Shake Table Tests of Tall-Pier Bridges to Evaluate

Seismic Performance
Xu Chen1; Zhongguo Guan2; Jianzhong Li3; and Billie F. Spencer, Jr., F.ASCE4

Abstract: More than 40% of the bridges in mountainous areas of Southwest China are constructed with piers having a height of over 40 m.
Such piers are characterized by large structural flexibility and distributed mass. To investigate the effects of higher modes on the seismic per-
formance of this class of bridges, shake table tests on two 1/7-scale, tall-pier models were conducted at Tongji University, Shanghai. This pa-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

per describes the design, instrumentation, and loading protocols for the tests and discusses and compares the results. Due to the higher-mode
effects, the curvature at the pier base and displacement at the pier top of were found to be weakly correlated, indicating that displacement is not
a reliable damage measure for tall piers. Moreover, results indicated that the contribution of higher modes can lead to the formation of an addi-
tional plastic region at midheight in the piers. However, current seismic design code guidelines are for short to medium-height piers, where the
midheight region of piers is assumed to respond elastically; code guidelines are not provided for tall piers. This paper explores the effect of
higher modes on the seismic performance of bridges with tall piers and suggests two methods to improve the seismic performance: (1) elimi-
nating the midheight plastic response by including more longitudinal steel, and (2) using more confinement in the midheight region to improve
pier ductility and prevent shear failure. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001264. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Tall pier bridges; Shake table tests; Seismic behavior; Higher-mode effects; Additional plastic region.

Introduction have been conducted to determine the higher-mode effects of tall

In recent years, numerous highway bridges have been built or are
under construction in the mountainous areas of southwest China.
Because of the rugged topography of the region, more than 40% of
these bridges contain piers with a height over 40 m, with some
designed to exceed 100 m. Southwest China is known to be a region
of high seismicity, experiencing many strong earthquakes (e.g., the
magnitude 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake in 2008, and the magnitude
7.0 Lushan earthquake in 2013). Because these bridges with tall
piers are key links in the local highway network, their seismic per-
formance and safety are of great concern.
For bridges with tall piers, the mass of the piers is often larger
than that of the corresponding superstructure, which can lead to
considerable seismic inertial forces (Li et al. 2017). The flexible
piers lead to inherently long fundamental periods of the bridge
structures, which are out of the range of the dominant energy con-
tent of many seismic events; however, higher modes may still be
excited significantly (Chopra 1995). Some numerical investigations
1 However, this study only considered the seismic performance of
Ph.D.Candidate, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil
Engineering, Tongji Univ., 1239 Siping Rd., Shanghai 200092, China;
Visiting Ph.D.Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Togji Univ., 1239
Siping Rd., Shanghai 200092, China.
3
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil
Engineering, Tongji Univ., 1239 Siping Rd., Shanghai 200092, China
(corresponding author). Email: lijianzh@tongji.edu.cn
4
Nathan M. and Anne M. Newmark Endowed Chair in Civil Engineering
and Director, Newmark Structural Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 North Mathews
Ave., Urbana, IL 61801.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 11, 2017; approved on
February 16, 2018; published online on June 19, 2018. Discussion period
open until November 19, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
piers; no testing was involved.
Ceravolo et al. (2009) investigated the seismic performance of
bridges with tall piers using nonlinear dynamic analysis. This
research focused on the effectiveness of the capacity design proce-
dure used by the European code (CEN 1998). The study showed
that, due to the contributions of the inertial forces of the piers, the
positions of plastic hinges did not match the common assumption
that plastic hinges form at the pier base. Guan et al. (2011) con-
ducted a nonlinear analysis for a bridge with tall piers using beam
elements with concentrated plastic hinges. The authors observed
that significant higher-mode effects led to the formation of an addi-
tional plastic hinge at the midheight of such piers, as well as causing
that rotation of the base hinge is not in phase with the displacement
at the pier top.
Tubaldi et al. (2014) analytically investigated the effects of
higher-order modes on the dynamic behavior and seismic perform-
ance of slender bridge piers. The authors concluded that the higher
modes of slender piers had a significant influence on the distribution
patterns of the seismic-induced internal forces along the pier height.
slender piers within the linear-elastic range. Chen et al. (2016) con-
ducted an incremental dynamic analysis for tall piers modeled by
fiber beam elements, which included higher-mode effects. Both the
initial yielding and the ultimate state were discussed. The results
showed that estimating seismic responses of tall piers with current
the displacement-based and capacity design method led to large
errors.
To date, an extensive number of quasi-static cyclic experiments
have been conducted on the seismic performance of bridges with
short to medium-height piers. The results of tests for nearly 500 col-
umns have been collected in the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center (PEER) Column Database (Berry et al. 2004). In
these experiments, the lateral inertia action was often simulated as a
single force acting on the top of a column (Scott et al. 1982;
Priestley 1996). This procedure implies that the contribution of seis-
mic inertia forces due to the distributed pier mass can be neglected,

© ASCE 04018058-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058

 and the seismic response of the piers is dominated by the first mode.
These assumptions are reasonable for short to medium-height piers,
as the mass of the piers is much smaller compared with the corre-
sponding superstructure. However, these quasi-static cyclic load
tests are not appropriate for tall-pier bridges, as the seismic per-
formance is significantly affected by the dynamic response of the
bridge, which is a function of the distributed mass and the higher
modes of the piers.
Numerous shake table tests have been conducted to assess the
performance of bridge structures. For example, a 1/4-scale, two-
span RC bridge was tested at the University of Nevada, Reno to
study soil–foundation–structure interaction (Johnson et al. 2008).
The bridge was subjected to coherent and incoherent, low-intensity,
and high-intensity earthquake excitations. Furthermore, to investi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
gate the effects of fault rupture on damage of bridges, another shake
table test was conducted on an identical bridge model at Reno
(Saiidi et al. 2014), with incoherent motions that simulated fault
rupture. More recently, a 1/4-scale, two-span bridge model was
tested in the transverse direction on shake tables (Li et al. 2016) at
Tongji University to evaluate the performance of different bearing
sliding systems under earthquake excitations. However, experi-
ments to date have generally focused on bridges with short to me-
dium piers (i.e., with heights less than 10 m). In these tests, the con-
tribution of the dynamics of the piers to the seismic demand of
bridges was not considered. Because the contribution of distributed
pier mass to the seismic response is negligible for short to medium
piers, when compared with masses of superstructures, additional
masses were only attached to the top of the superstructure. To date,
no shake table experiments have been reported focusing on the
higher-mode effects of tall piers on bridges.
This study investigated the effects of higher-order modes on the
seismic performance of bridges with tall piers through a series of
shake table experiments of two 1/7-scale, tall-pier models. The tests
were carried out at the Multi-Functional Shake Tables Laboratory
at Tongji University, Shanghai. The columns were subjected to
recorded ground motions with intensity ranging from low to high.
In this paper, the design, instrumentation, and loading protocols for
the tests are first described. The experimental results from two test
models are compared and discussed, and conclusions are drawn
regarding critical issues in the seismic performance of tall bridge
piers. Finally, based on the test results, suggested design guidelines
for bridges with tall piers are proposed.
Fig. 1. Elevation of the prototype bridge (unit: m).
© ASCE 04018058-2
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058
Prototype and Model
Bridge Prototype
The prototype bridge shown in Fig. 1 is typical of bridges with tall
piers in southwest China and was considered herein. The pre-
stressed and precast box girders were integrated into a four-span
continuous girder by the cast-in-place joints. The cross section of
the box girder was uniform, and the width and height were 7.45 and
3.30 m, respectively. One span (30 m) of the girder weighed
approximately 700 t. The joints were socket connected to the pier
top and thus provided hinge-like connections between the girders
and the piers. Unidirectional slider bearings that allow for thermal
expansion in the longitudinal direction were used at the transitional
piers. Each bridge pier was composed of variable hollow sections
with external dimensions from 3.35
5.0 m to 2.1
5.0 m and a
wall thickness of 0.6 m. Each pier was supported by a pile cap sit-
ting on four cast-in-place piles, which were 1.8 m in diameter and
30 m in length.
Description of Models
Model Scaling Factors
To explore the seismic performance of the piers, the prototype
bridge was simplified and represented as a single mass-column sys-
tem. A lumped tributary mass from the two adjacent half-spans of
the superstructure (shown in Fig. 1) was concentrated on the pier
cap. According to the dynamic equation of motions, Cauchy’s
requirement for proper simulation of inertial forces and restoring
forces can be written as (Moncarz and Krawinkler 1981)
SE
¼1 (1)
S r Sa Sl
where the elastic modulus (E), acceleration (a), and length (l) were
selected as fundamental quantities in this study; and SE , S r , Sa , and
Sl = scaling factors of elastic modulus, material density, accelera-
tion, and length, respectively.
A geometric scale factor of Sl = 1/7 was determined for the mod-
els. With this scale, the size of the models was maximized, meeting
the laboratory space and the capacity limits of the testing system.
Additionally, this scale allowed conventional bars to be used for
longitudinal column reinforcement and was sufficiently large to
J. Bridge Eng.
 accommodate realistic material (i.e., concrete rather than microcon-
crete). The acceleration and the elastic modulus scaling factor in
these tests were both set to be 1.0. Consequently, additional masses
should be attached to the models to satisfy similitude relations.
Table 1 displays the required scale factors for modeling dynamic
behavior.
To allow investigation of higher-mode effects related to the dis-
tributed mass of tall piers, two models, labeled M-model and S-
Table 1. Required scaling factors for modeling dynamic behavior
Quantity General case Required scaling factor
Geometric length (l) Sl 1/7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
model, were designed and tested. The RC piers in the two models
were identical. However, in the M-model, the mass of the pier was
represented in a distributed manner along the height of the pier, as
shown in Figs. 2(a and b), whereas in the S-model, the mass associ-
ated with the pier was lumped to the pier cap, as shown in Figs. 2(c
and d). The magnitude of this lumped mass for the S-model was
chosen such that the fundamental period of the S-model matched
that of the M-model. This S-model approximated a reference case
of a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system, neglecting the
higher-mode effects of the pier. Detailed information of the M-
model and S-model is provided in the following sections.
Column Design
For the scale factor of 1/7, the clear column height of the models

Elastic modulus (E) SE 1 was 6.7 m, and the center of gravity of the additional masses at the
Acceleration (a) Sa 1 pier top should be located 7.0 m above the pier base, giving a total
Density ( r ) S r ¼ SE =Sa Sl 7 height of 7.25 m (Fig. 2). The bases of the columns were attached to
Mass (m) Sm ¼ S r S3l 1/49
a spread footing that was rigidly fixed to the shake table, neglecting
Stiffness (K) SK ¼ SE Sl 1/7pffiffiffi
the soil–structure interaction effects; the tops of the columns were
Time (period) (t) St ¼ ðSm =SK Þ0:5 1=
pffiffiffi7 integrally connected to the pier caps. The external dimensions of
Frequency (f) Sf ¼ ðSK =Sm Þ0:5 7ffiffiffi
p the sections at the top and the base of the columns were 72
30 cm
Velocity (v) Sv ¼ Sa St 1= 7
and 72
48 cm, respectively, with a wall thickness of 8 cm (Fig. 3).
Force (F) SF ¼ Sm Sa 1/49
Whereas the general dimensions of the pier models (i.e., the pier
Bending moment (M) SM ¼ SF Sl 1/343
height, external dimensions, and wall thickness of the column sec-
Displacement (d) Sd ¼ SF =SK 1/7
tions) can be designed directly according to the prototype bridge
Stress (s ) Ss ¼ SE 1
and scaling factor, the reinforcement in the cross sections cannot be
Strain (« ) Sɛ ¼ SE =Ss 1
modeled directly. Thus, a hybrid design was used that satisfied the
Area (A) SA ¼ S2l 1/49
following conditions (Nathan 2006): (1) provided a realistic repre-
Volume (V) SV ¼ S3l 1/343
sentation of the prototype response, (2) was relatively easy to
Moment of inertia (I) SI ¼ S4l 1/2,401
construct and assemble/disassemble, and (3) was able to attach
Energy (e) Se ¼ SE S3l 1/343
to and safely test on the shake tables. To achieve an appropriate
Acceleration (g) Sg = 1 1
flexural stiffness of the cross sections and meet the required simili-
Damping ( j ) Sj = 1 1
tude (Moncarz and Krawinkler 1981), the longitudinal bars and

Fig. 2. Dimensions and additional mass of pier models (unit: cm): (a) elevation and (b) top view of the M-model; (c) top view; and (d) elevation of
the S-model.

© ASCE 04018058-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Column reinforcement design (unit: cm): (a) column rebar elevation; and (b) column section.
Table 2. Measured reinforcement properties
Model Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate stress (MPa)
Longitudinal steel 424 629
Transverse steel 417 604
Table 3. Measured concrete properties
Model Compressive strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (GPa)
S-Model 51.6 40.4
M-Model 51.3 38.2
reinforcement stirrups were chosen to be U8 and f 6 steel bars,
respectively. Table 2 lists the properties of steel reinforcement,
which were obtained through tensile testing at ambient temperature.
The average measured yield stresses for U8 and f 6 steel bars were
424 and 417 MPa, respectively. Additionally, the columns were con-
structed using regular concrete, which was consistent with the proto-
type bridge. The properties of the concrete for the M-model and
S-model are listed in Table 3, where the strengths were obtained
from compressive tests on cubes of 150
150
150 mm, and the
elastic modulus was tested through prisms of 150
150
300 mm.
The column longitudinal steel consisted of 36 U8 bars corre-
sponding to a steel ratio of 1.09% at the base section and 2.08% at
the top section. Longitudinal steel bars were detailed for full devel-
opment into both the caps and the footings. The column transverse
steel reinforcement adopted rectangle hoops with spacings of 3 and
6 cm inside and outside of the confined regions; the length of all
confined regions was 135 cm (= 45
3 cm) for both the M-model
and S-model. The dimensions of the columns and the steel rein-
forcement details are illustrated in Fig. 3.
Additional Masses
In the M-model, to consider the inertial forces and effects of higher-
order modes of tall piers, the additional masses corresponding to the
pier column should be distributed along the pier height. Different
trial locations of masses were checked through numerical analysis,
determining the distribution pattern of the masses to appropriately
represent the dynamic properties of the prototype bridge. Finally,
the configuration and amount of additional masses required to pro-
duce target modal properties were determined as shown in Fig. 2;
the self-weight and additional masses of different structure compo-
nents are listed in Table 4. The mass of the pier column was
© ASCE 04018058-4
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058
represented by thirty-four 340-kg lumped masses (11,560 kg total)
distributed along the height. Each iron box contained forty-eight 5-
kg iron blocks that were 5
8
17 cm and was welded to a 32-kg,
46
44
2-cm iron plate; each plate was welded to three 16.2-kg
steel bars that were embedded in the column. The mass of the corre-
sponding superstructure was modeled as a 300
300
18-cm RC
pier cap and eight 2,000-kg iron plates bolted on the top of the cap,
totaling 19,510 kg.
In the S-model, all additional masses corresponding to the pier
column were equivalently attached to the pier cap. After prelimi-
nary numerical analysis, four 79-kg iron boxes containing ninety-
six 5-kg iron blocks in each were used to simulate the equivalent
additional masses of the column, which were 2,237 kg in total. The
mass of the superstructure was modeled by eight 2,000-kg iron
plates and the pier cap as in the case of the M-model.
For the S-model, the mass of the column was equivalently
lumped to the top of the pier, ensuring the fundamental period was
equal to that of the M-model. Numerical analysis was subsequently
conducted to demonstrate the efficacy of approximating the seismic
response from the first mode of the M-model by the S-model. In this
analysis, both the M-model and S-model were assumed to perform
elastically when subjected to the input motion of shake table tests
(Rinaldi motion, as shown in Fig. 7), and the seismic responses
were computed through modal superposition. Fig. 4(a) and Table 5
show the maximum section curvature at the pier base and for both
the M-model and S-model with various input peak ground accelera-
tion (PGA) levels, and the seismic demand resulting from the first
mode of the M-model is included for comparison as well; similarly,
the maximum displacement at the pier top is presented in Fig. 4(b)
and Table 6. In Tables 5 and 6, f M and d M denote the curvature
and displacement of the M-model, respectively; f S and d S denote
the curvature and displacement of the S-model, respectively; and
f M1 and d M1 denote the curvature and displacement of the M-
model contributed by the first mode, respectively.
Fig. 4(a) and Table 5 show that when the higher-order modes
were neglected in the M-model, the curvature response at the pier
base was similar to that of the S-model for various PGA levels, with
maximum discrepancies of 8.2% (PGA = 0.3g). However, when all
the vibration modes were considered, the results of the M-model
were approximately 40% higher than those of the S-model for vari-
ous PGA levels.
For the displacement response presented in Fig. 4(b) and
Table 6, the results from three analysis cases (M-model with
all modes, M-model with first mode, and S-model) were similar,
with a maximum difference of 13.9%. This result was reasonable
J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 4. Self-weight and additional masses of test models

M-model (kg) S-model (kg)

Component Self-weight Additional masses Self-weight Additional masses
Distributed along pier 2,130 11,570 2,130 —
Pier cap 3,510 16,000 3,510 16,000 þ 2,237 = 18,237
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Seismic response with various PGA levels: (a) curvature at pier base; and (b) displacement at pier top.

Additionally, taking the input PGA level of 0.5g as an illustra-

Table 5. Section curvature at pier base (
10−3 rad/m)
tion, Fig. 5 shows the envelopes for both curvature and displace-
M-model M-model ðf M  f SÞ ð f M1  f S Þ ment along the height of the pier models. In Fig. 5, the response of
PGA [all modes [first mode S-model fS fS the S-model was found to match well with that resulting from the
(g) ð f M )] ( f M1 )] (f S) (%) (%) first mode of the M-model; however, when higher-order modes
0.1 0.72 0.52 0.50 43.4 3.4 were considered in the M-model, significant curvature demand was
0.2 1.77 1.25 1.19 48.0 5.0 induced, both at the base and midheight of the pier.
0.3 2.78 2.04 1.88 47.9 8.2 These results show that the seismic response of the M-model
0.4 3.75 2.75 2.57 46.1 6.8 contributed by the first mode can be effectively represented by the
0.5 4.46 3.44 3.35 33.0 2.5 S-model designed in this study. Furthermore, the discrepancies
0.6 5.60 4.02 3.72 50.7 8.0 between seismic curvature of the M-model and S-model were
0.7 6.60 4.93 4.71 40.2 4.8 mainly affected by the higher-order modes rather than the model
masses.
The completed test models are shown in Fig. 6.
Table 6. Displacement at the pier top (mm)
Instrumentation
M-model M-model ðd M  d S Þ ðd M1  d S Þ
PGA [all modes [first mode S-model dS dS The two models were instrumented as shown in Table 7. The
(g) ðd M )] (d M1 )] (d S ) (%) (%) accelerometers measured acceleration in the loading direction
along the column height. Strain gauges measured the strain lev-
0.1 9.8 10.4 9.1 6.8 13.9
els in the longitudinal reinforcement in the critical column sec-
0.2 20.4 21.4 19.1 6.7 11.7
tions. The displacement transducers used to monitor the lateral
0.3 31.8 32.7 29.7 7.0 9.9
displacements of the pier were fixed to a stiff reference frame;
0.4 43.7 43.6 40.6 7.5 7.3
0.5 55.8 56.9 51.7 7.9 10.0
the transducers utilized for measuring the average bending cur-
0.6 68.0 69.2 62.9 8.1 10.1
vature diagram along the pier height were mounted onto the col-
0.7 80.3 79.7 74.1 8.3 7.5 umns to obtain the net deformation. Note that additional dis-
placement transducers were used for the M-model due to the
more complex dynamic behavior. All measurements were moni-
because the displacement at the pier top was found to be mainly tored using a multifunctional data-acquisition system produced
dominated by the first mode (Chopra and Goel 2002; Tubaldi et al. by National Instruments (NI) Corporation (Austin, Texas), with
2014). a sampling rate of 256 Hz.

© ASCE 04018058-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Envelopes of seismic response (PGA = 0.5g): (a) section curvature; and (b) lateral displacement.

Fig. 6. Test models fixed on the shake table: (a) M-model; and (b) S-model.

Shake Table Test Program Table 7. Instrumentation summary

Count
The tall pier models were tested at the Multi-Functional Shake
Tables Laboratory at Tongji University, which has a comprehensive Instrumentation Recorded responses M-model S-model
testing array consisting of four shaking tables; for these tests, one ta- Displacement Column displacement 13 13
ble with a payload capacity of 70.0 t was used. transducers Column curvature 48 28
Accelerometers Column accelerations 10 10
Input Ground Motions Strain gauges Longitudinal reinforcement strain 32 32

The Rinaldi ground motion from the 1994 Northridge earthquake

was selected for the shake table tests of tall-pier models. This in the velocity history. Extensive preliminary analysis showed that
ground motion was a near fault record with one of the highest peak this record generated significant higher-mode effects compared to
ground velocities ever recorded, and had a clear and definite pulse other ground motions.

© ASCE 04018058-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Input ground motion with compressed time axis (PGA = 0.1g): (a) acceleration response spectrum (damping ratio = 5%); (b) acceleration his-
tory; and (c) velocity history.

Fig. 7(a) shows the acceleration response spectrum of the Table 8. Designed properties of test models from numerical analysis
Rinaldi record, with a damping ratio of 5%; acceleration history and
velocity history with a compressed time axis for the input ground Property M-model S-model
motion are presented in Figs. 7(b and c), where the PGA was scaled
Period (s)
to 0.1g. The time pffiffiaxis
ffi of the prototype motion was compressed by a First mode 1.42 1.42
factor of 2.65 ( 7) to account for the scale effect of the test models. Second mode 0.162 —
From numerical analysis, the natural periods of both the M-model Yielding curvature at pier base (rad/m) 5.61
10−3 5.87
10−3
and S-model were obtained and are listed in Table 8; note that
according p toffiffiffithe similitude relations, these periods were approxi-
mately 1= 7 those of the prototype bridge. Numerical analysis
results shown in Table 8 and Fig. 7(a) predicted that the accelera- Table 9. Test protocols
tions corresponding to the first vibration mode of the M-model was Acceleration (g)
approximately 1/8 that of the second mode, implying potential sig-
nificant contribution from the second mode. Runs Record M-model S-model
A1 WN 0.10 0.10
Test Protocol A2 Rinaldi 0.10 0.22
A3 0.23 0.30
The scaled input ground motions were applied to both the M-model A4 0.32 0.41
and the S-model. The PGA of the records varied from 0.1 to 1.4g. In A5 0.44 0.51
addition to the Rinaldi ground motion, a band-limited white noise A6 0.55 0.63
excitation (WN) was used before the tests to identify the vibration A7 0.67 0.72
periods of the models. Furthermore, after each shaking table test, A8 — 0.82
when the PGAs exceeded 0.67g for the M-model and 0.82g for the C1 WN 0.10 0.10
S-model, a band-limited WN was used to evaluate the stiffness deg- C2 Rinaldi 0.70 0.94
radation between every two test runs with different PGA levels. C3 WN 0.10 0.10
Details of the test protocols are listed in Table 9, where WN means C4 Rinaldi 0.72 1.05
band-limited white noise excitation. C5 WN 0.10 0.10
C6 Rinaldi 0.79 1.08
C7 WN 0.10 0.10
Experimental Results
C8 Rinaldi 0.88 1.17
C9 WN 0.10 0.10
Modal Frequency and Model Vibration Shape C10 Rinaldi 0.98 1.28
C11 WN 0.10 0.10
The natural frequencies of both the M-model and S-model can be
C12 Rinaldi 1.08 1.40
identified from the response data measured by accelerometers dur-
C13 WN 0.10 —
ing the band-limited white noise excitations. The Fourier spectrums
C14 Rinaldi 1.22 —
of the M-model and S-model before the tests (initial state) are pre-
C15 WN 0.10 —
sented in Fig. 8(a), which were obtained from the recorded accelera-
C16 Rinaldi 1.37 —
tion data at the pier top. Fig. 8(a) shows that the first mode natural
C17 WN 0.10 —
frequencies were 0.6875 Hz (T1 = 1.45 s) and 0.7813 Hz (T1 = 1.28 s)

© ASCE 04018058-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Fourier spectrums of acceleration response at the top of the M-model and S-model: (a) initial state; (b) after PGA = 0.9g; (c) after PGA = 1.3g;
and (d) after PGA = 1.4g.

Fig. 9. Vibration shape of the first mode of the M-model and S-model: (a) initial state for M-model and S-model; (b) after PGA = 1.4g for M-model
and S-model; (c) before and after tests for M-model; and (d) before and after tests for S-model.

for the M-model and S-model, respectively. Although designed to
possess identical fundamental periods, T1 of the S-model was 11.7%
smaller than for the M-model, which may have been due to construc-
tion errors, as well as differences in concrete modulus (Table 3) and
placement of masses.
Figs. 8(b–d) present the Fourier spectrums of the acceleration at
the pier top for the two test models after subjecting them to various
levels of ground motion. The first natural frequency of the M-model
remained unchanged until subjected to the seismic excitation with a
PGA of 1.29g [Fig. 8(c)]. Similarly, the first mode natural fre-
quency of the S-model started to shift after undergoing an excitation
with a PGA equal to 0.94g [Fig. 8(b)]. This frequency shifting is of-
ten regarded as an indicator of structure yielding in engineering
practice.
However, further investigation found that the M-model and
the S-model first yielded when subjected to seismic excitations
with PGAs of 0.67 and 0.79g, respectively. This fact implies
that the natural frequency had low sensitivity to structural yield-
ing in the case of tall piers presented in this study, as previously
demonstrated for other structure types (Begg et al. 1976;
Srinivasan and Kot 1992).
Based on the recorded data from the accelerometers along the
pier height, the first vibration mode shapes of both the M-model and
S-model before the shake testing were obtained and are compared
in Fig. 9(a). Similarly, the comparison of the first mode shape after
the test is presented in Fig. 9(b). Although the first mode shapes of
the M-model and S-model were similar in general, a discrepancy
arose in the upper region, which may have been due to some differ-
ences in construction.
Figs. 9(c and d) compare the first mode shape of the M-model
and S-model, respectively, before and after the tests. Figs. 9(c and d)
led to the conclusion that the fundamental modal shapes of both test
models changed little throughout the test process, even though the
natural frequency changed. This phenomenon indicates that the
modal shape is not sensitive to the changes of structure stiffness as
well (Fox 1992), and is even worse than natural frequency in deter-
mining structural damage.
Tensile Strain and Section Curvature
The tensile strains of the longitudinal steel bars in the pier models
were directly measured by strain gauges attached during casting.

© ASCE 04018058-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058

 The curvature responses along the pier height were also measured
during the test. As shown in Fig. 10(a), 10-mm-diameter steel rods
were located in pairs on opposite faces of the columns at selected
elevations and in the parallel direction of excitation. Vertically ori-
ented displacement transducers spanned between two adjacent rods
at different elevations and measured deformations along the span,
as shown in Fig. 10(b). Average curvature was obtained using the
difference between transducer readings on opposite faces of the col-
umns divided by the distance between the transducers and the spans
between rods. The term average is used here because the quantity
measured was the average of values along the gauge length between
instrumentation rods; actual peak local values would be equal to or
greater than the averages.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Maximum Measured Values
Fig. 11(a) shows the measured maximum tensile steel strains at the
base (H = 0 m) of the M-model and S-model with increase of PGA of
the input ground motion; the strain results for the midheight section
(H = 3.85 m) of the two models are presented in Fig. 11(c). Similarly,
Fig. 11(b) plots the maximum measured responses of average section
curvature between H = 0 m and H = 0.1 m (denoted as H = 0.05 m)
for the M-model and the S-model. The maximum measured responses
of average section curvature at midheight, between H = 3.80 m and
H = 3.90 m (denoted as H = 3.85 m), are compared in Fig. 11(d).
For both the tensile strain and section curvature near the pier
base, the seismic responses of the S-model were lower than the cor-
responding responses of the M-model for the same PGA level
throughout the testing process. For example, when the PGA = 1.0g,
the steel strain and section curvature responses obtained from the S-
model were approximately 30 and 20% lower than those measured
for the M-model. As previously demonstrated by numerical analy-
ses, the higher-order modes of piers were the main contributors to
these discrepancies, although the difference in model mass also
contributed. Therefore, these results demonstrated that if the mass
and higher modes of pier columns are neglected in the design of
bridges with tall piers, seismic demands will be underestimated,
leading to unconservative results.
Examination of Fig. 11 also allows determination of the yielding
state of the test models. Fig. 11(a) shows that the longitudinal steel
bars at the base sections (H = 0 m) of the M-model and S-model first
Fig. 10. Calculation of average curvature: (a) calculation of average curvature; and (b) displacement transducers mounted on the pier.
© ASCE 04018058-9
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058
yielded (defined as when the strain in the bars ɛ = 2,300 m strain)
when the PGA = 0.67 and 0.79g, respectively. The corresponding
yielding curvatures can be acquired as shown in Fig. 11(b), which
were 5.97
10−3 and 6.13
10−3 rad/m for the M-model and S-
model, respectively. The difference between the yielding curvatures
of the two models was caused by the different axial loads of the two
models. Note that even when the PGA of input excitation reached
1.37g, the average curvature ductility ratio of the base section of the
M-model was approximately 3, which was relatively small.
From the comparisons in Figs. 11(c and d), the discrepancies
between the demands of the M-model and S-model at the mid-
height (H = 3.85 m) section were more pronounced than near the
base sections. When the steel strain reached the yield value of
2,300 m strain in the M-model at PGA = 0.88g, the response in
the S-model was approximately 80% lower (430 m strain).
Similarly, the curvature demand of the M-model (6.22
10−3
rad/m) at the midheight section was 8 times larger than that of the
S-Model (0.752
10−3 rad/m) when PGA = 0.88g. Therefore,
yielding of the midheight section means that a second plastic
region started to form in the M-model. These phenomena differ
significantly from the S-model and conventional bridges with
short to medium-height piers. The progress of this additional
plastic region is further discussed in the following section.
Note that high PGA levels were required for the formation of
plastic zones in the M-model (0.67g for the one at the pier base,
and 0.88g for the one at midheight), which exceeded the PGAs of
earthquakes commonly considered in current design codes.
However, quite a few earthquakes with particularly large PGA
were observed in recent years. For example, the maximum meas-
ured PGA was over 2.9g for the 2011 Tohoku earthquake
(Takewaki et al. 2011), whereas the maximum PGA levels were
1.82 and 0.96g for the 1994 Northridge earthquake (Yegian et al.
1995) and 2008 Wenchuan earthquake (Krausmann et al. 2010),
respectively. Furthermore, according to the Chinese Guidelines
for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges (Ministry of Transport of
the People’s Republic of China 2008), the design PGA level for
rare earthquakes is 0.68g for regions with high seismicity such as
Yunnan Province. Thus, tall-pier bridges might perform inelasti-
cally in engineering practice, with the appearance of one or more
plastic zones.
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Tensile strain and base curvature: (a) tensile strain at H = 0 m; (b) section curvature at H = 0.05 m; (c) tensile strain at H = 3.85 m; and
(d) section curvature at H = 3.85 m.

Fig. 12. Distribution and progress of (a) tensile strain of longitudinal steel bars; and (b) section curvature.

Envelope Distribution Diagram
Fig. 12 plots the measured envelopes of tensile strain of longitudinal
steel and section curvature of the M-model along the pier height,
with PGAs of 0.67g (first yielding of base section, H = 0 m), 0.88g
(yielding of midheight section, H = 3.85 m), and 1.37g (the final test
step). The results of the S-model corresponding to test runs with
similar PGA levels are also presented for comparison.
In the case of the M-model, the distribution patterns of tensile
strain [Fig. 12(a)] remained similar when subjected to ground
motion with various PGA levels; similar trends were also found for

© ASCE 04018058-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058

 the section curvature [Fig. 12(b)]. Furthermore, both the steel strain
and section curvature demands at 3.85 m were found to be larger
than adjacent regions, indicating the potential of a second plastic
zone. As seen in Fig. 12, the base section first yielded when the PGA
reached 0.67g, whereas other parts of the column still remained elas-
tic. Subsequently, when the PGA increased to 0.88g, an additional
plastic zone started to form at the midheight region, and the lower
plastic zone extended to approximately 7.5% of the entire pier
height. Finally, at a PGA of 1.37g, the maximum ductility demands
for tensile strain and section curvature reached m ɛ ¼ 3:49 and
m f ¼ 3:32, respectively, at the base section, and m ɛ ¼ 1:54 and
m f ¼ 1:76, respectively, at the midheight section (H = 3.85 m).
The plastic zones at the pier base and midheight extended to approxi-
mately 12.3 and 37.3% of the entire pier height, respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

As demonstrated in the case of short to medium-height piers, the Fig. 13. Displacement at pier top.
first mode only contributed to the plastic deformation at the pier
base. Therefore, the formation of the second plastic zone at the mid-
height region showed a significant contribution from higher-order
modes to the seismic performance of tall piers. Although the ductil-
ity demand is minor in these tests, designers must pay significant
attention to this second plastic zone, as the midheight region is
assumed to perform elastically in current seismic design codes. In
engineering practice, the performance of the midheight regions of
tall piers might be improved by either of the following methods: (1)
including more longitudinal steel bars in the midheight region, and
eliminating potential plastic responses in the midheight region; (2)
using more confinement in the midheight region to improve the duc-
tility of piers and prevent shear failure when plastic performance is
permitted at midheight. The effectiveness of these two design strat-
egies needs to be carefully investigated in the future.
For the S-model, with the increase of the PGA level, the dis-
tribution patterns of tensile strain of the steel bars and section
curvature changed little. However, the demands on both the steel
strain and the section curvature generally decreased with the
increase of the pier height; the distribution patterns of these two
parameters matched the assumptions in current design codes fo-
cusing on short to medium-height piers (AASHTO 2007;
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China 2008). Fig. 14. Envelop distribution diagram of displacement.
Consequently, the plastic deformation of the S-model only con-
centrated at the pier bottom, and regions higher than 0.7 m the S-model also changed little throughout the tests and was compa-
responded elastically when PGA = 1.39g.
rable to that of the M-model.
Previous studies have shown that the displacement response
Displacement Response under earthquakes was mainly dominated by the fundamental mode
Peak Values (Chopra and Goel 2002, Tubaldi et al. 2014). Because the shapes of
The lateral displacement response along the pier height was meas- the fundamental modes of the M-model and S-model were similar
ured by displacement transducers throughout the tests for both the and remained nearly unchanged with the increase of PGA level, the
M-model and the S-model. Fig. 13 shows the maximum displace- distribution patterns of lateral displacement of these two models
ment at the pier top with the increase of PGA for the two models. can be expected to be similar.
The comparison shows that when subjected to ground motions with Note that, although the maximum drift ratio at the top of the M-
the same PGA level, the displacement demand of the M-model was model seemed to be minor, which was only approximately 1.7% for
larger than that of the S-model. With the yielding state is defined by a PGA of 1.37g, the displacement demand could be quite large for
the tensile strain, the yield displacement (d y ) can be obtained from the prototype bridge. For example, the maximum displacement
Fig. 13 as 0.062 m for the M-model and 0.064 m for the S-model. response at the top of the M-model was 0.0893 m when PGA =
Here, the yield displacement was defined as the maximum displace- 0.98g. However, when the scale factor of 1/7 was considered, the
ment response at the pier top when the base section yields. actual displacement demand at the top of the prototype bridge pier
was approximately 0.625 m.
Envelope Distribution Diagram
The measured envelop diagrams for lateral displacement along the Relationship between Maximum Values of Base Curvature
pier height for both the M-model and S-model are plotted in Fig. 14; and Top Displacement
the PGA levels selected in Fig. 14 are the same as in Fig. 12. Traditionally, for short to medium piers, the maximum top displace-
For the M-model, the distribution pattern of lateral displacement ment is taken as a surrogate for the maximum base curvature, which
remained similar when subjected to various levels of ground directly relates to the damage of the pier structure. However, in the
motion. Correspondingly, the displacement distribution pattern of case of tall piers, this assumption may not be valid.

© ASCE 04018058-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Instantaneous curvature and displacement of the M-model: (a) curvature distribution and (b) displacement distribution with PGA of 0.67g;
(c) curvature distribution and (d) displacement distribution with PGA of 0.88g; (e) curvature distribution; and (f) displacement distribution with PGA
of 1.37g.

Fig. 15 shows the measured instantaneous curvature and lateral
displacement responses along the pier height for the M-model cor-
responding to various excitations. The responses when the base cur-
vature and top displacement reach maximum values were both plot-
ted for comparison.
For the presented PGA levels, the displacement at the pier top
and the curvature at the pier base reached maximum values at differ-
ent times, and significant discrepancies occurred in the distribution
of both curvature and displacement at these two moments. For
example, for the case where PGA = 0.88g, the maximum base curva-
ture was 8.65
10−3 rad/m at t = 1.24 s, whereas the base curvature
corresponding to the maximum top displacement was 2.76
10−3
rad/m at t = 1.03 s [shown in Fig. 15(c)]. Correspondingly, the maxi-
mum top displacement was 0.082 m at t = 1.03 s, whereas the top
displacement was 0.052 m when the base curvature reached its max-
imum value at t = 1.24 s [shown in Fig. 15(d)]. Similar results are
presented in Figs. 15(a and b) for PGA = 0.67g and in Figs. 15 (e and f)
for PGA = 1.37g. This phenomenon shows that the displacement at
the top of the tall pier did not respond in phase with the curvature at
the pier base, which again verified the conclusion from previous
studies (Chen et al. 2016; Guan et al. 2011). Furthermore, because
it was not highly correlated to the base curvature, the displacement
at the pier top cannot be used as a reliable damage index for tall
piers, although it has been widely used for conventional piers.
Conclusion
1. The identified natural frequencies and mode shapes of the first
mode for both the M-model and S-model had low sensitivity to
the structural yielding, making them inappropriate indicators of
the presence of damage in tall piers.
2. Because of the effects of higher modes, an additional plastic
zone formed at the midheight region of the M-model, whereas
the plastic deformation of the S-model only concentrated near
the pier base. In current seismic design procedures focusing on
bridges with short to medium-height piers, elastic performance
is desired in the midheight region. Therefore, two methods may
be used to improve the seismic performance of the midheight
region of tall piers in engineering practice: (1) eliminating the
midheight plastic response with more longitudinal steel at the
midheight region; (2) using more confinement to improve
the ductility of the pier and prevent shear failure when plastic
deformation is permitted in the midheight region. Further
investigations should be conducted for a specific design strat-
egy focusing on tall-pier bridges in the future.
3. As affected by the higher-order modes of tall bridge piers, the
curvature at the base of the pier was not highly correlated with
the displacement at the top of the pier, which was in contrast to
the case for short to medium-height bridge piers. Therefore, the
displacement at the top of the pier is not a good indicator of
damage in tall piers.
Current work is underway to assess the effectiveness of the pro-
posed design strategies for tall piers and translate them into engi-
neering practice.

This paper investigated the importance of higher-mode effects on

the seismic performance of bridges with tall piers. The design, Acknowledgments
instrumentation, and testing of two 1/7-scale, tall-pier models tested
on the shake table at Tongji University were described. From the The authors gratefully acknowledge the support by the Self-
experimental results, the main conclusions were as follows: innovation Project of the State Key Laboratory for Disaster

© ASCE 04018058-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058

 Reduction in Civil Engineering of Tongji University (SLDRCE15-A-
01), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(51678434). Also, the first author acknowledges the support of the
China Scholarship Council.
References
AASHTO. 2007. Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design.
Washington, DC.
Begg, R. D., A. C. Mackenzie, C. J. Dodds, and O. Loland. 1976.
“Structural integrity monitoring using digital processing of vibration
signals.” Proc., 8th Annual Offshore Technology Conf., Offshore
Technology Conference, 1976, Dallas, TX, 305–311.
Berry, M., M. Parrish, and M. Eberhard. 2004. PEER structural perform-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ance database user’s manual (version 1.0). Berkeley, CA, Univ. of
California.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 1998. Design of structure
for earthquake resistence—Bridges. “EUROCODE 1998-2. Brussels,
Belgium.
Ceravolo, R., G. V. Demarie, L. Giordano, G. Mancini, and D. Sabia. 2009.
“Problems in applying code-specified capacity design procedures to
seismic design of tall piers.” Eng. Struct. 31 (8): 1811–1821. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.042.
Chen, X., J. Li, and Z. Guan. 2016. “Effects of higher modes on tall piers.”
IABSE Conf. IABSE Symposium Report (Vol. 106, No. 12, pp. 136–
143). International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.
Chopra, A. K. 1995. Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to
earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chopra, A. K., and R. K. Goel. 2002. “A modal pushover analysis procedure
for estimating seismic demands for buildings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 31 (3): 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.144.
Fox, C. H. J. 1992. “The location of defects in structures: a comparison of
the use of natural frequency and mode shape data.” Proc., 10th Int.
Modal Analysis Conf., (Publisher) Society for Experimental Mechanics,
637–642.
Guan, Z., J. Li, Y. Xu, and H. Lu. 2011. “Higher-order mode effects on the
seismic performance of tall piers.” Front. Arhit. Civ. Eng. China. 5 (4):
496–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-011-0131-9.
Johnson, N., R. T. Ranf, M. S. Saiidi, D. Sanders, and M. Eberhard.
2008. “Seismic testing of a two-span reinforced concrete bridge.”
J. Bridge Eng. 13 (2): 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084
-0702(2008)13:2(173).
© ASCE 04018058-13
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(9): 04018058
Krausmann, E., A. M. Cruz, and B. Affeltranger. 2010. “The impact of the
12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities.” J. Loss
Prev. Process Ind. 23 (2): 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2009
.10.004.
Li, J., H. Tang, and Z. Guan. 2017. “Shake table test and numerical analysis
of a bridge model supported on elastomeric pad bearings.” J.
Earthquake Eng. 21 (4): 604–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469
.2016.1174751.
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China. 2008. Guidelines
for seismic design of highway bridges. JTG/T B02-01-2008. Beijing,
China Communication Press.
Moncarz, P. D., and H. Krawinkler. 1981. Theory and application of
experimental model analysis in earthquake engineering. Standford,
CA, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering,
Stanford Univ.
Nathan, J. 2006. “Large-scale experimental and analytical seismic studies of
a two-span reinforced concrete bridge system.” Doctoral Dissertation,
Reno, NV, Univ. of Nevada.
Priestley, M. J. N. 1996. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Saiidi, M. S., A. Vosooghi, H. Choi, and P. Somerville. 2014. “Shake table
studies and analysis of a two-span RC bridge model subjected to a fault
rupture.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (8): A4014003. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000478.
Scott, B. D., R. Park, and M. J. N. Priestley. 1982. “Stress-strain behavior of
concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates.” J.
Proc. 79 (1): 13–27. https://doi.org/10.14359/10875.
Srinivasan, M. G., and C. A. Kot. 1992. “Effects of damage on the modal
parameters of a cylindrical shell.” Proc., 10th Int. Modal Analysis Conf.
529–535.
Takewaki, I., S. Murakami, K. Fujita, S. Yoshitomi, and M. Tsuji. 2011.
“The 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake and response of
high-rise buildings under long-period ground motions.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng. 31 (11): 1511–1528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn
.2011.06.001.
Tubaldi, E., L. Tassotti, A. Dall'Asta, and L. Dezi. 2014. “Seismic response
analysis of slender bridge piers.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43 (10):
1503–1519. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2408.
Yegian, M., G. Ghahraman, G. Gazetas, P. Dakoulas, and N. Makris. 1995.
“The Northridge Earthquake of 1994: Ground motions and geotechnical
aspects.” Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics. Rolla, MO: Missouri University of
Science and Technology.
J. Bridge Eng.