In Journal of Bridge Engineering. ASCE; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.
1943-5592.0000806.
Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. S. (2015b). Design and Construction of Bridge Columns Incorporating Mechanical Bar
Splices in Plastic Hinge Zones, Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-15-07, 149 pp.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 43
Concrete
Steel Tendon
FRP Jacket
Reinforcing
Gap
Steel Bars
Footing
44 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
in the vicinity of the rocking interface. The concrete damage can be minimized when it is
jacketed by FRP sheets. The low damage in FRP-confined concrete helps keep the bridge in
service after strong earthquakes. The combination of the rocking mechanism and the FRP
jacket (FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns) in bridge columns results in minimal concrete
damage and small residual displacements after severe earthquakes, and reduces or eliminates
the need for post-earthquake repair.
FRP-confined hybrid rocking bridge columns are recommended for sites in which the 1-sec
period acceleration coefficient, SD1, is greater than 0.3, which is equivalent to SDC C or D accord-
ing to AASHTO SGS. Conventional bridges located in these sites are expected to undergo large
inelastic deformations under strong earthquakes. While there is no adverse effect in using
FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns in bridges under SDC A and B, bridge owners may take
advantage of the ease of construction with FRP tubes that serve as permanent formwork, even
though there is no benefit from the seismic performance perspective because of the relatively
small seismic demand in SDC A and B.
3.3.3 Materials
3.3.3.1 Steel Tendons
Steel tendon mechanical properties and material model shall be according to AASHTO SGS
(AASHTO, 2011, Article 8.4.3). Yielding of tendons shall not be allowed for hybrid rocking col-
umns at the design level earthquake to minimize residual displacements (section 3.3.6.2). There-
fore, the use of Grade 270 strands is preferred over Grade 250 strands. The initial linear elastic
stress-strain relationship for Grade 270 steel strands with a yield strength of 245 ksi according
to AASHTO is
where fps is the tendon stress (ksi) and eps is the tendon strain.
Tension
ecu e 't eco
Strain
Compression
unconfined
f 'c
E2 1
confined
f 'cc
Figure 3.3.3.2-1. FRP-confined
concrete stress-strain model.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 45
where f c′ is the unconfined cylinder compressive strength of concrete, ka is the section efficiency
factor, and fl is the confining pressure
fl = 2 E f nf t f εfe D (3.3.3.2-2)
where Ef is the modulus of elasticity of FRP, nf is the number of FRP layers, tf is the thickness of
each FRP layer, D is the section diameter (or the equivalent diameter for a non-circular section), and
f l εfe 0.45
ε cu = ε co 1.5 + 12kb ≤ 0.01 (3.3.3.2-4)
f c′ εco
where eco can be taken as 0.002. ka and kb are the section efficiency factors (1.0 for circular sections).
For a rectangular section with a width of b and a depth of h,
Ae b 2 Ae h 0.5
ka = and k =
Ac h Ac b
b
b ( h − 2r )2 + h (b − 2r )2 (3.3.3.2-5)
− ρ
c c
1− h b g
Ae 3 Ag
=
Ac 1 − ρg
where rc is the radius of the corner of the effective confining area, rg is the longitudinal reinforcing
steel bar ratio, and Ag is the cross-section area.
The complete stress-strain relationship of an FRP-confined concrete section is calculated as
( Ec − E 2 ) 22
E c εc − 4 f c′
ε c 0 ≤ εc ≤ ε ′t
fc = (3.3.3.2-6)
f c′ + E2 ε c ε t′ < εc ≤ εcu
46 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
Stress
Tension
Strain
Compression
confined #1
confined #2
Combined
where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, which for normal weight concrete is
and
fcc′ − f c′
E2 =
εcu
(3.3.3.2-8)
2 fc′
ε t′ =
Ec − E 2
The confinement provided by FRP jacket alone may not be sufficient to achieve large displace-
ment capacities. Thus, supplementary transverse steel reinforcement may be needed in addition to
the FRP jacket. Note that the confinement effect by an FRP jacket may be added to the confinement
effect by the transverse steel reinforcement in a way that the confined concrete stress at each strain
is the summation of the stresses calculated with each method as shown in Fig. 3.3.3.2-2.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 47
stated (Section 3.3.6.2). These columns dissipate a significant amount of energy through yielding
of reinforcing steel bars.
∆ pd
µD = 1 + (3.3.4.6-1)
∆ yi
where Δpd is the plastic displacement demand and Δyi is the idealized yield displacement corre-
sponding to the idealized yield curvature. Generally, the calculated ductility for novel columns
from this equation may be misleading. Drift ratio, the ratio of column lateral top displacement
to the column height, is proposed as an alternative measure to estimate the deformation capacity
and demand of novel columns. Both the ductility-based design (according to the AASHTO SGS)
and the drift-based design (according to the present guideline) shall be permitted for the design
of hybrid rocking columns, including the FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns.
Because current bridge seismic codes utilize displacement ductility rather than drift capacity
in design, it is important to determine the relationship between ductility and drift ratio so that
displacement ductilities for conventional columns in current codes can be translated to drift
ratios that may be utilized in novel column design. An extensive parametric study on conven-
tional RC columns was conducted to establish a relationship between the displacement ductility
and drift ratio for these columns (Appendix H). Fig. 3.3.4.6-1 shows the condensed result of the
parametric study. Equations were developed to relate drift ratio and ductility and are listed in
10
9 Practical
8 Range
7
Drift Ratio (%)
6 Proposed relationships
are the upper bound
5
4
3
2 Aspect Ratio= 4
Aspect Ratio= 6
1
Aspect Ratio= 8
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement Ductility
48 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
Table 3.3.4.6-1. Detailed results of the parametric study are presented in Appendix H. Linear
interpolation is allowed for intermediate aspect ratios. Alternatively, the following equation can
be used for intermediate aspect ratios:
where Ar is the column aspect ratio (Fig. 3.3.4.6-2). For single-column bents, the aspect ratio
is defined as the ratio of the column height to the column side dimension parallel to the load-
ing direction. For multi-column bents, the aspect ratio is the ratio of a portion of the column
length (length of column from point of maximum moment to the point of contraflexure) to the
column side dimension parallel to the loading direction. The full column length is used if one
end of the column is pinned.
D
L
D
L
Pinned
Joint
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 49
Conventional
Member Novel Columns
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Single-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Aspect Ratio 4:
Multiple-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Note: “ ” is the drift ratio demand (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility demand.
Use linear interpolation for intermediate aspect ratios.
multiplied by the deformability factor, W, which should be taken as 1.0 for hybrid rocking col-
umns, including the FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. Linear interpolation may be used
for intermediate aspect ratios. Extrapolation for a column with a lower aspect ratio than 4 is valid
if the column behavior is dominated by flexure.
3.3.4.8.1 Moment Demand. The column design moment is the smaller of that obtained
from (a) the demand at the design level earthquake and (b) the idealized plastic capacity of the
column cross-section. The column design moment obtained from (a) and (b) shall not be less
than the column failure moment (Mu) when the column failure moment is greater than 1.2 times
the idealized plastic moment (Mu ≥ 1.2Mp).
The general approach for conventional RC columns is that the plastic moment calculated
using the idealized method is approximately the same as the actual plastic moment capacity, thus
the maximum possible moment demand is the plastic moment. This condition may not always
be true for novel columns (Fig. 3.3.4.8.1-1). Hybrid rocking columns with minimal reinforcing
steel bars may gain strength after the bar yielding due to rocking. In this case, the column failure
moment should be used as specified.
Mu
Actual
Mu
Actual Mp
Mp
My
Moment
Moment
My Idealized
Idealized
ØYi ØYi
Øy Øu Øy Øu
Curvature Curvature
(a) Conventional RC Sections (b) Hybrid Rocking Columns w/ Low Steel Bars
50 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
The moment-curvature analysis of a hybrid rocking column section is the same as that for a
conventional column with an additional axial load representing the post-tensioning force after
all losses.
3.3.4.8.2 Shear Demand. The column shear demand is the smaller of that obtained from
(a) the demand at design level earthquake and (b) the shear associated with 1.2 times the plas-
tic moment calculated using the idealized method. The column shear obtained from (a) and
(b) shall not be less than the shear associated with 1.44 times the idealized plastic moment when
the calculated failure moment exceeds 1.2Mp (Mu ≥ 1.2Mp). All possible plastic hinge locations
should be considered in the determination of shear forces using (b).
3.3.4.8.3 Column Adjoining Member Force Demand. Column adjoining members (e.g.,
footings, cap beams, and connections) are designed to resist the overstrength plastic hinging
moment, see Sections 3.3.4.8.1 and 3.3.4.8.2, and the associated forces (e.g., shear and overturn-
ing axial forces) in an essentially elastic manner. This design approach is known as the capacity
design and is outlined in the AASHTO SGS.
δ r = aδ 2 + bδ + c (3.3.4.9-1)
where d is the peak drift ratio (%), As is total area of longitudinal reinforcing steel bars, Ag is the
gross area of the member cross-section, and the polynomial constraints are
a = 0.026 ( f pi f py ) + 0.047
b = −0.55 ( f pi f py ) + 0.32 (3.3.4.9-2)
c = 0.36 ( f pi f py ) − 0.27
where fpi is the tendon initial stress after all losses and fpy is the yield strength of the tendon.
Fig. 3.3.4.9-1a shows the residual drift–peak drift relationship for a wide range of initial tendon
stresses. The analysis leading to this figure is presented in Appendix I. It can be seen that the
residual drift ratio of the hybrid rocking columns exceeds the 1% drift limit when the peak drift
ratio demand exceeds 4% in all practical cases.
The residual drift ratio (dr in %) for hybrid rocking columns with a reinforcing steel bar ratio
(As/Ag) between 0.5% and 1.0% is 80% of that calculated using Eq. 3.3.4.9-1. The residual drift
ratio for hybrid rocking columns with a reinforcing steel bar ratio (As/Ag) of 0.5% or smaller is
negligible (dr ≤ 1.0%). Table 3.3.4.9-1 presents a summary of the residual drift ratio estimation
for hybrid rocking columns.
Fig. 3.3.4.9-1b and c show the measured and calculated (using Equation 3.3.4.9-1) residual-peak
drift ratio relationships for 2 half-scale hybrid rocking columns tested by Larkin et al. (2012). Good
correlation between the measured and calculated results was observed for both columns.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 51
7
fpi/fpy = 0.0
6 fpi/fpy = 0.15
2
1% Limit
1
(Low Residual)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Drift Ratio (%)
(a) Proposed Equation for As/Ag > 0.01
5 5
PTHL-Larkin et al. (2012) PTLL-Larkin et al. (2012)
Residual Drift Ratio (%)
Residual Drift Ratio (%)
4.5 4.5
Calculated for PTHL Calculated for PTLL
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1% Limit 1% Limit
1 1
(Low Residual) (Low Residual)
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Drift Ratio (%) Peak Drift Ratio (%)
(b) Proposed Equation vs. Measured Data (c) Proposed Equation vs. Measured Data
(As/Ag = 0.013 and fpi/fpy = 0.23) (As/Ag = 0.007 and fpi/fpy = 0.18)
where fye (ksi) is the expected yield strength of the longitudinal column reinforcing steel bars and
dbl (in.) is the nominal diameter of longitudinal column reinforcing steel bars.
52 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
The AASHTO analytical plastic hinge length for RC columns is suggested for the design of
hybrid rocking columns because the plastic hinge length is controlled by longitudinal reinforcing
steel that is common to both RC and hybrid rocking columns.
ØYi L2 Lp
∆c = + (Øu − ØYi ) L p L − (3.3.5.2-1)
3 2
where ØYi is the idealized yield curvature calculated using the idealized method (Appendix H,
Fig. H-1), Øu is the ultimate curvature associated with either steel bar fracture or confined
concrete failure, L is the column height from point of maximum moment to the point of contra
flexure, and Lp is the calculated plastic hinge length.
Column drift capacity (dc) is defined as the ratio of the column displacement capacity to the
column height as
∆c
δc = (3.3.5.2-2)
L
3.3.5.2.1 Minimum Drift Capacity. The suggested minimum drift ratio capacity for hybrid
rocking columns is listed in Table 3.3.5.2.1-1. The drift ratios correspond to the minimum dis-
placement ductility capacity for conventional columns. Columns shall be designed to provide
at least this level of drift ratio. Linear interpolation may be used for intermediate aspect ratios.
ØsVn ≥ Vu (3.3.5.3-1)
in which:
Vn = Vc + Vs + 0.95Vf (3.3.5.3-2)
Conventional
Member Novel Columns
Columns
Aspect Ratio 4:
Single- or multi-column bents Aspect Ratio 6:
Aspect Ratio 8:
Note: “ ” is the drift ratio capacity (%) and “ ” is the displacement ductility capacity.
Use linear interpolation for intermediate aspect ratios.
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 53
Where the strength reduction factor, Øs, is 0.9, Vn is the nominal shear capacity of member,
Vs is the reinforcing steel contribution to shear capacity, Vc is the concrete contribution to shear
capacity, and Vf is the FRP contribution to the shear. Vc and Vs are computed according to
AASHTO SGS and are repeated here for circular columns:
Vc = 0.8vc Ag (3.3.5.3-3)
Pu
v c = 0.032α ′ 1 + f c′≤ min ( 0.11 f c′ , 0.047α ′ f c′) (3.3.5.3-4)
2 Ag
fs
α′ = + 3.67 − µD (3.3.5.3-5)
0.15
f s = ρs f yh ≤ 0.35 (3.3.5.3-6)
4 Asp
ρs = (3.3.5.3-7)
sD ′
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2), Pu is the ultimate compressive force
acting on section (kips), Asp is the area of the spiral or hoop reinforcing bar (in.2), s is the pitch
of spiral or spacing of hoops or ties (in.), D′ is the core diameter of column measured from cen-
ter of spiral or hoop (in.), fyh is the nominal yield stress of transverse reinforcing (ksi), f ′c is the
nominal concrete compressive strength (ksi), µD is the displacement ductility demand calculated
from drift demand, and a’ is the concrete shear stress adjustment factor.
For members that are reinforced with circular hoops, spirals, or interlocking hoops or spirals,
the nominal shear reinforcement strength, Vs, is:
π nAsp f yh D ′
Vs = (3.3.5.3-8)
2 s
where n is the number of individual interlocking spirals or hoops within the spacing s. Refer to
AASHTO SGS for the calculation of Vs for other types of cross-sections.
The contribution of FRP to shear strength is calculated according to ACI 440.2R-08 (2008)
as follows:
where nf is the number of FRP layers, tf is the thickness of each FRP layer, a is the angle between
the direction of the FRP principal fibers and the longitudinal axis of the member, D is the diameter
of the column (or the largest side dimension of the column section), and
where ffu is the FRP design tensile strength including the environmental reduction factor.
54 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
The sum of shear strengths provided by the steel and FRP shall be limited to
where Ae is the effective area of the cross-section for shear resistance (0.8Ag).
where f ′cc is the maximum compressive strength of an FRP-confined concrete section (ksi), Ag is
the gross area of member cross-section (in.2), As is the column longitudinal reinforcing steel bar
area (in.2), fy is the nominal yield strength of the column longitudinal reinforcing steel bars, and
Ø is 0.75 and 0.7 for members with spirals and ties, respectively.
3.3.5.7.1 Shrinkage and Creep. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014)
shall be used to compute shrinkage and creep of concrete. Service load stresses of an FRP jacket
shall not exceed the creep-rupture stress limit, which is 0.2ffu for glass FRP (GFRP), 0.3ffu for
Aramid FRP (AFRP), and 0.55ffu for carbon FRP (CFRP). ffu is the FRP design tensile strength
including the environmental reduction factor. Note that the stress that has to be checked for the
creep-rupture is the section maximum tensile stress under combined axial loads and bending
moments due to service loads.
3.3.5.7.2 Axial Deformations. Instantaneous axial deformation due to loads and long-
term shortening due to shrinkage and creep should be determined according to the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014).
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 55
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2). Hybrid rocking columns with As < 0.0025Ag
tend to exhibit inadequate energy dissipation and those with As > 0.025Ag tend to exhibit signifi-
cant residual displacements comparable to those in conventional columns. When As < 0.01Ag, the
damping ratio for dynamic analyses shall be taken as 3.2% since a flag-shaped hysteretic behavior
is expected. Consequently, the displacement demand for hybrid rocking columns with As < 0.01Ag
calculated using equivalent static or spectral analysis method shall be increased by 20% to account
for the lower damping ratio. The modification factor for short-period structures when As < 0.01Ag
may be taken as 1.0.
Fig. 3.3.6.2.1-1a shows hysteretic damping ratio versus displacement ductility for bridge
columns with flag-shaped hysteresis curves. It can be seen than hysteretic damping of col-
umns with flag-shaped behavior is lower than that of conventional RC columns, as expected.
20 1
Hysteretic Damping (%)
0.8
15
yFlag-Shaped / y RC
0.6
Recommended
10
0.4
RC Columns
5 Dwairi et al. (2007)
Dwairi et al. (2007) 0.2 Priestley et al. (2007)
Priestley et al. (2007) Recommended
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 4 3 5 6 7
Ductility Ductility
(a) Hysteretic Damping (b) Flag-Shaped Damping over RC Damping
56 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
Table 3.3.6.2.1-1. Damping for hybrid rocking columns with As < 0.01Ag.
Furthermore, the ratio of the flag-shaped column damping to the RC column damping is
approximately constant for ductilities greater than 2 (Fig. 3.3.6.2.1-1b). Table 3.3.6.2.1-1
presents a summary of damping ratios. The average ratio of flag-shaped hysteretic damp-
ing to that of RC columns was 64%. Based on these findings, the damping ratio of hybrid
rocking columns with As < 0.01Ag is proposed to be 3.2%, which is 64% of the typical
5% damping.
3.3.6.2.2 Longitudinal Steel Tendons. The total area of longitudinal steel tendons (Ap) in
hybrid rocking columns should satisfy:
Ap ≥ 0.004 Ag (3.3.6.2.2-1)
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2). This requirement ensures that steel
tendon yielding is avoided.
Parametric studies of more than 650 hybrid rocking columns (Appendix C) showed that steel
tendon stress at the ultimate displacement of the column may exceed the tendon yield strength if
the column aspect ratio is high, the axial load level is low, and the longitudinal steel ratio is small.
For example, Fig. 3.3.6.2.2-1 shows tendon stresses at the ultimate displacement of a hybrid
rocking column with extreme properties (axial load = 0.02f ′c Ag, aspect ratio = 8, As = 0.0025Ag,
and fpi = 0.3fpy) that increases the tendon stress at the column failure. The only variable in this
figure is the area of the column longitudinal steel tendons. It can be seen that when the tendon
area exceeds 0.004Ag, the tendon does not yield and the column fails either due to the steel bar
fracture or the confined concrete failure.
3.3.6.2.3 Longitudinal Steel Tendon Initial Stresses. The initial stress of longitudinal steel
tendons in hybrid rocking columns after all losses (fpi) shall satisfy:
f pi ≤ 0.3 f py (3.3.6.2.3-1)
1.1
Tendon Steel Stress Ratio (fps / fpy)
Tendon Yielding
1
P / f'c Ag = 0.02
fpi / fpy = 0.30
Minimum
Recommended
0.9
As / Ag = 0.0025
AR = 8
0.8
0.7
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 57
1.1
0.9
Maximum
Recommended
P / f'c Ag = 0.02
0.8
As / Ag = 0.01
Ap / Ag = 0.004
0.7
AR = 8
Hybrid Rocking Columns
0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Initial Steel Tendon Stress Ratio (fpi / fpy)
where fpy is the yield strength of steel tendons. The calculation of steel tendon stress losses shall
be according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014, Article 5.9.5).
Parametric studies (Appendix C) showed that when steel tendon initial stress (after all losses)
is large, tendon yields before reinforcing steel bar fractures or the confined concrete fails result-
ing in small displacement capacities. For example, Fig. 3.3.6.2.3-1 shows tendon stresses at
the ultimate displacement of a hybrid rocking column with extreme properties (axial load =
0.02f c′ Ag, aspect ratio = 8, As = 0.0025Ag, and Ap = 0.004Ag). The only variable in this figure is
the initial steel tendon stress. It can be seen that when the tendon initial stress is more than
0.35fpy, the tendon yields before the reinforcing steel bar fractures or the confined concrete fails.
Eq. 3.3.6.2.3-1 is more stringent that the analytical results due to uncertainty in the estimation
of tendon stress losses.
Pu ≤ 0.15 f c′ Ag (3.3.6.3-1)
where Ag is the gross area of member cross-section (in.2) and f ′c is the nominal concrete
compressive strength (ksi). The axial load may exceed this limit provided that pushover
analysis, including the P – Δ effect, is performed to compute the maximum drift capacity of
the column.
For a hybrid rocking column with As < 0.01Ag,
Pu ≤ 0.1 f c′ Ag (3.3.6.3-2)
The P – Δ effect is more significant for hybrid rocking columns compared to conventional
columns specifically when the longitudinal steel ratio is relatively small.
58 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
3.3.7.4 Ducts
Minimum requirements for ducts are according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifi-
cations (2014). Ducts shall not be grouted.
Several tendons are needed for large-diameter columns. In this case, the number and the size
of tendons per duct should be maximized and the number of ducts per column section should
be minimized. There is currently a 37-strand anchorage available in the U.S. for 0.6-in. (15-mm)
diameter steel strands. If multiple ducts cannot be avoided, the minimum number of ducts should
be taken as 3 to be radially distributed in the section close to the column center. The minimum
spacing of ducts in any direction of a section shall not be smaller than 1.5 times the largest aggre-
gate size of the column concrete mix.
Reinforcing Reinforcing
Tendon and Duct
Precast Column
All reinforcement
not shown
Pocket
Connection
Footing Footing
Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Bridge Columns with Improved Energy Dissipating Mechanisms 59
3.3.8 References
AASHTO. (2011). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO. (2014). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
ACI 440.2R-08. (2008). Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening
Concrete Structures, Reported by American Concrete Institute Committee 440, 80 pp.
Dwairi, H. M., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. S. (2007). Equivalent Damping in Support of Direct Displacement-
Based Design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11(4), 512–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601033884.
Larkin, A. S., Sanders, D., and Saiidi, M. S. (2012). Unbonded Prestressed Columns for Earthquake Resistance, Center
for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-12-02, 256 pp. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412367.048.
PCI MNL-116-99. (1999). Manual for Quality Control for Plants and Production of Structural Precast Concrete
Products, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 328 pp.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalski, M. J. (2007). Displacement-based Seismic Design of Structures.
Pavia: IUSS press.
Thonstad, T., Mantawy, I., Stanton, J., Eberhard, M., and Sanders, D. (2016). Shaking Table Performance of
a New Bridge System with Pretensioned Rocking Columns, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 14 pp.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000867, 04015079.
CHAPTER 4
4.1 Summary
Standard RC bridge columns are generally designed to dissipate earthquake energy through
yielding of longitudinal reinforcing steel and spalling of concrete that collectively cause large
plastic deformations in columns. Even though bridge collapse is expected to be prevented using
current design specifications, excessive plastic hinge damage and large post-earthquake perma-
nent lateral deformations may cause the decommissioning of bridges for repair or replacement.
The impact of bridge closure on access to the affected area shortly after an earthquake, traveling
public, and economy of the region is significant. A new paradigm is emerging among bridge
owners, requiring that bridges remain functional with minimal interruption of the traffic flow
after earthquakes. To materialize this paradigm, bridge column construction practice would
need to explore unconventional materials and techniques that possess characteristics that make
bridge columns resilient.
The objectives of the study were to develop (1) proposed AASHTO guidelines for the evalu-
ation of new techniques for the design and construction of bridge columns with energy dis-
sipation mechanisms meant to minimize bridge damage and replacement after a seismic event
and (2) design and construction concepts based on new materials and techniques [e.g., post-
tensioning, shape memory alloy (SMA), engineered cementitious composite (ECC), rubber
pads, and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping] and analytical techniques. The objectives
were accomplished through four phases encompassing 13 tasks. A literature review on the state-
of-the-art was carried out to highlight the benefits of novel materials and new technologies, to
establish mechanical properties of novel materials, and to identify design, construction, and
performance knowledge gaps. A survey of state departments of transportation on past and future
application of advanced materials in bridges was also conducted. Thirty-nine new bridge col-
umn concepts, each with an improved energy dissipation system, were developed incorporating
SMA, ECC, FRP, ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), rubber, or rocking systems. Of
the 39 concepts, only eight have been proof tested at the time of this writing but the remaining
columns are believed also to be feasible.
Other novel column concepts are likely to emerge in the future, each aiming to improve seismic
performance compared to conventional RC columns. To assess any existing or emerging novel
column, evaluation guidelines were developed using 14 parameters to determine suitability and
performance of the columns. The parameters included in the evaluation guidelines were (1) plas-
tic hinge damage, (2) displacement capacity, (3) residual displacement, (4) availability of proof
test data, (5) availability of analysis tools, (6) availability of design guidelines, (7) past field appli-
cations, (8) initial cost, (9) advanced material limitations, (10) ease of construction, (11) inspect-
ability, (12) maintenance, (13) post-earthquake repair need, and (14) system performance. These
parameters were quantified and scored with different weights. The overall evaluation result was
60
converted to a five-star rating method to help bridge owners and designers compare different
alternatives and make the final selection.
The current AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design uses displacement
ductility as a measure of column deformability. However, this parameter may not be suitable
for novel columns since the yield mechanism in the novel and conventional columns can be dif-
ferent. To address this difference, drift ratio was used in this study to evaluate deformability. A
comprehensive parametric study was carried out to relate the displacement ductility to the drift
ratio for practical ranges of RC bridge column geometry and axial loading.
Three of the 39 novel columns were selected by the project panel for further investigation:
(1) SMA-reinforced ECC columns, (2) SMA-reinforced FRP-confined concrete columns, and
(3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. Comprehensive analysis, design, and construction
guidelines were developed for these three novel columns. Step-by-step comprehensive design
examples were developed for each of the three columns to better show the use of the proposed
guidelines. The framework used to develop these guidelines can be used by researchers to develop
guidelines for other existing or emerging novel columns.
4.2 Conclusions
The study presented in this report consisted of many tasks all aimed at accomplishing the two
primary objectives of the project, which were development of (1) AASHTO guidelines for the
evaluation of novel bridge columns and (2) design, construction, and analytical techniques for
bridge columns utilizing advanced materials. The request for proposals (RFP) called for addi-
tional tasks to address other aspects of novel columns. The deliverables addressing the primary
objectives were presented in the main body of this document. Documents describing the work
on other tasks stated in the RFP and the supporting studies related to the primary objectives are
presented in the appendices.
62 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research Overview
the cementitious material in the plastic hinge could be achieved by the use of damage tolerant
materials or through external FRP jackets. The study showed that many of the provisions of
the AASHTO SGS are applicable to analysis and design of novel columns, but the design has to
also incorporate recent research results that address the characteristics of the particular advanced
materials used in the columns. Furthermore, it was found that peculiarities of advanced materials
could affect the method by which design forces are determined.
star rating discussed under the guidelines was applied to both seismic performance and other
considerations and were combined into a single star rating. It was concluded that non-seismic
considerations could offset a higher star rating given to seismic performance for some of
the columns, leading to a relatively low overall number of stars for these columns.
Appendices A–I
Appendices A through I are not printed herein but are available for download from the TRB
website (trb.org) by searching for “NCHRP Research Report 864.” The appendices include the
following:
Appendix A: Literature Review
Appendix B: Survey of State Departments of Transportation
Appendix C: Synthesis of Literature
Appendix D: Novel Column and Construction Concepts
Appendix E: Demonstration of Evaluation Guidelines
Appendix F: Detailed Design Examples for Three Novel Columns
Appendix G: Benefits and Economic Impact of Novel Columns
Appendix H: Relationship Between Drift Ratio and Displacement Ductility
Appendix I: Modeling Methods and Validation for Novel Columns
64
NCHRP
NATIONAL
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
Seismic Evaluation of
Bridge Columns with Energy
Dissipating Mechanisms
Volume 2: Guidelines
MEMBERS
Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental
Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock
Jennifer Cohan, Secretary, Delaware DOT, Dover
James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations (retired), Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, TX
Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Executive Director–CEO, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, FL
A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe
John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix
Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA
Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA
Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Power, Energy, and Infrastructure Group, BMO Capital Markets Corporation, New York
S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson Professor of Manufacturing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, MI
Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Melinda McGrath, Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Patrick K. McKenna, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City
James P. Redeker, Commissioner, Connecticut DOT, Newington
Mark L. Rosenberg, Executive Director, The Task Force for Global Health, Inc., Decatur, GA
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Davis
Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX
Pat Thomas, Senior Vice President of State Government Affairs, United Parcel Service, Washington, DC
James M. Tien, Distinguished Professor and Dean Emeritus, College of Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
Dean H. Wise, Vice President of Network Strategy, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Fort Worth, TX
Charles A. Zelle, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT, Saint Paul
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Michael Berube, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy
Mary R. Brooks, Professor Emerita, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and Chair, TRB Marine Board
Mark H. Buzby (Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy), Executive Director, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT
Steven Cliff, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento
Howard R. Elliott, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Audrey Farley, Executive Director, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. DOT
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
Heath Hall, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT
Brandye Hendrickson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT
Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT
Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Heidi King, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Bevan B. Kirley, Research Associate, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, and Chair, TRB Young
Members Council
Wayne Nastri, Acting Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA
Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL
Todd T. Semonite (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC
Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Richard A. White, Acting President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
K. Jane Williams, Executive Director, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT
Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Paul F. Zukunft (Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
Volume 2: Guidelines
M. Saiid Saiidi
Mostafa Tazarv
Sebastian Varela
Infrastructure Innovation, LLC
Reno, NV
Stuart Bennion
M. Lee Marsh
Iman Ghorbani
BergerABAM
Seattle, WA
Thomas P. Murphy
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
Mechanicsburg, PA
Subscriber Categories
Bridges and Other Structures
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2017
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 12-101 by Infrastructure Innovation,
LLC in collaboration with BergerABAM and Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
The principal investigator (PI) on this project was M. Saiid Saiidi. M. Lee Marsh of BergerABAM and
Thomas P. Murphy of Modjeski and Masters, Inc. were the co-PIs of the project. Senior research associate,
Mostafa Tazarv, and research associate, Sebastian Valera, performed the research under the supervision
of the PI. Stuart Bennion and Iman Ghorbani developed the design examples under the supervision of
M. Lee Marsh (Co-PI).
The research team is indebted to Dr. Amir Mirmiran of the University of Texas at Tyler for his feedback
on concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer tube columns.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Scott Arnold of FYFE Co. LLC, Mr. Dominique Corvez and
Mr. Paul White of Lafarge North America Inc., Mr. Kevin Friskel of Dynamic Isolation Systems Inc.,
Mr. Rich LaFond of Saes Smart Materials, and Mr. Edward Little of FiberMatrix Inc. for providing cost
estimates, for novel materials.
Dr. Toutlemonde of Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, de l’Aménagement
et des Réseaux (IFSTTAR) is thanked for sharing UHPC design recommendations.
FOREWORD
By Waseem Dekelbab
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
This report describes the evaluation of new materials and techniques for design and
construction of novel bridge columns meant to improve seismic performance. These
techniques include shape memory alloy (SMA), engineered cementitious composite (ECC),
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), and rocking mechanisms. The report includes two volumes:
Volume 1: Research Overview and Volume 2: Guidelines. The guidelines cover a quantita-
tive evaluation method to rate novel columns as well as design and construction methods
for three specific novel columns: (1) SMA-reinforced ECC columns, (2) SMA-reinforced
FRP-confined concrete/columns, and (3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. More
than 2,250 analyses in the form of moment-curvature, pushover, cyclic, and dynamic simu-
lations were carried out to investigate the behavior of the selected columns and to develop
proposed design guidelines according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
and the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. The material in this
report will be of immediate interest to bridge owners.
The primary objective of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the
AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design is to prevent bridge collapse
in the event of earthquakes. Reinforced concrete bridge columns are designed to dissipate
earthquake energy through considerable ductile nonlinear action that is associated with
severe spalling of concrete and yielding of reinforcement. Proven detailing procedures have
been developed for reinforced concrete bridge columns that provide this type of behavior
and are intended to prevent bridge collapse. However, for columns to successfully dissipate
energy, they have to behave as nonlinear elements subject to substantial damage and possibly
permanent drift to the point that the bridge would have to be decommissioned for repair
or replacement. The impact of bridge closure on the traveling public and the economy is
significant. Therefore, alternative design approaches using advanced materials and uncon-
ventional seismic techniques are needed to improve current practice. Despite the superior
performance of columns with the innovative materials reported in the literature, design
guidelines and methods of structural analysis are not addressed in the current seismic
bridge design specifications. Research was needed to develop proposed AASHTO guidelines
to help bridge owners incorporate innovative seismic energy dissipation principles into
practice.
Research was performed under NCHRP Project 12-101 by Infrastructure Innovation, LLC
to develop (1) proposed guidelines for the evaluation of new techniques for the design and
construction of bridge columns with energy dissipation mechanisms meant to minimize
bridge damage and replacement after a seismic event and (2) design and construction concepts
based on new materials and techniques (e.g., post-tensioning, SMA, ECC, rubber pads, and
FRP wrapping) and analytical techniques (e.g., current design practice, direct displacement
based design, and substitute structure design method). The guidelines included analysis
procedures, evaluation criteria (e.g., constructability, serviceability, inspectability, seismic
and non-seismic system performance, and post-event repair), design procedures, construction
details, and detailed design examples.
A number of deliverables, provided as appendices, are not published but are available on
the TRB website (trb.org) by searching for “NCHRP Research Report 864.” These appendices
are titled as follows:
CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Section 1 General
4 Section 2 Purpose
5 Section 3 Philosophy
6 Section 4 Definitions
8 Section 5 Characteristics of Novel Columns
8 5.1 Plastic Hinge Damage
9 5.2 Displacement Capacity
11 5.3 Residual Displacements
13 Section 6 Non-seismic and Seismic Design Considerations
13 6.1 Non-seismic Design Consideration
13 6.2 Seismic Design Considerations
15 Section 7 Construction and Maintenance Considerations
16 Section 8 Evaluation and Selection Criteria
20 Section 9 Analysis and Design Procedure Development
20 9.1 Analysis Procedure Requirements
21 9.2 Design Procedure Requirements
23 Section 10 Conclusions
24 References
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.
SUMMARY
1
2 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 2: Guidelines
any existing or emerging novel columns, evaluation guidelines were developed in this docu-
ment using 14 parameters to determine suitability and performance of the columns. The
parameters included in the evaluation guidelines were (1) plastic hinge damage, (2) displace-
ment capacity, (3) residual displacement, (4) availability of proof test data, (5) availability of
analysis tool, (6) availability of design guidelines, (7) past field applications, (8) initial cost,
(9) advanced material limitations, (10) ease of construction, (11) inspectability, (12) main-
tenance, (13) post-earthquake repair need, and (14) system performance. These parameters
were quantified and scored with different weights. The overall evaluation results were con-
verted to a five-star rating method to help bridge owners and designers compare different
alternatives and to make the final selection. The present report presents the proposed evalu-
ation guidelines for resilient bridge columns with improved seismic performance.
SECTION 1
General
3
SECTION 2
Purpose
A variety of resilient novel columns are emerging. Uniform assessment tools are needed to
assist bridge owners and designers in selecting the columns that meet various constraints. The
purpose of these guidelines is to provide a framework for the evaluation and implementation
of novel bridge column designs within the existing AASHTO design specification methodology.
They are not intended to provide detailed design specifications, but rather general guidance to
aid in the evaluation and potential adoption of novel bridge columns.
The guidelines take 14 parameters into account:
1. Plastic hinge damage,
2. Displacement capacity,
3. Residual displacement,
4. Availability of proof test data,
5. Availability of analysis tool,
6. Availability of design guidelines,
7. Past field applications,
8. Initial cost,
9. Advanced material limitations,
10. Ease of construction,
11. Inspectability,
12. Maintenance,
13. Post-earthquake repair need, and
14. System performance.
These parameters are quantified and scored with different weights. Finally, the overall evalu-
ation result is presented using a five-star rating system for novel columns to help bridge owners
and designers compare different alternatives and make the final selection.
Before a novel column is implemented in the field, the guidelines ideally will be used in
combination with analysis, design, and detailing specifications for that column. Examples of
such specification for detailed analysis, design, and construction are presented in this document
for three novel columns (1) shape memory alloy (SMA)-reinforced engineered cementitious
(ECC) columns, (2) SMA-reinforced fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)-confined concrete columns,
and (3) FRP-confined hybrid rocking columns. Novel column design guidelines are presented
in the following chapter and detailed design examples are presented in Appendix F of this
present project [available for download from the TRB website (trb.org) by searching for “NCHRP
Research Report 864”].
SECTION 3
Philosophy
Treatment of specific novel column concepts are avoided in these guidelines, as they are
intended to apply to a broad range of concepts, both existing and those yet to be developed. This
has led to certain modifications of existing seismic design provisions, such as the use of drift
ratios in place of ductility.
Displacement-based methodology is generally a better design approach for novel columns
because these columns may exhibit completely different behavior and capacities compared to
conventional columns. Constitutive materials of a ductile member can be accounted for directly
using the displacement-based method while force-based design relies on the overall load-
carrying capacities of the member. Furthermore, the amount of available test data for existing
novel columns is not yet sufficient to reliably establish the response modification (R) factor that is
needed in the force-based method. Emerging novel column concepts need to undergo extensive
laboratory testing before establishing R-factors. Therefore, the use of “force-based design” methods
such as those presented in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO LRFD)
(AASHTO, 2014) shall not be used for resilient novel columns at this time.
The evaluation methodologies contained in these guidelines were developed to assess quanti-
tatively the suitability and feasibility of existing or emerging novel columns for seismic application.
Many key parameters are included in the evaluation. The weight that is assigned to each parameter
is intended to provide flexibility to designers and owners to emphasize the parameters of their
choice. For example, one owner might consider eliminating damage of paramount importance
with cost being a secondary consideration, whereas another owner might be tolerant of some
level of damage as long as the cost of the novel column is within budget. In these cases, designers
can adjust the seismic performance and cost weights to accommodate different needs.
5
SECTION 4
Definitions
Definitions of the terms that may not be commonly understood as they pertain to novel
column design, construction, behavior, and evaluation are presented herein.
Advanced Material: An existing or emerging material that is not commonly used in bridge
construction but is used in the design of a novel column.
Aspect Ratio (Ar): The ratio of the length of a column (L) to its diameter (D).
Design Guideline: A discretionary set of analysis, design, and construction requirements.
Displacement Capacity (ΔC): The displacement at which one of the limiting criteria is met,
such as a maximum material strain.
Displacement Demand (ΔD): The maximum displacement expected to occur at a given
seismic hazard level, as determined by analysis.
Displacement Ductility (µ): A measure of the displacement of an element in relation to the
effective (or idealized) yield displacement.
Drift Ratio (δ): The ratio of the displacement of a column divided by the column height,
or length.
Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC): A cementitious material designed to exhibit
large tensile strain capacity, usually through the use of polyvinyl alcohol fibers.
Evaluation Guideline: A methodology that may be used to aid in the evaluation of potential
novel column designs for field deployment.
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP): A material consisting of a type of fiber embedded in a polymer
matrix, generally characterized by its lightweight, high tensile strength and linear behavior.
Hybrid Rocking Column: A rocking column that includes a type of energy dissipating
mechanism (e.g., reinforcing bars).
Jacket: A structural element on the exterior of a column intended primarily to confine the
column concrete, often made of steel or FRP.
Mechanical Bar Splice: A mechanical device used to couple two reinforcing bars together in
tension and compression.
Resilient Novel Column (or Novel Column): A column that has large displacement capacity
and exhibits one or both of (1) no or minimal damage and (2) low residual lateral displacements.
Rocking Column: A pre- or post-tensioned column intended to exhibit large localized rotations
at one or both ends during a seismic event.
Definitions 7
Rubber: A natural or fabricated material that can undergo large deformations without failure.
Shape Memory Alloy (SMA): An advanced metallic material that exhibits large inelastic
deformations without significant permanent deformations upon heating or unloading.
Superelastic Shape Memory Alloy (SE SMA): An advanced metallic material that exhibits large
inelastic deformations without significant permanent deformations upon unloading.
Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC): A cementitious material characterized by
substantially higher compressive and tensile strengths and ductility compared to conventional
concrete.
The reader is referred to Appendices A through D for the state-of-the-art review of advanced
materials and new technologies viable for incorporation in novel columns. The appendices are
available for download from the TRB website (trb.org) by searching for “NCHRP Research
Report 864.”
SECTION 5
A general definition of novel columns was presented in the previous section. For seismic
applications, any novel column should minimize plastic hinge damage and residual lateral
displacements, while having sufficient lateral displacement capacity.
considered to be “low.” When the plastic hinge of a novel column is composed entirely of high-
performance, low-damage materials (e.g., FRP jackets or rubber with SMA or FRP bars), seismic
damage can be essentially eliminated, which is categorized as the “no-damage” level (the top
layer in the pyramid in Fig. 5.1-1).
10 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 2: Guidelines
ratios that may be utilized in novel column design. An extensive parametric study on conven-
tional RC columns was conducted to establish a relationship between the displacement ductility
and drift ratio for these columns. Details of the study and the results are included in Appendix H.
A total of 696 conventional RC columns were designed based on the AASHTO SGS (2011) using
pushover analyses (including the P-D effect).
It was found that the column aspect ratio is the major factor that affects the relationship
between the drift ratio and the displacement ductility. The results showed that a linear relation-
ship exists between drift and ductility for each aspect ratio. Fig. 5.2-2 shows a summary of the
parametric study. Equations were developed to relate drift ratio and ductility. The equations are
listed in Table 5.2-1 (also see Section 9.2: Design Procedure Requirements). Linear interpolation
is allowed for other aspect ratios. The proposed equations were developed so that the equivalent
drift ratio of conventional columns may be used in novel column design. As a result, these
equations were developed to represent the upper bound of the data from the parametric studies.
The threshold was set so that the drift capacity from the equations exceeds the average data by
at least 15% with a probability of 95%. In other words, a novel column has to exhibit larger drift
capacity than a conventional column to be considered equally ductile. This was done to inclusively
cover a wide range of RC columns with different parameters.
10
9
Practical
8 Range
7
Drift Ratio (%)
6 Proposed relaonships
n
are the upper bound
u
5
4
3
2 Aspect Ratio = 4
Aspect Ratio = 6
1
Aspect Ratio = 8
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement Ductility
12 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 2: Guidelines
between 1.0% to 1.5%. A residual drift exceeding 1.5% may lead to bridge closure and replace-
ment after a severe earthquake and must be treated as “high.” Conventional columns are usually
susceptible to high residual drifts even for design level earthquakes when they are near an active
fault. Near-fault earthquakes are known to lead to high residual displacements due to the high
velocity pulse (Choi et al., 2010).
Nonlinear response history analysis is the most appropriate method for the estimation of
residual displacements. However, simple methods may be used to estimate the residual displace-
ment (or drift) for conventional columns such as the equations developed by Ardakani and
Saiidi (2013) as follows:
δ r = βδ y (5.3-1)
where δr is the residual drift ratio, δy is the yield drift ratio, and
β= (5.3-2)
0 µ D ≤ 1.0
where µD is the displacement ductility demand. Simple equations for estimating residual dis-
placements for the three select novel columns are presented in the guidelines for each column.
Equations for other column concepts have yet to be developed.
SECTION 6
Many parameters need to be considered for each novel column before field deployment.
These parameters can be categorized as (1) seismic performance, (2) design considerations, and
(3) construction and other considerations. Parameters pertaining to the seismic performance
were presented in the previous section. The design considerations including non-seismic and
seismic issues are discussed herein followed by description of construction considerations.
13
14 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 2: Guidelines
Linear-elastic analysis is usually conducted to calculate the demand in the force-based design
method.
In the displacement-based design, the displacement is the target (e.g., AASHTO SGS). In this
method, the displacement demands are calculated from a suitable analysis, and capacity can be
calculated using nonlinear moment-curvature or pushover analysis. The ultimate force capacities
can also be accurately estimated in this method as a secondary check.
The displacement-based method is a better approach for novel columns since they may exhibit
completely different behavior and capacities compared to conventional columns. For example,
SMA-reinforced columns may exhibit displacement capacities as high as twice the capacity of
the corresponding steel-reinforced columns. Furthermore, the amount of available test data for
novel columns is not yet sufficient to reliably establish the response modification factor that is
needed in the force-based method. Therefore, the use of “force-based design” methods such as
those presented in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) shall be
avoided for novel columns.
SECTION 7
Construction and
Maintenance Considerations
In addition to the seismic performance and design considerations, many other parameters
may affect an owner’s decision in selecting a novel column for field deployment. These param-
eters include: (1) initial cost, (2) material limitations, (3) ease of construction, (4) inspectability,
(5) maintenance, (6) post-earthquake repair, and (7) system performance.
Because novel columns may incorporate materials not commonly used in bridge construction,
estimating costs will require additional effort to obtain accurate unit cost values. As the volume
of a specific material used in construction increases, the costs will decrease, and this needs to be
kept in mind when making programmatic decisions.
In addition to cost, each material has its own limitations, which must be taken into consider-
ation for different bridge sites. One example is that FRP jacket should not be used in salt water
since the resin in FRP, as well as glue between the FRP and concrete, may dissolve. Each novel
column must be sufficiently easy to construct with a minimum of components that might require
extra construction steps (e.g., mechanical bar couplers, post-tensioning, and rubber pads). Based
on the material limitations, some novel columns may require regular inspection to ensure func-
tionality of the columns during earthquakes. For example, FRP jackets require UV protection as
well as a fire resistant coating. These coatings need to be regularly inspected. For post-tensioned
columns, the prestressing system needs to be detailed to limit corrosion potential. Viewing ports
to allow for inspection may be incorporated in post-tensioned columns. Rocking connections
built with unbonded post-tensioning steel tendons must be detailed to be waterproof. After
identifying any issues in the routine inspection, the affected components must be maintained
to ensure adequate performance. For instance, coatings used for exposed steel and FRP must be
renewed based on the manufacturer’s suggested schedule. Advanced materials usually exhibit
better durability and life span compared to conventional materials.
The need for post-earthquake repair can be directly related to the plastic hinge damage.
Furthermore, the seismic performance levels suggested in the present guideline for novel columns
are to ensure minimal plastic hinge damage and thus minimal need for post-earthquake repairs.
Nevertheless, based on the selected performance level, the repair costs will vary across the various
types of novel columns. Finally, the seismic performance of novel columns may affect design
and construction of other bridge components (system performance). For example, if rubber
pads and reinforcing SMA bars are used in column plastic hinges, the overall bridge lateral dis-
placement demand may be increased because of the relatively small stiffness of these columns.
Therefore, larger movement is anticipated that may require greater support length than that of
conventional bridges.
15
SECTION 8
Figure 8-1 illustrates a flowchart for comprehensive evaluation of existing or emerging novel
columns. A quantitative evaluation technique developed to compare different alternatives to
facilitate the decision-making process in choosing among novel column concepts is presented
in Table 8-1. Three categories are individually evaluated and rated: (1) seismic performance,
(2) design considerations, and (3) construction and other considerations. The seismic perfor-
mance evaluation includes (1) plastic hinge damage, (2) displacement capacity, and (3) residual
displacement. The design consideration evaluation includes (1) proof testing, (2) analysis tools,
(3) design guideline, and (4) prior field applications. The construction consideration is evaluated
based on (1) initial cost, (2) material limitation, (3) constructability, (4) inspectability, (5) main-
tenance, (6) post-earthquake repair need, and (7) system performance.
It is expected that a novel column will ultimately be selected by the bridge owner based on
the seismic performance. Novel column concepts are expected to emerge using novel materials
and/or innovative connections or could be selected from the novel column inventory identified
in the present project (Appendix D). In either case, the selected column is expected to address
the owner’s needs with respect to the seismic performance, but its suitability will be evaluated
through the guidelines in this document, which include design and construction considerations
in addition to the seismic performance. The proposed quantitative evaluation method is intended
to guide the designer or developer. It is suggested that the evaluation results be condensed into
a simple, star-based rating system to be easily understood by the owner who might have limited
knowledge of design requirements for novel columns. The star-based rating system has been
widely used in marketing, traveling, health care, and entertainment businesses to demonstrate
quickly the relative merit of different alternatives. This rating method was also utilized by the
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) to communicate infor-
mation about seismic risk of buildings to the general public (SEAONC Existing Buildings
Committee, 2011).
A score between 0.0 to 1.0 at increments of 0.25 can be assigned to each parameter with
unity (maximum possible score) indicating full readiness, desired performance, and substantial
improvement compared to conventional columns. Table 8-1 includes general conditions that
lead to quantification of each parameter.
The damage level can be accurately estimated after the column has been designed based on
the seismic demands. If none of the plastic hinge materials exceeds its strength under the design
earthquake, the damage is categorized as “no-damage” and a score of 1.0 can be assigned to the
column. A score of 0.75, 0.25 and 0.0 can be given to a column with low-damage, moderate,
and severe-damage level, respectively. The displacement capacity and the residual displacement
of a novel column under the design earthquake can be accurately evaluated after the design is
completed according to the limitations shown in the table.
16
Displacement Capacity:
• Low Disp. Capacity Design Construction and
• Normal Disp. Capacity Considerations other Considerations
• High Disp. Capacity
Residual Displacement:
• High Residual Displacement Evaluate/Rate
• Moderate Residual Displacement
• Low Residual Displacement
Design Considerations:
• Proof Tests Owner No
• Analysis Tool Availability Approval
• Design Guideline Availability
• Past Field Application “Owner” is the bridge owner who can be a
federal or state/county/city agency, a private
Construction and other Yes company, or an individual
Considerations:
Evaluate/Rate:
• Initial Cost
• Quantitative Evaluation by Designer/Developer
• Material Limitations
Select the Novel • Star-Based Rating for Owner
• Ease of Construction
• Inspectability Column
• Maintenance
• Post-Earthquake Repair Need
• System Performance
A score of 1.0 is given to the “Proof Test” parameter if the concept has been experimentally
evaluated with sufficient test data. “Analysis Tools” are given a score of 1.0 if existing modeling
methods can estimate the overall behavior with reasonable accuracy. If there is neither proof test
nor published analytical studies of the concept, no design guidelines are expected to be available
for the concept. In this case, the highest penalty can be assigned to “Guideline Readiness” parameter.
If there are past field applications of the concept or any are anticipated in the subsequent three
years, the “Field Application” parameter can be a score of unity.
A score of 1.0 can be given to “Initial Cost” when the initial cost is comparable to the conven-
tional RC column cost. This can be accurately calculated after the design, and the ratio of RC
column cost to novel column cost will be the score, but not to exceed unity. Material limitations
may completely prevent application of a novel column in a certain climate or site conditions.
For example, rubber shows brittle behavior in cold weather, thus it should not be used in a
novel column located in cold region. The long-term performance of novel materials is another
important consideration in evaluation of novel columns. Sufficient data should be available to
demonstrate that the material can withstand the field environmental effects that are normally
expected without any adverse effect on serviceability and performance of the bridge. Construc-
tability is evaluated considering the ease of construction and the need for skilled labor. Some
of the advanced materials or novel connections require more extensive field quality control
18 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 2: Guidelines
measures than conventional columns to ensure their functionality during earthquakes. A novel
column may incorporate a material or mechanism that affects inspectability by limiting access
to the column components. Alternative inspection procedures would be needed in such cases.
Maintenance need is evaluated based on the need of constituent materials for inspection and
repair. Concepts with less maintenance requirement earn the highest score. Post-earthquake
repair is implicit in the plastic hinge damage and is eliminated in the evaluation process to avoid
double counting. System performance may be important when stiffness of the novel column is
lower than conventional column stiffness, resulting in larger displacement demands.
The rightmost column in the table is the weight of the parameters for overall evaluation.
These weights are suggested values and could be changed according to the owner’s preference.
For example, the cost of a novel column may be as important as the seismic performance for an
owner, thus the cost weight may be increased to 1.0. Appendix E demonstrates the use of the
proposed quantitative guidelines for 39 novel columns as well as conventional RC columns.
SECTION 9
Analysis and design of novel columns is based on the provisions of the AASHTO SGS.
Force-based design procedures such as those presented in AASHTO LRFD should not be used
for the design of novel columns since these methods are not intended for advanced materials:
the seismic force modification factors (R-factors) and the overstrength factors are currently
unknown for columns with advanced materials. The same forms of analysis that are used for
conventional columns also apply to novel columns. Adjustments are required to account for the
different behaviors of novel columns, and the calculation of capacities will vary depending on
the specific novel column design utilized.
0.4
0.05
RD = (9.1-1)
ξ
where RD is the displacement modification factor and x is the target damping level in decimal
format.
The remaining aspects of the analysis proceed as for conventional bridges.
20
where Ar is the aspect ratio of the column defined as the ratio of the column length, L, to the
column diameter, D, as shown in Fig. 9.2-1, µ is the displacement ductility, and δ is the drift
D
L
D
L
Pinned
Joint
22 Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 2: Guidelines
Mu
Mu Actual Actual
Mp Mp
My
My
Idealized
Moment
Moment
Idealized
ØYi ØYi
Øy Øu Øy Øu
Curvature Curvature
(a) Conventional RC Sections (b) A Novel Column Section
ratio in percent. This equation relates displacement ductility to drift ratio in conventional RC
columns. It is intended to help compare the drift ratio of a novel column to that of an equivalent
RC column and estimate the displacement ductility of the RC column used in current code design
equations.
The estimation of novel column design forces is the same as that for conventional columns.
However, for shear design of novel columns, the design shear is based on the smaller of an
amplified plastic moment (e.g., lmo Mp where lmo is the overstrength factor for novel columns
in a rage of 1.2 to 1.44 and Mp is the plastic moment) calculated for the plastic hinge and
the moment demand at the design level earthquake. This is because novel columns may have
moment-curvature (or force-displacement) relationships that significantly deviate from the
idealized elasto-plastic curves (Fig. 9.2-2), thus the conventional column overstrength factor
may not be sufficient.
SECTION 10
Conclusions
With the new paradigm of requiring infrastructure to be resilient to serve the public effectively,
new novel bridge columns utilizing unconventional construction material are likely to emerge.
The proposed AASHTO guidelines identified 14 parameters to consider in assessing any novel
column. These parameters encompass structural seismic performance, damage tolerance, seis-
mic design tools, construction, cost, maintenance, and post-earthquake repair, among others.
Qualitative metrics to assess these parameters were provided. A flowchart integrating all the
parameters was developed and was found to be an effective tool to help determine the suitability
of a given novel column. It was found that the analysis procedure in the AASHTO SGS could
generally be used for novel columns with adjustments to address the particular characteristics of
various novel columns. The work leading to the guidelines also concluded that drift ratio rather
than displacement ductility is an appropriate measure of deformability of novel columns.
The guidelines would potentially form the basis for AASHTO guidelines on the design of
resilient novel columns.
23
References
AASHTO. (2011). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO. (2014). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
Ardakani, S. M. S., and Saiidi, M. S. (2013). Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns for Near-Fault
Earthquakes. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-13, 393 pp.
Caltrans. (2013). Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), version 1.7. Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Transportation.
Choi, H., Saiidi, M. S., Somerville, P., and El-Azazy, S. (2010). An Experimental Study of RC Bridge Columns
Subjected to Near-Fault Ground Motions. American Concrete Institute, ACI Structural Journal 107 (1): 3–12.
FEMA P-58. (2012). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: FHWA.
Japan Road Association. (2002). Tokyo, Japan: Design Specifications for Highway Bridges.
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee. (2011). SEAONC Rating System for the Expected Earthquake Perfor-
mance of Buildings. Proceedings of Annual Convention of the Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC 2011), 11 pp.
24