ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 94-S47

Seismic Assessment of the Santa Monica

Viaduct Bent Details

by M. J. N. Priestley, F. Seible, G. A. MacRae, and Y. H. Chai

The paper describes tests carried out on large scale reinforced

concrete test units with details modeling those encountered in
sections of Los Angeles’ I-10 Santa Monica Viaduct. Lap-splices of
column longitudinal reinforcement, and joint details including
inadequate development of column reinforcement in the cap beam,
and a total absence of special joint reinforcement would be consid-
ered unacceptable in new designs. The purpose of the tests was to
obtain verification of analytical predictions that, despite the poor
detailing the bents, could be expected to survive the design level
earthquake without collapse. Test results confirmed that the lap
splices should perform adequately under seismic attack, and the
column/cap beam connections would maintain gravity load
capacity after joint degradation.

INTRODUCTION
The Santa Monica Viaduct forms a segment of the Inter-
state I-10 freeway immediately adjacent to downtown Los
Angeles, and contains more than 2300 columns in multi-
column bents with circular columns extending below ground
level as pile shafts with the same diameter and reinforcing
details as the columns. Figure 1(a) shows a typical four-
column bent, though 3-column bents are also common. The
viaduct, built in the 1960s and reputedly the most heavily
trafficked section of freeway in the world, contains a number
of details which would be considered unacceptable in
modern design, and hence was an early candidate for seismic
review in the Phase II retrofit program of the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans).1 Potential prob-
lems include a lap-splice of all column longitudinal rein-
forcement at ground level, where moments were expected to
be close to the maximum developed in the in-ground plastic
hinge (Fig. 1[b]), inadequate development of large-diameter
column longitudinal reinforcement in the cap beam, and a
complete lack of transverse reinforcement in the column/
cap-beam joint region, leading to a potential for joint failure
under seismic attack.
On the other hand, this section of the I-10 freeway, unlike
other sections further to the west which collapsed in the 1994
Northridge earthquake,2 contained surprisingly good trans-
verse reinforcement details, with #4 (D12.7) spirals at 3.5 in.
(89 mm) centers over the full column height. As a conse-
quence, calculations for shear strength and flexural ductility
capacity of plastic hinges indicated that flexural or shear
failure would not be expected under the maximum credible
earthquake, corresponding to a site peak ground acceleration
Fig. 1—Typical structural configuration of Santa Monica
Bents.
of 0.6g, or 50 percent higher than used for modern building
design in the adjacent downtown Los Angeles.
The cost of a full retrofit of the Santa Monica Viaduct, and
other similar elevated sections of the 1-10 freeway was
expected to exceed $100 million. Consequently, any reduction
in retrofit effort that would not jeopardize the safety of the
viaduct was essential. A peer review3 of the seismic assessment
requested by Caltrans concluded that, despite the inadequate
lap-splice details, splice failure was unlikely, and that though
column/cap-beam failure was to be expected in the design
level earthquake, this should not result in bridge failure,
since the lateral displacement capacity of typical bridge
bents was greater than predicted demand, even with the
effective moment capacity at the top of the columns reduced
to zero as a consequence of joint strength degradation. A
concern existed, however, that following joint failure, the
columns could punch through the superstructure, as had
occurred with the Struve Slough bridge in the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake.4
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 5, September-October 1997.
Received January 22, 1996, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1997, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the July-August 1998 ACI Structural
Journal if received by March 1, 1998.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997 513

M. J. N. Priestley, FACI, is a professor of structural engineering at the University of
California, San Diego. He is a member of ACI Committee 531, Masonry Structures
Research. He is the recipient of the 1997 Arthur R. Anderson Award and the 1997
Wason Medal for Most Meritorious Paper.
F. Seible is a professor of structural engineering at the University of California, San
Diego. He is a member of joint ACI-ASCE Committees 334, Concrete Shell Design
and Construction, and 343, Concrete Bridge Design; and ACI Committees 341,
Earthquake Resistant Concrete Bridges, and 437, Strength Evaluation of Existing
Concrete Structures.
G. A. MacRae is an assistant professor of Civil Engineering, at the University of
Washington, Seattle. He completed his doctoral training at the University of Canter-
bury, NZ, and has since conducted research work both at the Public Works Research
Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, as well as at the University of California, San Diego. His
research interests include the design and retrofit of reinforced concrete structures sub-
ject to seismic loading.
Y. H. Chai is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of California, Davis. His research interests are in exper-
imental testing, characterization of structural damage under earthquake loads, and
analysis and design of concrete and masonry structures.
To verify the conclusions reached by the peer review
committee, a program of testing was initiated at the Univer-
sity of California, San Diego, on large scale structural
elements representing the critical sections of the Santa
Monica Viaduct bents. This paper summarizes results from
these tests.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The paper describes tests and presents results that showed
that existing methods for evaluating seismic performance of
sub-standard details of the Santa Monica Viaduct were
unnecessarily conservative. As a consequence of the
research described herein, the level of retrofit required for
the viaduct was greatly reduced, with savings estimated at
more than $50 million.
LAP-SPLICE TESTS
Theoretical considerations
Columns of the Santa Monica Viaduct are either 3 ft (914
mm) or 4 ft (1219 mm) diameter, with reinforcement varying
between 12 #11 (D34.8) and 16 #18 (D57.2) bars of grade 40
(fy = 275 MPa nominal) strength. Typical lap-splice details
consist of all bars being lapped at ground level with a lap
length equal to 20 bar diameters. Under seismic loading,
initial plastic hinging is expected to form at the top of the
columns, followed by a second set of hinges forming
approximately three column diameters below ground. As a
consequence, column moments at the base of the ground
level lap splice are expected to reach about 70 percent of the
moment of the in-ground hinge (see Fig. 1). At this level of
moment, longitudinal tension reinforcement with maximum
distance from the neutral axis will be at or very close to yield.
Based on ACI 318-89 equations, required lap length would
be about twice the 20db provided, though lap splicing is not
permitted for #14 or #18 bars. Consequently it could be inter-
preted that the longitudinal reinforcement would only be
able to sustain a stress of about 0.5fy, and splice failure
would occur before the in-ground plastic hinge could form.
The lap splices were reviewed using a fracture analysis
procedure developed by Priestley.5
With reference to Fig. 2, it is noted that for starter bars
from the pile shaft to slide relative to the lapped column bars,
which is a necessary condition for a splice failure, an essentially
514
Fig. 2—Failure model for lap-splice involving circumferential
and radial cracks.
vertical and radial crack surface must form between the
lapped bars, and also between the column bar and the starter
bar in the adjacent pair of bars. Also, since all bars are
connected to the core concrete, relative slip of the bars can
only occur if a circumferential crack surface forms, sepa-
rating the bars from the core. These surfaces are shown in
Fig. 2. Assuming 45 deg compression struts forming in the
concrete around the bars, the longitudinal tension force in a
column bar can be directly equated to the tension strength of
the sum of the potential failure surfaces surrounding each
bar. This implies a certain plasticity of tension strength.
Thus, the maximum force that can be sustained by a lapped
bar will be
Tb = pls ft (1)
where
p = πD′/2n + 2(db + c) (2)
is the perimeter of the crack surface (see Fig. 2), ft is the
direct tension strength of the concrete, taken as ft = 4 f c′
psi (0.33 f c′ MPa), n is the number of bars lapped at the
section (assumed to be uniformly distributed around the
core diameter D′), c is the cover to the main bars, and ls is
the lap splice length parallel to the column axis.
The approach could be expected to be a little conservative,
since it assumes that the tension force over the length of the
lap-splice is constant instead of reducing as the moment
reduces with distance from the critical section. However,
even if the analysis indicates that the yield strength can be
achieved (i.e; Tb > Ab fy), lap-splice failure may still occur at
comparatively low ductility. This is because under cyclic
response the concrete adjacent to the lap-splice will be
subjected to longitudinal compression strain under the
reversed direction of seismic displacement to that placing the
spliced bars in tension. As the peak displacements increase,
and the compression strain around the bars reaches about εc
= 0.002, longitudinal microcracking will develop, reducing
the tension strength of the concrete. Thus, as the response
direction reverses again, placing the spliced bars in tension,
splice failure will eventually occur as the value of Tb found
from Eq. (1) will decrease as ft decreases.
Transverse hoop reinforcement will potentially apply a
clamping pressure to the lap splices. However, since the
clamping pressure will be developed only as a result of radial
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Table 1—Lap-splice columns material strength
Concrete compression strength fc′ Longitudinal rebar Transverse rebar
Lower section* Upper section† Size fy l Size fyh
Unit psi MPa psi MPa # mm ksi MPa # mm ksi MPa
SM1 4063 28.0 4136 28.5 11 35.8 44.2 307 4 12.7 54.5 376
SM2 4930 34.0 4160 28.7 18 57.2 41.8 286 4 12.7 54.5 376
*
Below lap-splice
†
Lap-splice and higher

dilation, the crack pattern suggested in Fig. 2 will already

have developed before significant clamping action is
achieved. Therefore it is unlikely that the clamping action will
be additive to the strength found in accordance with the predic-
tion of Eq. (1), and the splice strength after formation of
cracking will be that of the clamping action alone, given by

Tb = πp′ls fl (3)

where

fl = 0.5ρs fsh (4)

is the lateral confining pressure developed by the hoop

reinforcement of volumetric ratio ρs at a tension stress fsh,
p′ is a reduced perimeter length over which the lateral
pressure acts, given by

p′ = πD′/2n + 2db (5)

and μ = 1.4 is the coefficient of friction on the naturally

forming crack surfaces.
Tests6 indicate that it may not be possible to utilize the full
yield strength of the hoop or spiral reinforcement to provide
effective clamping, since the radial dilation may be so large
that the crack surfaces shown in Fig. 2 open to the extent that
the effective coefficient of friction reduces to μ < 1.4. A
stress corresponding to a hoop strain of εh = 0.0015 appears
to be an effective upper limit.7
Unless the bar strength Tb predicted by either Eq. (1) or (3)
exceeds the maximum expected under seismic response,
splice failure is predicted, with degradation of capacity Fig. 3—Lap-splice test units (1 in. = 25.4 mm).
occurring under cyclic reversals of response.

Column lap-splice test units
Two full-size test units modeling the region between the
column point of contraflexure and the location of maximum
moment of the in-ground hinge, identified as region 1 in Fig. 1,
were constructed and tested under simulated seismic
loading. Both columns represented 3 ft (914 mm) diameter
columns, one (unit SM 1) reinforced with 16 #11(35.8 mm)
longitudinal bars, and the other (unit SM2) with 12 #18 (57.2
mm) longitudinal bars. Both columns were tested as simple
vertical cantilevers, and contained lap-splices of 20db
starting 48 in. (1219 mm) above the base of the column.
Transverse reinforcement consisted of #4 (12.7 mm) spirals
at 3.5 in.(88.9 mm) pitch. Test unit dimensions and rein-
forcement details are shown in Fig. 3. With the column
proportions as shown, the moment at the base of the lap was
75 percent of the moment at the base of the column, and thus
was a little larger than the predicted ratio of 70 percent
occurring in the prototype situation. Thus, development of a
plastic hinge at the base of the column, rather than lap-splice
failure might be considered to indicate adequate strength of
the lap-splice.
However, it was desired to investigate the actual strength
of the lap-splice to ensure that an adequate reserve of
strength existed to cope with the development of higher
moments at the lap-splice as a consequence of higher than
expected longitudinal reinforcement yield strength, strain
hardening of reinforcement, and the possibility of the in-
ground plastic hinge forming closer to the ground surface
than expected. As a consequence, the lower 48 in. (1219
mm) of column below the lap-splice was strengthened by the
inclusion of an inner ring of reinforcement (16 #8 [25.4 mm]
for unit SM1; 16 #11 [35.8 mm] for unit SM2) of Grade 60
reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 3. This ensured that the base
of the lap-splice, rather than the base of the column, was the
critical section for flexure. Note that it would have been
possible to achieve the same result by eliminating the lower

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997 515


Fig. 4—Column test setup (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN).
48 in. (1219 mm) of column and locating the lap-splice
immediately adjacent to the footing. This option was rejected
at the design stage because of concern that the stiffness of the
footing might act to confine the lower portion of the lap-
splice, resulting in unrealistic enhanced performance.
The test units were tested as vertical cantilevers, as shown
in Fig. 4, and were subjected to an axial compression force
of 400 kips (1779 kN) which was typical of dead load levels
in the bents modeled by the test units. Lateral loading was
initially applied under force-control until first yield of
tension reinforcement was obtained, and then under
displacement control to displacement ductility factors of μΔ=
0.84, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 2 and 3. At all except the lowest level of
force-controlled testing three complete cycles of imposed
displacements were applied.
The yield displacement, and hence the reference for
calculating displacement ductility, was based on a bilinear
representation of force-displacement response, and was
found by multiplying the average displacement measured at
the column top at first yield by the ratio of ideal flexural
capacity to yield moment. Ideal moment capacity was based
on measured material strengths, and an extreme fiber
compression strain of 0.005. Both yield and ideal moment
capacity related to conditions at the base of the lap splice.
Material properties
Main column longitudinal reinforcement and transverse
spirals were grade 40 (nominal fy = 275 MPa) of a special
order of steel rolled for Caltrans for structural testing
research purposes. Specified concrete strength for the Santa
Monica Viaduct was fc′ = 3250 psi (22.4 MPa). However,
measurements of strength from cores and by impact hammer
measurements indicated a minimum strength in situ of 5000 psi
(34.5 MPa). The strength increase can be attributed in part to
516
natural strength gain with age, and partly to conservative
batch design common in the 1960s and still prevalent today
when low strength concrete is specified.
Actual material strengths for two units are summarized in
Table 1. Concrete strengths for concrete below and above the
construction joint at the base of the lap splice obtained at
time of testing the columns were lower than expected. Since
the lap-splice strength is believed to be dependent on the
concrete tension strength, the low concrete compression
strength should ensure that the results from the tests are
conservative. Based on these material strengths, and the
section dimensions (see Fig. 3), the maximum strengths
predicted by Eq. (1) are Tb = 76.4 kips (340 kN) and 145.5
kips (647 kN) for the #11 and #18 bars of SM1 and SM2,
respectively. These translate to maximum stress levels of
49.0 ksi (338 MPa) and 36.4 ksi (251 MPa), respectively.
Consequently, it is predicted that the splice of SM 1 should
be able to achieve the yield strength of the #11 bars, but that
the #18 bars of SM2 should not quite be able to reach yield.
Instrumentation
The columns were extensively instrumented with electric
resistance strain gauges, and deflection and curvature
measuring devices. Full details of instrumentation are avail-
able in References 8 and 9.
Results of lap-splice tests
Crack patterns for the two columns are shown in Fig. 5 for
the condition corresponding to maximum expected proto-
type response (design level) and for a displacement ductility
factor of μΔ= 3. At levels of response lower than the design
level of SM 1 only flexural cracks developed. At the design
level, a number of vertical splitting cracks developed at the
base of the lap-splice, but did not propagate under cycling.
Figure 5(a) shows conditions after three complete cycles to
the design level, with the extent of the lap-splice being
defined by the two straight circumferential lines. As the
column was cycled to higher force and displacement levels,
the extent of vertical splitting increased to cover the full
height of the splice by the third cycle to μΔ = 2. Strength
degradation did not occur, however, until after the first cycle
to μΔ = 3. By this stage extensive crushing of cover concrete
had developed, centered about 10 in. (250 mm) below the
base of the lap-splice. Figure 5(b) shows the condition of the
lap-splice and lower region after the first cycle to μΔ = 3.
Under additional cycles to μΔ = 3, the lap-splice began to
fail, with extensive spalling of concrete in the lap splice
region.
Initial response of SM2, reinforced with 12 #18 (57.2 mm)
bars was also essentially flexural in the early stages of
response. However, vertical splitting of cover concrete in the
lap-splice region initiated earlier, at 73 percent of the design
response level. This splitting continued to develop into a
fairly extensive pattern of vertical cracks after three cycles to
the design level of 68 percent of ultimate strength, as shown
in Fig. 5(c). However, there was no significant strength
degradation at this level of response. Based on a plane-
section moment-curvature analysis, peak reinforcement
tension stress at the base of the lap-splice was 38 ksi (262 MPa),
5 percent higher than the capacity predicted by Eq. (1).
Taking the effect of tension shift into account, the extreme
tension rebar would be expected to be at yield at this stage.
This was confirmed by strain gauge readings.9 As lateral
force and displacement levels were increased, the extent of
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
 Fig. 5—Damage to lap splice units at different stages of testing.
vertical splitting increased both within and below the lap-
splice region. Crushing of cover concrete initiated some 10
in. (250 mm) below the construction joint at μΔ = 1.5, as was
the case for SM 1. However, for SM2, the first cycle to μΔ =
1.5 corresponded to the maximum strength of the unit.
Further cycles to μΔ = 1.5 and to higher displacements
resulted in strength degradation and spalling of cover
concrete in the lap-splice region. After three cycles to μΔ =3
this spalling was extensive, as is evident in Fig. 5(d).
Lateral force-displacement response for SM1 and SM2 is
shown in Fig. 6(a) and 6(b) respectively. Included in these
figures are the theoretical force-displacement envelopes,
based on flexural response, taking account of tension shift;
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
since the level of shear in both columns was sufficiently high
to cause shear inclination to the flexural cracks, the critical
section for moment corresponding to a given tension stress
at the base of the lap-splice was depressed somewhat below
the lap-splice. The observed inclination corresponded to a
tension shift of approximately 10 in. (250 mm), as noted
above in the location of initial concrete cover spalling.
Because the sections at the base of the lap-splice and the
base of the column are almost equally critical for flexure, the
expected curvature distribution is as shown by the solid line
in Fig. 7(a). This is simplified to the constant curvature
distribution over the bottom 48 in. (1219 mm) shown by the
dashed line. Note that strain-penetration of reinforcement
517
Fig. 6—(a) SM1 (16 #11); and (b) SM2 (16 #11).

Fig. 8—SM3 column/cap beam unit dimensions (1 in. =

25.4 mm).

If My and φy are the moment and curvature at first yield of

the longitudinal reinforcement, the corresponding “first-
yield” displacement is

1 2
Δ y = φ y [ 144 ⁄ 3 + ( 48 + l sp ) ( 168 + 0.5l sp ) ] [in.] (7)

Fig. 7—Curvature model for deflection prediction of lap- The total displacement at higher stages of response is
splice columns. predicted from the moment-curvature response (M-φ) as

M
Δ = Δ y ------- + φ p ( 144L p1 + 192L p2 ) [in.] (8)
into the foundation results in an increase to the effective column My
length of lsp = 0.15fyl dbl ,7 where fyl is the longitudinal rebar
yield stress in ksi. By the same reasoning, two potential regions where
of plasticity can develop—one at the base of the lap splice, and
the other at the column base (see Fig. 8[b]). M
φ p = φ – ------- φ y
Using normal assumptions for effective plastic hinge length,7 My

lp1 = 0.08L1 + 0.15fyl dbl ≥ 0.3fyl dbl (6a) is the plastic curvature.
The force-displacement envelopes of Fig. 6 were based on
lp2 = 0.08L2 + 0.15fyl dbl ≥ 0.3fyl dbl (6b) moment-curvature analyses using measured material properties

518 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997

and a stress-strain model for confined concrete developed by
Mander, Priestley and Park.10
The force-displacement response of SM1 (Fig. 6[a]),
shows dependable response under cycling to μΔ ≤ 2 with
very little degradation of strength on successive cycle to
each displacement level. The envelope of response agrees
very well with that predicted by the analysis described
above. However, at μΔ = 3, the strength loss on successive
cycles is considerable, as a consequence of the lap-splice
failure with residual strength after five cycles being approx-
imately 50 percent of the initial maximum. Back-calculation
based on the force-displacement model outlined above indi-
cates that the peak compression strain at the level of the
longitudinal reinforcement would be approximately 0.004 at
μΔ = 3, indicating that the assumed strain of 0.002 at onset of
tension strength degradation may be too low.
Response of SM2 shows much earlier degradation, with
stable response only being obtained up to μΔ = 1. Up to the
first cycle to μΔ = 1.5 the envelope of response agrees well
with the prediction of Eq. (8). Strength on successive cycles
to μΔ = l.5, and to higher displacements shows moderately
rapid capacity-degradation as the lap-splice failure spread
around the circumference of the column. However, behavior
exceeded that predicted using the model of Fig. 2, which
implied a peak strength less than yield strength.
Both columns thus performed better than predicted. There
appear to be two main reasons for this. First, the analytical
model assumes that the tension force to be transferred is
constant along the length of the lap-splice, whereas the
moment gradient results in a reduction in tension force with
height above the base of the splice. This is also apparent in
the development of splitting cracks, which initiated at the
base of the splice in both column tests.
Second, it is assumed that all tension reinforcement is
equally stressed, whereas the bar force to be transferred
reduces with circumferential distance from the critical bar,
particularly for SM2, where splice failure before first yield
was predicted. Since sliding of one bar relative to its lapped
partner is not feasible without sliding of adjacent pairs, some
averaging must occur in the circumferential direction. It
appears, based on these considerations and the test results,
that the approach described by Fig. 2 and Eq. (1) is suitably
conservative for seismic assessment of lap-splices in
existing circular columns.
Column/cap-beam test unit (SM3)
A 3/4-full-size model, designated Unit SM3, of the most
critical column/cap-beam joints was constructed repre-
senting the portion of bent identified as region 2 in Fig. 1.11
A 48 in. (1219 mm) diameter column reinforced with 16 #18
(57.2 mm) bars was chosen for the prototype since this
potentially developed the highest joint shear stress of column
types in the Santa Monica Viaduct. A 3/4-scale model was
chosen to keep column axial and lateral loads within capacities
of laboratory equipment, and because at this scale the key
prototype reinforcement sizes (#18 (57.2 mm) longitudinal, #6
(19.05 mm) and #4 (12.7 mm) transverse) are exactly modeled
by #14 (43.0 mm), #4 (12.7 mm) and #3 (9.53 mm) bars.
Test unit details are summarized in Fig. 8. For conve-
nience the test unit was constructed and tested inverted. As
is apparent in Fig. 8(b), the 36 in. (914 mm) deep cap-beam
included a section of superstructure 30 in. (762 mm) wide on
either side to provide some representation of the effective
flange width of soffit and deck slab expected to act with the
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Fig. 9—Column/cap beam test unit and bending moments.
cap-beam in transverse flexural response. The width of slab
modeled agreed with Caltrans design assumptions12 but was
expected to be conservatively low.
Model cap-beam longitudinal reinforcement at the column
face consisted of 7 #14 (43.0 mm) bars in the bottom of the
cap-beam as tested (i.e., in the top, in the prototype configu-
ration). One of the #10 (31.7 mm) bars was lapped with a
l6db lap at the column centerline, outside the column cage
(see Fig. 8[b]). Shear reinforcement did not continue through
the column-cap-beam joint region.
The column clear height of 108 in. (2743 mm) modeled
the expected prototype distance from the superstructure
soffit to the point of contraflexure in the column. Longitu-
dinal reinforcement was developed in the cap-beam a length
of l6db, which was significantly less than the development
length of 52.9 in. (1344 mm) required by ACI 318-89,13 for
expected material strengths of f'c= 5 ksi (34.5 MPa) and fy =
44 ksi (303 MPa). More importantly, this short development
length meant that the column bars were terminated well short
of the cap-beam top reinforcement (bottom reinforcement as
tested) with the consequence that the ends of the bars could
not benefit from being clamped in the flexural compression
zone of the cap beam. Column transverse spiral reinforce-
ment was not continued into the joint region. Conditions for
joint force transfer were thus very poor.
Test setup
The test setup is shown in Fig. 9 and 10. Vertical support
was provided by two reaction blocks and one tie-down on
either side of the column centerline. Vertical load representing
column dead load was applied by high strength steel rods
reacting against a strong back system at the column top load
stub, and anchored to the strong floor. This load reacted
against the inner pair of vertical reaction blocks, providing
the correct gravity load moment/shear ratio in the cap beam
adjacent to the column. The dead load moment diagram is
shown in Fig. 9(b) by profile D. Under lateral force, applied
by an actuator reacting against a lateral load frame, the cap
beam tended to lift off the reaction block on one side of the
test unit, eventually developing a tension force in the tie-
down rods, causing positive moment bending (in prototype
519

Fig. 10—Column/cap beam test setup.
configuration) in the cap beam. On the other side of the cap
beam, the increased reaction was shared between the two
vertical reaction blocks, producing the cap beam moment
profile in Fig. 9(b), marked E + D. In the event of a positive
moment hinge forming in the cap beam, the double vertical
support system would enable the negative bending moment
to continue to increase on the opposite side of the column,
thus modeling the redistribution capabilities of the hypo-
static cap beam in the prototype.
The distribution of cap beam moments could be improved
by testing under a reduced dead load. As a consequence, an
axial load of PE = 130 kips (578 kN) or 54 percent of the
scaled prototype value PD was used for the basic test pattern.
At selected stages of the test program additional cycles were
carried out under increased axial load (PD) to investigate
influence on joint behavior. At the end of the test program,
axial load was increased to 1.5PD to investigate resistance
against a punching shear failure of the column through the
cap beam. This mechanism is shown in Fig. 11. Under the
combined effects of high joint shear stress and poor
anchorage of longitudinal column reinforcement, a pattern of
intersecting diagonal and vertical cracks could occur. These
would be most likely to develop with low column axial
loads, since column axial compression reduces the joint prin-
cipal tension stress. If the joint region deteriorated suffi-
ciently, it could be expected that the full column axial force
would be transmitted through the upper portion of the cap
beam, developing a potential for punching shear failure on
the cracks identified in Fig. 11. This would be critical under
maximum dead load. It was thus felt that the test pattern,
520
Fig. 11—Potential punching shear failure after joint
degradation.
Fig. 12—Applied lateral force or displacement test sequence.
involving variation of the column axial load between low
and high limits would represent a worst-case condition.
The test pattern of applied forces and displacements is
summarized in Fig. 12. Initial stages of testing were carried
out under force control with later stages under displacement
control. Generally, three cycles were imposed at each level,
though an additional cycle was carried out at μΔ = 1.5, 3, 4.5,
and 6 with axial load increased to the full dead load value of
PD = 240 kips (1068 kN).
Instrumentation
Instrumentation consisted of linear potentiometers to
measure column lateral and cap beam vertical displacements,
and also to monitor column curvatures adjacent to the cap
beam. Electric resistance strain gauges were placed on the
reinforcing steel to enable stress distribution to be investi-
gated. Of particular interest were the stresses developed in the
column longitudinal reinforcement within the joint region.
Full details of instrumentation are included in reference.11
Material strengths
Based on concrete cores and impact hammer measure-
ments on the Santa Monica Viaduct, a target concrete
strength of fc′ = 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) was selected. This was
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
 Fig. 13—SM3 cap/column joint damage patterns.
expected to be on the conservatively low side for 30-year old
concrete with specified 28-day compression strength of
3250 psi (22.8 MPa). Concrete was placed in three different
batches, forming the deck slab, cap beam and soffit slab, and
column respectively. Compression strengths at time of
testing were 5130, 4750, and 4040 psi (35.4, 32.8, and 27.8
MPa) for the three batches, respectively.
Yield strengths of critical reinforcement were #14 (D35.8)
bars: 42.5 ksi (293 MPa); #10 (D32.3) bars: fy = 44.0 ksi (303
MPa); #3 bars: fy = 65.2 ksi (450 MPa). The nominally grade
40 #3 bars were thus substantially overstrength. However,
since failure occurred in the joint region it is not felt that this
overstrength contributed in any way to unrealistically
enhanced performance.
Results of column/cap-beam tests
Visual observations—Initial stages of testing produced
only flexural cracks in the column and cap-beam. During
response to peak lateral force of H = ±80 kips (356 kN) the
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
first diagonal cracking was observed in the joint region,
though a full pattern of diagonal cracking did not develop
until H = 120 kips (534 kN). Flexural cracks in the cap-beam
extended across the full width of the deck slab indicating the
latter was fully participating with the cap-beam in resisting
flexural tension.
During cycling to the nominal “first yield” load of H =
140 kips (623 kN), joint cracks widened significantly, and
new flexural cracks formed in the column. On cycling to the
nominal experiment yield displacement (i.e., μΔ =1) damage
continued to concentrate in the joint region, with joint crack
widths as large as 0.05 in. (1.3 mm) being measured for both
directions of response. Joint shear cracks were deflected
horizontally along the interface between the cap-beam and
deck slab, tending to separate the slab from the cap-beam.
After three cycles to μΔ=1.5, this separation had a maximum
width of 0.25 in. (6.4 mm). Figure 13(a) shows the crack
pattern at this stage of response.
521

Fig. 14—Test unit hysteresis curve considering all cycles of
loading strength [kips] (1 kip = 4.45 kN).
Cracking in the joint, and between the joint region and
deck slab continued to extend as the test unit was cycled to
μΔ = 2, 3, and 4.5, but other cracks in the column and cap
beam remained stable. Lateral load decreased with
increasing displacement, and it was evident that most of the
lateral displacement was provided by joint shear deforma-
tion. By μΔ = three cracks as wide as 0.4 in. (10.2 mm) were
noted in the joint region. The final cycle at μΔ = three under
increased axial load resulted in increased lateral resistance.
Figure 13(b) shows cracking at this stage. Final cycles of
testing were carried out at μΔ = 4.5 and 6.0 corresponding to
a final drift angle of nearly 6 percent. Strength by this stage
had degraded to about 30 percent of the maximum, which
was developed at μΔ = 1.5. Large pieces of joint cover
concrete spalled off, and sliding of the column longitudinal
reinforcement anchored within the joint was observed.
Figure 13(c) shows the condition after completion of testing,
with the column deformed to maximum drift. Despite the
damage to the joint, the test unit was able to support an axial
load of 1.5PD without any signs of incipient punching failure.
Lateral force-displacement response—Lateral force
displacement response of SM3 is shown in Fig. 14, and
compared with predicted flexural response based on the
assumption of elastic response of the cap beam, with a stiff-
ness = 0.4Igross, an effective column length, including strain
penetration, of 118.1 in. (3000 mm) for elastic response, and
a plastic hinge length of Lp = 20.2 in. (513 mm) in accor-
dance with Eq. (6). Also shown is the lateral force level
corresponding to first yield of the column longitudinal rein-
forcement. Predicted flexural response was based on
measured material properties, and the stress-strain curve for
confined concrete of Mander, Priestley and Park.10
Despite the poor anchorage of the column longitudinal
reinforcement, the column was able to achieve the predicted
“first yield” load. However, cycling to increased displace-
ment levels of μΔ = 1 and 1.5 resulted in very little increase
in strength. At larger displacements strength decreased, as
noted earlier, but the degradation during successive cycles to
each given level of response was rather gradual. At μΔ = 3,
corresponding to a drift angle of about 2.9 percent, a
maximum horizontal force close to the first yield load could
still be resisted in both directions of response, despite the
extensive damage to the joint.
At initial force levels less than 80 kips (356 kN), the test
unit stiffness agreed well with predicted stiffness. However,
as soon as joint cracking developed, the test unit stiffness
522
decreased dramatically, as is apparent from Fig. 14. At first
yield (H = 140 kips [623 kN]) the measured displacement
was 94 percent higher than the predicted value of 0.435 in.
(11.05 mm). The discrepancy between predicted and
measured force-displacement response continued to increase
as the joint shear failure developed.
Joint stress levels
The horizontal joint shear force may be approximately
calculated as7
Vjh = Mcol /hb (8)
where Mcol is the column moment at the cap-beam soffit,
and hb is the cap beam depth. It has been suggested7 that
joint diagonal cracking is more correctly related to joint
nominal principal tension stress pt , rather than joint shear
stress Vjh. Thus, when the value of pt calculated from
( fv + fh ) fv – fh ⎞ 2
- – ⎛ -------------
2
p t = -------------------
⎝ 2 ⎠
+ v jh (9)
2
exceeds the tensile strength of the concrete, joint cracking
is expected. Based on test observations, it has been
suggested7 that joint cracking can be expected when
⏐pt⏐>3.5 f c′ psi (0.29 f c′ MPa), and that failure of
joints without special joint reinforcement must be
expected if ⏐pt⏐>5.0 f c′ psi (0.42 f c′ MPa).
In Eq. (9) fv and fh are direct stresses in the joint, in vertical
and horizontal directions and
V jh
v jh = ---------
- (10)
bb D
is the nominal shear stress, related to the cap beam width
bb and column diameter D. For cap beams without
prestressing, the nominal horizontal direct stress fh may
be taken as zero, and fv taken as the average vertical stress
formed by distributing the column axial load over an area
of cap beam found by a 45 deg spread from the column
dimensions up to cap beam mid-depth.7
Based on the above approximations, first joint cracking (at
H = 80 kips [356 kN]) corresponds to a principal tension
stress of only 2.0 f c′ psi (0.17 f c′ MPa), though a full
pattern of diagonal joint cracking did not develop until
H=120 kips (534 kN) corresponding to ⏐pt⏐ = 3.2 f c′ psi
(0.27 f c′ MPa). The maximum lateral load sustained by
SM3, at H-163 kips (725 kN) corresponded to ⏐pt⏐ =
4.5 f c′ psi (0.375 f c′ MPa). It is thus seen that both
cracking and failure occurred somewhat below the predicted
levels, though the discrepancy is not large, particularly for
the failure condition. It is felt that the short anchorage of the
column bars created more critical conditions, and higher
localized stress levels than anticipated by the nominal stress
model of reference.7 For example, if the development length,
rather than the total beam depth hb is used in Eq. (8) to calcu-
late the nominal joint shear force, the shear stress is
increased by 33 percent, resulting in principal tension
stresses which exceed the expected limit states of 3.5 f c′
and 5 f c′ psi.
It is also of interest to investigate the comparative stability
of response between μΔ = 1 and μΔ = 2, where the unit was
capable of sustaining 10 cycles of loading without significant
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Fig. 15—Joint force transfer for SM3: (a) resisting mechanism;
and (b) critical tension forces at nominal.
strength degradation, despite a fully developed pattern of
crossed diagonal cracks in the joint, as is apparent in Fig. 13(a).
This can be explained by a model developed for design of new
column cap-beam joint regions,7 and outlined in Fig. 15(a).
In the absence of internal joint reinforcement to transfer
forces from column to beam, a strut and tie mechanism is
developed. The column tension stress resultant from rein-
forcement on the tensile side of the centroidal axis is concep-
tually separated into two equal components T1 and T2. T1,
furthest from the centroidal axis, is anchored by struts Cl and
C3. Cl points back through the joint towards the compression
zone of column and cap beam, and anchors T2 and any
tension force on the compressive side of the centroidal axis
by a change in inclination of the strut Cl (to C2, in Fig. 15[a]).
C3 is directed outward from the joint, and is stabilized near
the cap-beam soffit by tension forces T3 developed in cap-
beam shear reinforcement external to the joint and additional
tension force T4 in the cap-beam soffit reinforcement. For
design purposes, it is assumed that T3 is centered a distance
about hb/4 from the column face, leading to T4 = 0.25T1 and
T3 = 0.5T1. If T3 is centered further from the column face,
more cap-beam shear reinforcement can contribute to T3,
but at the expense of an increase in T4.
Figure 15(b) shows the tension force levels that correspond
to the above assumption, where all column reinforcement on
the tensile side of the column axis is at yield, but without
strain-hardening, based on measured yield strength. This
approximately corresponds to nominal flexural strength.
Also shown, in parenthesis, are the capacities for T3 and T4.
It will be seen that T3 has only 74 percent of required
capacity, but T4 has some excess capacity. However, if the
position of T3 is moved further from the column face to
utilize more stirrup reinforcement, T4 rapidly becomes over-
loaded. It should also be noted that some of the 139 kip (619
kN) capacity of T4 is already used up in resisting the cap-
beam positive moment. It thus appears that the mechanism
should be capable of resisting a moment close to, but less
than, the nominal column capacity, which agrees well with
observed behavior.
Confirmation of the behavior suggested in Fig. 15 is also
available from strain readings in the soffit longitudinal rein-
forcement (T4) and cap-beam stirrups (T3). At maximum
recorded response, the calculated tension force in T4 for
flexural resistance was only 19 kips (85 kN), or 14 percent of
capacity. Despite this, strains recorded on the soffit rein-
forcement exceeded yield.11 Similarly, stirrups were
observed to yield for a distance of 13 in. (330 mm) from the
column face despite shear stress levels that were less than 50
percent of nominal strength of concrete shear-resisting
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Fig. 16—Column longitudinal bar strains; bar #8 small
magnitude displacement cycles.
mechanisms, which would normally imply zero stress in
the stirrups.
Finally, it will be noted that the mechanism of Fig. 15(a)
implies that clamping of the column longitudinal reinforcement
by struts Cl and C3 occurs close to the end of the bars, implying
very high bond stresses, and short effective development
lengths. This was also confirmed by strain measurements on
column longitudinal bars within the joint region. An example is
shown in Fig. 16 where strain profiles along a typical column
bar are shown for stages of response up to μΔ = 1. At μΔ = 1,
yield strength was developed less than 10 in. (5.9db) from
the free end of the bar, implying an average bond stress of uu
= 26 f c′ psi (2.17 f c′ MPa). This agrees well with
values of 30 f c′ psi (2.5 f c′ MPa) reported by Paulay
and Priestley14 for fully confined conditions.
Degradation of the joint is thus attributed to instability of
the mechanism of Fig. 15 following yield of the T3 and T4
ties, leading to flexibility in the joint region and crushing of
the diagonal struts inside the joint as a consequence of high
transverse strains.
CONCLUSIONS
Full-scale tests of lap-splice details of columns of the
Santa Monica Viaduct established that flexural strength
would be achieved at the critical section at the base of the
lap-splice, despite the short lap lengths and the fact that all
reinforcement was lapped at the same location. In the case of
the #11 (D35.8) lap-splice test, competent response was
achieved until the unit was cycled at a displacement ductility
of μΔ = 3. Unit SM2, reinforced with #18 (DS7.2) bars, also
performed well, achieving flexural strength at the base of the
lap-splice, but degrading at μΔ = 1.5. On the basis of the test
results and the theoretical approach for lap-splice strength
presented in the paper, a decision was made not to retrofit the
lap-splices of columns reinforced with #11 bars, which
constituted the majority of the columns.
Testing of a 3/4-scale column/cap-beam test unit estab-
lished that a joint shear failure could be expected as a result
of inadequate column-bar development length and a lack of
special joint reinforcement. However, degradation of
523
 strength was comparatively gradual, with the column “first-
yield” moment capacity still attainable at a drift angle of
close to 3 percent. The initial strength and gradual degradation
were attributed to resistance to joint failure provided by a
mechanism involving cap-beam soffit reinforcement and
stirrup reinforcement external to the joint.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The contribution of Ms. Rebecca Wong to testing units SM1 and SM2 is
gratefully acknowledged. The research described above was carried out
under Caltrans Contract No. S9T488, with contract monitor Mr. Ali Ashna-
ashari. His comments and support are also gratefully acknowledged. Views
expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone, and do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the State of California.
REFERENCES
1. Zelinski, R., “California Highway Bridge Retrofit Strategy and
Details,” Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Bridge Engineering
Research in Progress, National Science Foundation and Civil Engineering
Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Oct. 1990.
2. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Uang, C.-M., “The Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994—Damage Analysis of Selected Freeway
Bridges,” University of California, San Diego, Structural Systems Research
Project, Report No. SSRP-94/06, Feb. 1994, 260 pp.
3. Priestley, M. J. N.; Ely, A.; Scott, R. F.; and Seible, F., “Seismic Safety
Review of Santa Monica Viaduct Retrofit,” Report by the Seismic Safety
Review Panel to the Caltrans Office of Structures Design, California
Department of Transportation, Division of Structures, Sacramento, CA,
Jan. 1992, 410 pp.
4. “Loma Prieta Earthquake Reconnaissance Report,” Supplement to V.
6, Earthquake Spectra, May 1990, pp. 151-187.
5. Priestley, M. J. N., “Seismic Assessment of Existing Concrete
Bridges,” in Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Bridges, M. J. N. Priestley
524
and F. Seible, eds., University of California, San Diego, Structural Systems
Research Project, Report No. SSRP-91/03, July 1991, pp. 333-367.
6. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Fyfe, E., “Column Seismic Retrofit
Using Fibreglass/Epoxy Jackets,” Proceedings of the ACMBS-1 Conference,
Quebec, Canada, Oct. 7-9, 1992, pp. 287-297. Reprinted, Proceedings of
the Third NSF Workshop on Bridge Engineering Research in Progress, La
Jolla, CA, Nov. 16-17, 1992, pp. 247-251.
7. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Calvi, M., Seismic Design and
Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley and Sons, 1996, 686 pp.
8. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; Chai, Y. H.; and Y. L. Wong, “Santa
Monica Viaduct Retrofit—Full-Scale Test on Column Lap Splice with #11
[35] Reinforcement,” University of California, San Diego, Structural
Systems Research Project, Report No. SSRP-92/08, Sept. 1992, 38 pp.
9. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; MacRae, G. A.; Chai, Y. H.; and Wong,
R., “Santa Monica Viaduct Retrofit Full-Scale Test on Column Lap Splices
with #18 [57 mm] Reinforcement,” University of California, San Diego,
Charles Lee Powell Structural Systems Laboratory, Test Report No. TR-93/
02, Jan. 1993, 50 pp.
10. Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., “Theoretical Stress-
Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, Aug. 1988, pp. 1804-1826.
11. MacRae, G. A.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., “Santa Monica
Viaduct Retrofit—Large-Scale Column/Cap Beam Joint Transverse Test—
Preliminary Report,” University of California, San Diego, Charles Lee
Powell Structural Systems Laboratory, Technical Report No. TR- 94/02,
Aug. 1994, 117 pp.
12. Bridge Design Specifications, California Department of Transporta-
tion, June 1990.
13. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary (318R-89),” American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1989.
14. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., eds., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
1992, 744 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997