Cyclic Tests of Precast Pretensioned Rocking

Bridge-Column Subassemblies
T. Thonstad, A.M.ASCE 1; B. J. Kennedy 2; J. A. Schaefer 3; M. O. Eberhard 4; and J. F. Stanton 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Rocking columns reinforced with unbonded prestressing offer advantages for bridges constructed in seismic regions because
they can recenter the structure after an earthquake. Under lateral load, the columns rock on the foundation and cap beam, and rotate as rigid
bodies rather than deforming. This paper describes cyclic load tests of two subassemblies representing parts of a bridge bent constructed
using precast pretensioned rocking columns, spread footings, and a precast cap beam. The subassemblies, representing two halves of a
single column, were subjected to cyclic lateral displacements of increasing amplitude under a constant vertical load. The proposed column
design has several advantages over conventional cast-in-place construction. The use of precast columns and cap beams reduces
on-site construction time. The use of unbonded prestressing minimizes residual displacements after an earthquake. The strands are
deliberately debonded through the clear height of the column and bonded to the column concrete at the top and bottom, where the column
is embedded in the cap beam and footing, respectively. The columns are confined by steel tubes and annular end plates at their interfaces
with the footings and cap beams to minimize concrete damage when the columns rock. In the tests, the columns returned to their
initial location with essentially no concrete damage after being displaced to peak drift ratios exceeding 10%. At the end of the tests,
the columns’ lateral strengths still exceeded 80% of their peak values. The tests also provided the opportunity to evaluate practical
procedures for proportioning key details of the system. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001823. © 2017 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Bridges; Rapid construction; Column; Pretensioned concrete; Connection; Seismic; Residual displacements;
Low damage; Rocking.

Introduction Previous Research

To reduce traffic congestion and delays resulting from construc-
tion, bridge owners are increasingly interested in reducing onsite
construction time. A common strategy for accelerating construc-
tion is to prefabricate bridge elements offsite so that they can be
rapidly assembled on-site. This approach also provides greater
work-zone safety and can improve manufacturing quality (FHWA
2011).
Prefabrication of substructures (foundation, columns, and cap
beams) can be particularly challenging in seismically active regions
because the connections between precast elements experience large
deformations during earthquakes, during which they need to dis-
sipate energy without incurring significant damage. To address
these challenges, researchers have developed a variety of strategies
to use precast bridge substructures in regions subjected to earth-
quakes (e.g., Marsh et al. 2011).
1 on a similar system. This concept was extended to precast walls
Formerly, Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmen-
tal Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 (corresponding
author). E-mail: thonstat@uw.edu
2
Engineer, COWI Marine North America, 1191 2nd Ave., Suite 1110,
Seattle, WA 98101.
3
1st Lieutenant, United States Air Force, Washington, DC 20001.
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 23, 2015; approved on
February 21, 2017; published online on May 22, 2017. Discussion period
open until October 22, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
One strategy for developing seismically resilient precast connections
for bridges is to emulate the performance of conventionally rein-
forced monolithic concrete structures, which distribute deformations
over an extended region of the precast column (Matsumoto et al.
2008; Pang et al. 2010; Haraldsson et al. 2013; Haber et al.
2014; Tran 2015). Others have proposed concentrating column de-
formation at the connection interfaces, often called rocking behavior.
Rocking designs are often combined with unbonded posttensioning
that forces any cracks to close at the end of an earthquake. Such
connection behavior can minimize the residual displacements of a
structure following the end of seismic shaking.
Ishizuka et al. (1984) proposed using unbonded posttensioning
for seismic resistance in a cast-in-place building. Priestley and Tao
(1993) and Mole (1993) then conducted analyses of a version of the
system that used posttensioned precast elements that were designed
to rock at the connections. Stone et al. (1995) conducted tests
(e.g., Galusha 1999; Priestley et al. 1999; Restrepo and Rahman
2007) and later adapted to bridges by vertically posttensioning seg-
mental precast columns (e.g., Hewes and Priestley 2002; Billington
and Yoon 2004; Yamashita and Sanders 2009).
Because unbonded prestressing reinforcement provides little
hysteretic energy dissipation (Stone et al. 1995), energy dissipaters
have often been added to precast rocking connections to prevent
excessive deformations during a seismic event. These dissipaters
(usually reinforcing bars) have often been added within the body
of the bridge column (Palermo et al. 2007; Cohagen et al. 2008;
Solberg et al. 2009; Ou et al. 2010). In other cases, the dissipaters
have been added to the outside of the column (Chou and Chen
2006; Solberg et al. 2009; Marriott et al. 2009; Guerrini et al. 2015;

© ASCE 04017094-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 White and Palermo 2016). External dissipaters are easier to replace
after an earthquake, but they could be more susceptible to vandal-
ism and environmental degradation.
As they rotate, rocking connections develop large contact
stresses on the outer edges of the column cross section. To reduce
damage at such interfaces, researchers have proposed using ductile
fiber-reinforced concrete in the precast columns (Billington and
Yoon 2004; Finnsson 2013; Motaref et al. 2014; Trono et al.
2015; Motaref et al. 2014; Haraldsson 2015). Another alternative
is to provide confinement by wrapping the precast column in a
fiber-reinforced polymer (ElGawady et al. 2010; Motaref et al.
2014; White and Palermo 2016) or a steel tube (Hewes and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Priestley 2002; Chou and Chen 2006; Mashal and Palermo

2014; Guerrini et al. 2015). Palermo et al. (2007) used a base plate
on the top of the footing and steel angles embedded in the column
to protect the column edges. Solberg et al. (2009) combined the
horizontal steel plate on top of the footing with a steel plate at
the base of the precast column. Mashal and Palermo (2014) tested
a posttensioned column that used a circular steel tube welded to an
end plate at the ends of the column.
All of the aforementioned connections combine the use of pre-
casting and onsite posttensioning. The use of unbonded pretension-
ing, rather than posttensioning, offers advantages of both reduced
on-site construction time and high quality control in a production
plant for the critical prestressing operations. It also protects the col-
umns against cracking during transportation and erection, and also
eliminates the need for strand anchorages, which could be suscep-
tible to corrosion and could reduce the fatigue life of the strand
(Walsh and Kurama 2012).
The first use of unbonded pretensioning for seismic resistance
known to the authors was in some beams in the precast structural
seismic systems (PRESSS) building (Priestley et al. 1999). Un-
bonded pretensioning was first used for bridges by Davis et al.
(2012), but those columns lacked protective detailing. Earlier stud-
ies have demonstrated that precast pretensioned bridge columns
without protective detailing at the ends of the columns can nearly
eliminate residual postearthquake displacements, but they suffer
damage at lower deformations than comparable precast columns
without pretensioning (Davis et al. 2012; Finnsson 2013;
Haraldsson 2015). This early onset of damage was attributed to
the prestressing, which increased the axial compression in the con-
crete and reduced the amount of bar steel needed, leading to smaller
bars and consequently greater strain concentrations in them. Fig. 1. Exploded schematic of precast pretensioned column showing
The concept described here is the first known use of unbonded connections
pretensioning for a precast rocking bridge column that was also
armored. This paper describes cyclic tests of the connection sub-
assemblies between a precast column and a cast-in-place footing, as
well as between a precast column and a precast cap beam. Unlike interfaces located at the top of the footing and lower face of the
previously tested subassemblies, the columns combine the use of cap beam. Thus, the rocking interfaces lie within the precast
pretensioning and a confining shoe detail that includes a steel tube element, and the materials used for connecting the precast elements
with an annular end plate to protect against local damage at the (grout and concrete) do not deform significantly during rocking.
rocking interface, similar to the protective detail tested independ- The connection can therefore be capacity protected by locating
ently by Mashal and Palermo (2014) for a posttensioned column. it away from the seismic deformations.
The performance of these connections is compared with that of a The columns, which contain only conventional construction
previously tested precast reinforced concrete specimen (Haraldsson materials, have three major advantages over conventional cast-in-
et al. 2013). place columns:
• The columns are prefabricated in a plant and can be joined ra-
pidly to cast-in-place foundations and precast cap beams on-site;
Precast Pretensioned Rocking Column Concept • Residual displacements are reduced by reinforcing the columns
with partially unbonded pretensioned strands; and
The proposed precast pretensioned rocking bridge column and • Damage to the column concrete and reinforcement is reduced by
spread-footing connection as well as the cap beam connection protecting the end regions of the columns, where rocking oc-
are shown schematically in Fig. 1. The column ends are embedded curs, with a confining shoe, consisting of a steel tube and
securely in the cap beam and footing, and rocking occurs at welded annular end plate.

© ASCE 04017094-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 The proposed connections are expected to be easy to complete
in the field. A wet-socket connection is used between the columns
and spread footings (Haraldsson et al. 2013) and a hybrid-bar-
socket connection is used between the columns and cap beams
(Davis et al. 2012). The precast columns are pretensioned, so they
are likely to be cast and prestressed in a production plant. The col-
umns are transported to the site, where they are placed, plumbed,
and braced in the footing excavations. Footing reinforcement is in-
stalled around the columns, and the footing concrete is then cast.
Fiber-reinforced grout is spread on the column shoulders, formed
by the upper confining shoes, to establish the level for the cap
beam. The cap beam is then placed with the column extensions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and projecting bars fitting into matching ducts in the cap beam,
which are then grouted to complete the connection. The girders
may then be set following conventional practice.
Similar connections have been deployed previously in the field
(Khaleghi et al. 2012) and subsequently in a shaking table test of a
scaled bridge specimen (Mantawy et al. 2016). The prefabrication
of the column and cap beam saves time by eliminating a casting-
curing cycle and the need to shore the beams (Marsh et al. 2011).
Most of the time savings comes from precasting the cap beam and
the fact that setting girders could start within approximately 24 h of
placing it. The cap beam could be precast on site and lifted directly
from its form onto the columns. Precasting the column offers fur-
ther time savings, because the strength of the footing concrete
needed to resist, by shear, the weight of the column and cap beam
is low (less than 0.3 MPa or 50 psi) and can easily be achieved
within a day. The roughened surface of the wet-socket connection
has been shown to have a force-transfer capacity that greatly ex-
ceeds the demand (Haraldsson et al. 2013). Tran (2015) developed
a similar wet-socket connection for precast columns founded on
drilled shafts.
The precast bridge columns are pretensioned with partially un-
bonded strands to reduce postearthquake residual displacements.
These strands are unbonded through the clear height of the column
and are bonded only at the top and bottom of the precast column,
Fig. 2. PreT-SF-ROCK column elevation and spread footing details
© ASCE 04017094-3
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
where it is embedded in the cap beam and footing. Because the
unbonded lengths of the strands are large with respect to their ex-
pected elongations, the strands can be designed to remain elastic
during a seismic event. This elastic response provides a recentering
force that helps return the columns to their original plumb orien-
tation following an earthquake.
The concrete in the columns’ ends is protected by steel confin-
ing shoes that also concentrate the rotations at the column ends (in
contrast to distributing curvature along the column height). This
detail consists of a short steel tube to which annular end plates
are welded. The end plate creates a natural crack plane within
the precast column element that concentrates rotations at the top
and bottom of the clear height of the column. Rocking at the desired
location is ensured by making that location the weakest point along
the column; the footing and cap beam are designed to be stronger
than the column, and additional longitudinal reinforcement is
welded to the shoe and projects into the body of the column but
does not cross the rocking interface, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
Because the columns rock as nearly rigid bodies between the
cap beam and the foundation, the clear height of the column expe-
riences little curvature, and damage to the column concrete is
nearly eliminated. The reinforcing bars are less susceptible to buck-
ling, because concrete spalling is suppressed by the steel shoe at
each end of the column. Fracture of the longitudinal reinforcing
bars at the rocking interface, where concentrated deformations oc-
cur, is delayed by local debonding.
Design of Test Specimens
The cantilever columns for both specimens were designed to have
geometry and strength similar to those of a non-prestressed precast
spread footing subassembly (PCC-SF-THK2), which was tested by
Haraldsson et al. (2013). The pretensioned spread footing–rocking
column subassembly (PreT-SF-ROCK) tested in the present study
represented the connection between a column and a spread footing.
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. PreT-CB-ROCK column elevation and cap beam details

The companion pretensioned cap beam–rocking column subassem-
bly (PreT-CB-ROCK) represented the connection between a col-
umn and a precast cap beam.
Column elevations and critical sections for the two 42%-scale
cantilever subassemblies are shown in Figs. 2–4. To facilitate pre-
tensioning, it was preferable to cast the columns horizontally so the
columns had an octagonal cross section to simplify casting and
finishing. They had inscribed diameters (flat-to-flat) of 508 mm
(20 in.) and cantilever heights of 1,524 mm (60 in.). Schaefer et al.
(2014a) and Kennedy (2015) provided additional details of
these tests.
The design drift capacity for the pretensioned rocking columns
depends on several considerations. To ensure low damage and re-
centering, the strains in the strands and mild steel reinforcement
should be limited during seismic events. For frequent earthquakes,
the strands should not yield. During exceptionally large and rare
motions, the mild steel reinforcing should not fracture, and full loss
of prestress should be prevented. For simplicity in design, these
drift capacities can be assessed using rigid-body mechanics.
This approach has been shown to be effective in predicting the
strains in the unbonded reinforcement for precast rocking members
(e.g., Wight and Ingham 2008).

Fig. 4. PreT-SF-ROCK and PreT-CB-ROCK column sections

© ASCE 04017094-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 Amount of Prestressed and Mild Steel Reinforcement
The column reinforcement was designed so that the columns would
have the same nominal flexural strength as the PCC-SF-THK2
specimen with a 1.1% longitudinal reinforcement ratio. To promote
recentering, the column reinforcing was proportioned such that
60% of the column’s flexural strength would be provided by
the prestressing strands, and the remaining 40% by the mild
steel reinforcing bars. Each column was reinforced with six
No. 4 (As ¼ 774 mm2 ) A706 reinforcing bars and six [10 mm
(3=8 in:) diameter with Ap ¼ 329 mm2 ] A882 epoxy-coated
strands, which together provided an equivalent reinforcing ratio,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
defined in Eq. (1), of 0.99%
 
f py
ρequiv Ag ¼ As þ A ð1Þ
f sy p
where Ag = gross area of the column; As = total area of mild steel
reinforcing; Ap = total area of the prestressing strands; fsy = nomi-
nal yield stress of the mild steel reinforcing (413 MPa or 60 ksi);
and fpy = nominal yield stress of the strand (taken as 1,688 MPa or
245 ksi). The equivalent ratio is used here to account for the differ-
ent yield strengths of the two types of steel.
Debonding of Mild Steel Reinforcement
The longitudinal reinforcing bars were locally debonded near the
column-spread footing or column–cap beam interfaces. Some of
the debonding details differed between the two specimens in order
to investigate the influence of these details on the observed damage
patterns and column performance. In the PreT-SF-ROCK subas-
sembly, the bars were debonded using PVC sleeves for a total
of 203 mm (8 in.), half within the body of the column and half
within the spread footing. In the PreT-CB-ROCK subassembly,
the bars’ debonded lengths were increased to 305 mm (12 in.),
and the debonded length was located entirely within grouted ducts
in the cap beam. Here, the decision was made to place all the de-
bonding on the cap beam side, because the test schedule required
that the PreT-CB-ROCK column be cast before the debonded
length was finalized in light of the results of the PreT-SF-ROCK
test. By having the debonding sleeve along the protruding length of
the bar, the sleeve could be installed just prior to completing the cap
beam connection. To evaluate the effect of the sleeve material, three
reinforcing bars (on one side of the section’s centerline) were
sheathed in steel tubes, and the remaining three were debonded
with PVC sleeves.
For a given unbonded length of the mild steel reinforcement,
the drift ratio at first bar yield or fracture can be estimated using
Eq. (2):
Δ L
≈ εlim unb ð2Þ
h ðαDÞ
where Δ=h = drift ratio at the bar strain limit; εlim = yield strain or
the ultimate strain for a monotonically pulled bar (AASHTO 2014),
here reduced to account for cyclic load effects; Lunb = effective
unbonded length of the reinforcement accounting for strain pen-
etration; and αD = distance from the outermost tension bar to
the neutral axis.
The unbonded lengths were selected using Eq. (2) to delay bar
fracture until 5.0 and 7.5% drift ratio for the PreT-SF-ROCK and
PreT-CB-ROCK subassemblies, respectively. These drift-ratio val-
ues were assumed to be representative of an exceptionally rare
earthquake event beyond the typical design-level drift ratio. The
effective unbonded length was taken as the deliberately debonded
length plus two bar diameters, following the recommendations of
© ASCE 04017094-5
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
Raynor (2000). The neutral axis depth was determined through pre-
liminary moment-rotation analysis and was estimated to be roughly
0.17D at large rotations.
Prestressing Steel
The strands were epoxy coated and placed near the center of the
section to enable them to be bonded within the reduced-diameter
extension at the top of the column (Fig. 1). They were unbonded
over most of the column height and were bonded only at the ends of
the precast column members. The unbonded lengths of the strands
were 1,219 mm (48 in.) and 1,372 mm (54 in.) for the PreT-SF-
ROCK and PreT-CB-ROCK subassemblies, respectively. Details
can be seen in Figs. 2 and 3. Epoxy coating was used for two rea-
sons: it provides additional corrosion protection to the strands, and
it was thought at the time of design to provide better bond because
of the grit impregnated in the coating (Cousins et al. 1990). The
additional corrosion protection may prove to be unnecessary in
a full-scale structure where the concrete cover to the strands would
likely exceed 305 mm (12 in.).
Bond considerations were critical for the specimens, because the
lengths available for anchorage in these laboratory-scale specimens
did not satisfy the AASHTO development requirements. This was
an artifact of the scaling process. At laboratory scale (42%), the
diameter of full-scale 13-mm (1=2-in:) strands would have scaled
to 5 mm (0.21 in.), and in that case, there would have been 117 and
150 strand diameters (db ) available to anchor the strands within
the footing and cap beam, respectively. Because the smallest com-
mercially available epoxy-coated strands had a diameter of 10 mm
(3=8 in:), the resulting bonded lengths (66 and 84db ) did not
meet the current AASHTO guidelines for strand development
(AASHTO 2014). To address this scaling artifact, additional
anchorage was supplied in the form of strands vices at the tops
and bottoms of the columns. At the top of the column, where
the bonded lengths were shortest, load cells were placed under
the strand vices to monitor potential strand slip.
For a given effective stress in the strands, the drift ratio of the
column at first strand yield, complete loss of prestress, or strand
fracture can be estimated using Eq. (3)
Δ L
≈ ðεlim − εpe Þ unb ð3Þ
h nj ðαDÞ
where Δ=h = drift ratio at the strand strain limit; εlim = strain limit
for the strand (yield, loss of initial prestress, etc.); εpe = effective
prestressing strain in the strands; Lunb = effective unbonded length
of the strands accounting for strain penetration; nj = number of
rocking joints in the column (1 in a cantilever; 2 in a fixed-fixed
configuration); and αD = distance from the outermost strand to the
neutral axis.
The prestressing strands were stressed to 1,240 MPa (180 ksi)
before casting. Their average stress on the testing dates was esti-
mated to be 1,137 MPa (165 ksi) for both subassemblies, after ac-
counting for losses due to elastic shortening, relaxation, creep, and
shrinkage. This stress corresponded to a strain of 0.0058, which was
selected using Eq. (3) to delay strand yielding and loss of initial pre-
stress to drift ratios of roughly 1.9 and 6.0% for the PreT-SF-ROCK
subassembly and 2.1 and 6.5% for the PreT-CB-ROCK subassem-
bly. These strains were computed assuming elastic-perfectly-plastic
behavior in the strands. The effective unbonded lengths of the
strands used in the calculations were computed by assuming a lin-
ear variation of strain in the development region at each end, and
consisted of the deliberately debonded lengths plus one flexural
bond length (48db ). The latter was computed using the plastic bond
stress coefficient for low-grit epoxy-coated strands recommended
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Precast connections: (a) wet socket connection before concrete casting; (b) hybrid-bar-socket connection

by Cousins et al. (1990). The elastic strain limit was taken longitudinal reinforcement into a set of vertical ducts cast into the
as 0.0086. precast cap beam. One central duct, made from 305-mm (12-in.)
diameter corrugated steel pipe, accepted the reduced diameter
section of the column in which the strands were bonded. Around this
Column Confining Shoe central duct, six 51-mm (2-in.) diameter steel ducts accepted the col-
The columns were protected with a confining shoe at their interfaces umn longitudinal bars. Grout was used to anchor the bars and reduced
with the footing and the cap beam. This detail consisted of a short section into the cap beam. A bedding layer of fiber reinforced grout,
section of an American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L steel tube nominally 13 mm (0.5 in.) thick at laboratory scale, was used to pro-
254 mm (10 in.) in height and 508 mm (20 in.) in diameter, with vide a seat between the top of the upper shoe and cap beam.
a wall thickness of 6 mm (0.25 in.) welded at its base to an annular
A36 steel end plate 13 mm (0.5 in.) thick, with holes to accommodate
the continuous reinforcing bars. The resulting ratio between the tube Test Setup and Instrumentation
diameter and wall thickness (D=t ¼ 80) is consistent with those
The experimental setup is shown schematically in Fig. 6. The col-
typically used for concrete-filled tube bridge columns (AASHTO
umns were subjected to a constant vertical load of 708 kN
2014). Discontinuous reinforcing bars (six No. 6 bars of 19 mm
(159 kips) and identical lateral displacement histories, consisting
diameter), welded to the annular end plate extended 1,092 mm
of 10 sets of four cycles each, as shown in Fig. 7. The latter is
(43 in.) into the clear height of the column. These No. 6 bars were
a modified version of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
added to distribute into the body of the column the local high com-
Program (NEHRP) recommendation for precast structural walls
pressive forces at the interface caused by the rocking behavior and to
(Building Seismic Safety Council 2004).
control the width of any cracks just above the confining steel shoe.
Electrical resistance strain gauges, potentiometers, and incli-
Because of concerns that the intended rocking behavior might
nometers were used to measure deformations of the column as well
permit shear sliding across the connection interface, a cup-and-
as the strains in the strands, mild steel reinforcing, and components
dowel assembly was used in the PreT-CB-ROCK subassembly
of the confined rocking detail. A detailed sensor list and experimen-
to allow free rotation and vertical movements but to prevent hori-
tal data can be found on the Network for Earthquake Engineering
zontal translation (Fig. 3). A high-strength 51-mm (2-in.) diameter
steel dowel was cast into the column with a paired empty housing
cast into the portion of the column that extended into the cap beam.

Column-to-Spread Footing Connection

The column in the PreT-SF-ROCK specimen was anchored to the
cast-in-place spread footing using a wet-socket connection (similar
to Haraldsson et al. 2013), as shown in Fig. 5(a). This connection
was constructed by placing both the precast column and the footing
reinforcement in the footing formwork, and then casting the footing
concrete around them. No reinforcement crossed the interface be-
tween footing and column; instead, the column surface was rough-
ened to facilitate the transfer of forces to the surrounding concrete.

Column-to-Cap Beam Connection

The column in the PreT-CB-ROCK subassembly was connected to
the precast cap beam, as shown in Fig. 5(b), using a hybrid-bar-socket
connection (similar to Davis et al. 2012). This connection consisted
Fig. 6. Test configuration
of fitting a reduced diameter section of the column and protruding

© ASCE 04017094-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 (up to 10.4%). These moments were computed by summing the
contributions from the applied lateral load, the applied vertical load
(P-delta), and the estimated friction forces present in the test
configuration. The coefficient of kinetic friction present in the test
configuration was taken as 1.6%, following recommendations by
Brown (2008), for the setup shown in Fig. 6. The resulting friction
force, 11.1 kN (2.5 kips), was less than 5% of the maximum lateral
force. The responses of the PreT-SF-ROCK and PreT-CB-ROCK
subassemblies were nearly identical, exhibiting little strength
degradation and little residual drift following the removal of lateral
loading.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Flexural Strength
The columns in the PreT-CB-ROCK and PreT-SF-ROCK subas-
semblies maintained nearly 100% of their peak flexural strengths
up to the maximum drift ratio of 10.4%, despite the fracture of
some of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. In comparison, the col-
Fig. 7. Drift ratio testing protocol umn of the PCC-SF-THK2 subassembly tested by Haraldsson et al.
(2013) had lost 20% of its strength by a drift ratio of 6.9%.
The moment envelopes of the specimens are compared in Fig. 9.
Simulation Data Repository (Schaefer et al. 2014b; Kennedy They are shown in normalized form to facilitate comparison among
et al. 2014). columns with different reinforcement arrangements. For each col-
umn, the measured moments were divided by the ideal moment
capacity given by Eq. (4), which represents the flexural strength
Moment-Drift Response of a column made with concrete of infinite compressive strength

Fig. 8 shows the moment-drift responses of the subassembly spec-

imens for low levels of lateral drift (up to 4%) and for the full test Mideal ¼ ðf sy ρequiv: Ag þ PÞD=2 ð4Þ

(a)

(b)

Fig. 8. Moment-drift relationships: (a) low drift ratio; (b) high drift ratio

© ASCE 04017094-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 where fsy = nominal yield stress of the longitudinal reinforcing;
ρequiv = equivalent reinforcing ratio [given in Eq. (1)]; P = applied
vertical load; and D = column diameter In the absence of strain
hardening, the normalized moment will always be less than 1.0,
because the lever arm will be less than D=2.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Normalized moment-drift envelopes
Fig. 10. Normalized crossover displacements
Fig. 11. Subassemblies at 4% drift ratio: (a) PreT-SF-ROCK; (b) PreT-CB-ROCK; (c) PCC-SF-THK2 (image by Olafur S. Haraldsson)
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
The columns in the PreT-SF-ROCK and PreT-CB-ROCK sub-
assemblies had higher maximum normalized moments than the
column in the PCC-SF-THK2 specimen. This difference was attrib-
uted to the confining shoes’ suppression of concrete spalling, which
maintained the section’s full lever arm.
Recentering
For peak drift ratios up to approximately 6%, the columns in the
PreT-CB-ROCK and PreT-SF-ROCK subassemblies returned es-
sentially to their un-deformed configuration upon unloading, as
shown in Fig. 8. For peak drift ratios of up to 10%, the columns
had residual drift ratios of less than 1%. In comparison, the residual
column drifts in the PCC-SF-THK2 subassembly were signifi-
cantly larger.
The recentering behavior of the columns was quantified
using the normalized cross-over displacements (NCOD), defined
in Eq. (5):
Δþ −
cross − Δcross
NCOD ¼ ð5Þ
Δþ −
peak − Δpeak
where Δþ −
cross and Δcross in a particular cycle = displacements at
which the moment passes through zero; and Δþ −
peak and Δpeak =
maximum and minimum displacements in that same cycle,
as shown in the inset of Fig. 10. An NCOD value of 0.0 corre-
sponds to perfect recentering, whereas a value of 1.0 is consistent
with Coulomb frictional behavior and the complete absence of
recentering.
Fig. 10 shows the NCOD for the first and second cycles of each
set versus the respective cycle’s maximum applied drift ratio. For
each of the 10 sets, only these two cycles are shown, because they
represent the first excursions to larger drift ratios (as shown in
Fig. 7). The first cycle set is omitted, because the drift ratios were
below the columns’ yield drifts. As can be seen from the figure, the
pretensioning improved the column’s recentering performance over
the PCC-SF-THK2 subassembly for all drift levels.
Observed Damage
The photos in Fig. 11 show the damage to the PreT-SF-ROCK and
PreT-CB-ROCK specimens and the PCC-SF-THK2 specimen at
04017094-8 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Columns at end of testing: (a) PreT-SF-ROCK; (b) PreT-CB-ROCK; (c) PCC-SF-THK2 (image by Olafur S. Haraldsson)

the peak displacement of the 4% drift ratio cycle. Fig. 12 shows the Performance of the Rocking Detail Components
columns at the end of testing.
Prestressing and armoring significantly reduced cracking and The performance of the rocking detail can be evaluated in terms of
spalling in the columns. In the PCC-SF-THK2 subassembly, the the extent to which it concentrated rotations at the column connec-
first open residual crack in the column was observed after an ex- tions, and the strains in the steel shoe and the cup-and-dowel
cursion to a drift ratio of 0.88%. Spalling in the column was first assembly.
observed at a drift ratio of 1.1%, and the column was fully spalled
by a drift ratio of 4.0%. The longitudinal reinforcement became
Concentrated Rotations at Column Connections
visible and buckled at a drift ratio of 6.9%, and fractured at a drift
ratio of 10.7%. The transverse reinforcement fractured at a drift Potentiometer pairs at the base of the columns were used to deter-
ratio of 8.3%. mine local rotations (rocking) at the connection interfaces. Fig. 13
In contrast, column concrete damage in the PreT-SF-ROCK and shows the contributions of the connection interface rotation to the
Pre-CB-ROCK subassemblies was nearly eliminated; cosmetic overall drift ratio. At a drift ratio of 1%, concentrated rotations at
cracks and minor flaking formed at the change in column geometry the connection interface were responsible for 88 and 80% of the
between the circular steel shoe and octagonal concrete section, as total column drift for the PreT-SF-ROCK and PreT-CB-ROCK sub-
shown in Fig. 12. If desired, this minor damage could likely be assemblies, respectively. By a drift ratio of 3%, these values had
eliminated by smoothing the transition in column section from cir- increased to 96 and 90%. In contrast, in the PCC-SF-THK2 sub-
cular to octagonal. During testing, the grout pad in the PreT-CB- assembly, at a drift ratio of 1%, the rotation in the first 45 mm
ROCK subassembly suffered only minor damage. Throughout the (1.75 in.) of the column contributed only 38% of the overall defor-
tests, neither of the columns developed cracks in the concrete mation. By a drift ratio of 3%, this number decreased to 30% as the
greater than 0.5 mm in width, even at peak displacements. plastic hinge spread up the height of the column.
No buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement was observed in
either the PreT-SF-ROCK or PreT-CB-ROCK subassemblies. The
longitudinal mild steel bars in the column of the PreT-SF-ROCK
and PreT-CB-ROCK subassemblies fractured after experiencing
drift ratios of 5.9 and 7.0%, respectively. The difference between
the specimens was attributed to the 50%-longer debonded length in
the PreT-CB-ROCK subassembly. In the PreT-CB-ROCK subas-
sembly, the reinforcing bars were debonded using steel tubes (north
side) and PVC sleeves (south side) to investigate the possibility of
more effective prevention of bar buckling and corresponding delay
in fracture. The bars did not buckle in either column, so no signifi-
cant difference in the drift at first fracture was observed; they frac-
tured in the same cycle.
No cracks or spalling were observed in the footing of the PreT-
SF-ROCK specimen, and only two hairline cracks (approximately
76.2 mm or 3.0 in. long) were observed in the side of the cap beam
of the PreT-CB-ROCK specimen. Hairline cracks were observed in
the footing of the PCC-SF-THK2 specimen; they were few, oc-
curred only on the sides, and remained at the hairline level through-
Fig. 13. Interface rotation contribution to drift
out the test.

© ASCE 04017094-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 Strains in the Confining Shoe
In the PreT-CB-ROCK subassembly, two-dimensional strains in the
steel shoe were measured with strain-gauge rosettes on the north
face of the column at elevations of 51 mm (2 in.) and 152 mm
(6 in.) above the rocking interface. The strain envelopes for the lon-
gitudinal and hoop strains at these locations, normalized by the
nominal yield strain, are shown in Fig. 14. The longitudinal and
hoop strains at both locations were small when the north face
was in tension (positive drift ratio in the figure). Significant longi-
tudinal and hoop strains developed only when the north face of the
shoe, where the gauges were affixed, was in compression (during
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

negative drift ratios).

The strains measured 51 mm (2 in.) above the rocking interface
were always the larger of the two. The reduction of strain with
elevation is likely attributable to the spreading of the load, in both Fig. 15. Longitudinal reinforcing strain distributions at a drift ratio
the concrete and the shoe, with distance from the small contact of 1%
region.
The radial confining pressure between the steel shoe and con-
crete can be estimated using the recorded strains. At a drift ratio of
5%, the hoop and longitudinal strains at an elevation 51 mm (2 in.)
above the rocking interface were 703 and −726 microstrain, re-
spectively. These strains imply an average lateral confining pres-
sure of 5.1 MPa (734 psi).

Strains in the Cup-and-Dowel Assembly

Axial strains in the shear dowel, which was included only in the
PreT-CB-ROCK subassembly, were monitored directly above the
rocking interface to provide an estimate of the bending moment.
They never exceeded 30% of the yield strain of the steel. The cor-
responding shear force in the dowel was less than 15% of the total
shear force on the column. More importantly, no horizontal sliding
was measured for the column in the PreT-SF-ROCK subassembly
(which did not have a cup-and-dowel assembly), indicating that
friction alone was sufficient to transfer shear forces across the con-
Fig. 16. Longitudinal reinforcing strain envelopes at column-to-spread
nection interface.
footing interfaces

Strains in Mild Steel Reinforcement

Axial strains in the outermost longitudinal reinforcing bars were
measured at three elevations: in the middle of the debonded region
of the bars (near the rocking interface), and at distances of 76 mm
(3 in.) above and below the ends of the debonded region. The exact
Fig. 14. Confining shoe strain envelopes for PreT-CB-ROCK
locations of the gauges differed in the subassembly specimens as a
result of the different extent and location of the debonding sleeves.
Fig. 15 shows the strain distribution in the column reinforce-
ment for the PreT-SF-ROCK and PCC-SF-THK2 subassemblies
at a drift ratio of 1%. The bar strains were idealized as constant
throughout the locally debonded region, and linearly varying
within the bonded region. The strains in the PreT-SF-ROCK sub-
assembly were concentrated at the rocking interface, and they de-
creased quickly within the bonded region, such that the bars were
fully developed within the confining shoe (above the interface) and
the portion of the column cast into the spread footing (below the
interface). In the PCC-SF-THK2 subassembly, reinforcing strains
were more evenly distributed at and above the column-to-spread
footing interface.
Fig. 16 shows the measured strain envelopes for the extreme
tension reinforcement at the interface for both PreT-SF-ROCK
and PCC-SF-THK2 subassemblies. Interface bar strains in the
PreT-SF-ROCK column consistently exceeded those in the PCC-
SF-THK2 subassembly. The reinforcing bars remained elastic until
a drift ratio of nearly 0.3% in the PreT-SF-ROCK column versus
0.5% in the PCC-SF-THK2 column.
For both specimens, the abrupt jump in strain (Fig. 16) after first
yield is likely attributable to a reduction in bar cross-sectional area
at the gauge locations, which were ground and sanded in order to

© ASCE 04017094-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 apply the gauges. This reduction in area had little effect before yield
and after the onset of strain hardening, but it led to some strain
concentration within the yield plateau.
The strain in the extreme tension reinforcement of a rocking
connection can be estimated by assuming rigid-body kinematics
[i.e., by inverting Eq. (2)]:
   ior is consistent with the design goal.
Δ αD
ε¼ ð6Þ
h Lunb
where the rotation at the joint is assumed to be equal to the drift
ratio, Δ=h; αD = distance from the reinforcement to the neutral
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
axis; and Lunb: = effective unbonded length of the reinforcement.
In computing αD, the neutral axis depth was taken as 0.1D from
the compressive face of the column, based on data from rotation
potentiometers attached to the base of the confining shoe. Using
the two available sets of strain data (north and south bars) for
the PreT-SF-ROCK subassembly, the effective unbonded length
was estimated to be equal to the intentionally debonded length
(16db ) plus an additional 2db at each end, accounting for the effects
of strain penetration. As shown in Fig. 16, Eq. (6) overestimates the
measured strains initially, because the joint has not yet opened, and
column deformations are significant. After yield and opening of the
joint (above 0.5%), the slopes of the computed and measured
strain–drift ratio relationship are almost the same.
Changes in Prestressing Strand Strains
Changes in strand strain in the PreT-CB-ROCK subassembly were
measured at approximately midheight of the unbonded region with
gauge pairs (for redundancy) and are shown in Fig. 17. The strands
are grouped based on their location within the cross section, re-
ferred to here as the North, Middle, and South groups (Fig. 4).
The changes in strain in the strands in the PreT-SF-ROCK subas-
sembly were similar.
The change in strain in the strands can be approximated with
rigid-body kinematics using Eq. (6). For positive drift ratios, the
depths from the south face of the column to the prestressing were
328 mm (12.9 in.), 254 mm (10.0 in.), and 180 mm (7.1 in.) for the
North, Middle, and South strand groups, respectively (α ¼ 0.54,
0.40, and 0.26). As shown in Fig. 17, the measured changes in
strains agreed well with the calculated ones.
The data acquisition system had to be disconnected from the
strand strain gauges between stressing and final assembly of the
Fig. 17. Strand strain increment envelopes for PreT-CB-ROCK
© ASCE 04017094-11
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
specimens, so the absolute strand strains during testing were not
available. However, assuming that there were no significant
changes in the strand strains during the assembly process, it is esti-
mated that the North and South strand groups in the PreT-CB-
ROCK and PreT-SF-ROCK subassemblies remained essentially
elastic to drift ratios of nearly 2% as shown in Fig. 17. This behav-
The scaled subassemblies were cantilevers in order to accom-
modate testing, and thus the changes in the strand strain varied
across the column’s cross section. In a bridge bent in the field,
in which the cap beam remained essentially horizontal and the col-
umns rocked at both the foundation and cap beam, elongations
would occur at both ends of the column, so the change in strain
would be nearly the same for each strand regardless of its location
within the section. The change in strain in the strands in such a
bridge bent would be most closely represented by the Middle strand
group in the test specimens; this group of strands did not yield until
a drift ratio of nearly 3%.
Summary
A precast pretensioned rocking bridge-column concept has been
developed to facilitate prefabrication, reduce postearthquake
residual displacements and eliminate damage to the column con-
crete even after large drift excursions. Because the columns are
constructed using only conventional materials, it is likely that these
performance attributes could be achieved with material costs sim-
ilar to those of conventional construction.
Using precast pretensioned columns has the potential to accel-
erate on-site construction by prefabricating the columns and cap
beams off-site. The rapid assembly properties of the precast column-
to-foundation connection and a similar grouted bar column-to-
cap beam connection have already been field verified (Khaleghi
et al. 2012).
The columns are pretensioned with strands that are unbonded
over most of their length. The strands remain essentially elastic dur-
ing an earthquake and help to right the columns after seismic ac-
tivity stops. The ends of the columns are protected by confining
steel shoes, which prevent damage to the concrete. Because the col-
umns rock as rigid bodies, concrete damage and bar buckling as-
sociated with flexural deformations are nearly eliminated.
Two subassemblies, representing a column-to-spread footing
and a column-to-cap beam connection, were tested. The specimens
J. Struct. Eng.
 were subjected to increasing cyclic lateral displacements under a
constant vertical load. The columns’ performance was compared
with that of a previously tested precast non-prestressed column-
to-spread footing subassembly of similar geometry and strength.
Conclusions
From the results of the subassembly tests, the following conclu-
sions can be made:
• Moment-drift response. The moment-drift responses of the
spread footing and cap beam subassemblies were remarkably
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
similar. No significant reduction in lateral strength was observed
even to drift ratios exceeding 10%. Although this drift ratio is
much larger than the design-level demands expected in practice,
the large drift capacity provides security in the event of a rare
and very large earthquake and requires only modest quantities of
conventional construction materials.
• Elimination of residual displacements. The columns exhibited
residual drifts much smaller than those of the comparable
non-prestressed column. They returned to within 1% of vertical
even after excursions to drift ratios exceeding 10%.
• Reduction of column damage. The steel confining shoe elimi-
nated structural concrete spalling. The only damage to the col-
umn concrete was cosmetic and could likely be avoided by a
minor change in geometry. Neither the cap beam nor the spread
footing sustained noticeable damage during testing. In each
case, the confining shoe remained elastic for the entire test.
• Effect of debonded length of deformed bar reinforcement. The
first reinforcing bar fractured at drift ratios of roughly 6 and 7%
for the column-to-spread footing (PreT-SF-ROCK) and column-
to-cap beam (PreT-CB-ROCK) subassemblies, respectively.
This difference was attributed to the fact that the debonded
length of the longitudinal reinforcing was 50% greater in the
PreT-CB-ROCK subassembly. To further delay bar fracture,
the debonded length could be increased.
• Effect of debonding material. The material (steel versus PVC
tubes) used to debond the longitudinal reinforcing bars did
not affect the drift ratio at bar fracture.
• Effect of initial prestress in the strands. The strands remained
essentially elastic until a drift ratio of roughly 2%. This drift
ratio is largely determined by the column slenderness and effec-
tive stress in the strands, which in this case was 1,137 MPa
(165 ksi). Because recentering is promoted by the total prestres-
sing force rather than the strand stress, using a larger number of
strands each with a lower initial stress would have delayed
strand yielding further and still have achieved the same recen-
tering behavior.
• Effectiveness of dowel bar. The dowel bar that was included to
transfer shear forces from the column to the cap beam proved to
be unnecessary. Friction was sufficient to transfer all of the col-
umn shear force to the spread footing without slip.
• Prediction of strains in column reinforcement. For a design tar-
get drift ratio, the strains in the longitudinal reinforcing bars and
the prestressing strands can be estimated well using rigid-body
kinematics [i.e., with Eq. (6)]. These models can be used to pre-
dict the drift ratios corresponding to specific strain limits in the
reinforcing [i.e., using Eqs. (2) and (3)].
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation
George Brown Network for Earthquake Engineering Systems
(NEES) Research Program (CMMI-1207903), the Pacific
© ASCE 04017094-12
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, the United States Air
Force, and the Valle Foundation of the University of Washington.
The findings and conclusions contained herein are those of the
authors alone. The tests were conducted with the help of graduate
students Lisa Berg, Olafur Haraldsson, Spencer Livermore, Kevin
Martin, Tony Nguyen, Max Stephens, and Hung Viet Tran. Further
help was provided by undergraduate students Sam Adiputra, Matt
Brosman, Nathan Clemens, David Lam, Scott Laws, Kevin
Tsuchida, Hin-Kei Wong, and Chase Young. The assistance of Pro-
fessor Emeritus Donald Janssen, Structures Laboratory Manager
Vince Chaijaroen, and Materials Laboratory Manager Yiming
Liu is also gratefully acknowledged.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ag = gross area of column cross section;
Ap = gross area of prestressing steel;
As = gross area of reinforcing steel;
D = column diameter;
db = bar diameter;
f c0 = specified compressive strength of concrete;
fpy = nominal yield stress of prestressing steel (1,688 MPa or
245 ksi);
fsy = nominal yield stress of mild reinforcing steel (413 MPa or
60 ksi);
h = column height;
Lunb = effective unbonded length of reinforcement;
M ideal = Idealized moment capacity given infinite concrete
compressive strength;
α = distance from neutral axis to reinforcing/column
diameter;
Δ = drift;
ε = strain in reinforcement;
εlim = strain limit for reinforcement (yielding, loss of initial
prestress, or ultimate);
εpe = effective strain in the prestressing strands after losses; and
ρequiv: = equivalent gross reinforcing ratio ½As =Ag þ ðfpy =
fsy ÞAp =Ag .
References
AASHTO. (2014). “AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications.”
Washington, DC.
Billington, S. L., and Yoon, J. K. (2004). “Cyclic response of precast bridge
columns with ductile fiber-reinforced concrete.” J. Bridge Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2004)9:4(353), 353–363.
Brown, W. A. (2008). “Effect of spiral properties on bar buckling in bridge
columns.” M.S.C.E. thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Building Seismic Safety Council for FEMA. (2004). “NEHRP recom-
mended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other
structures.” FEMA 450-1, National Institute of Building Sciences,
Washington, DC.
Chou, C. C., and Chen, Y. C. (2006). “Cyclic tests of post-tensioned precast
CFT segmental bridge columns with unbonded strands.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(2), 159–175.
Cohagen, L. S., Pang, J. B. K., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2008).
“A precast concrete bridge bent designed to re-center after an earth-
quake.” Rep. No. WA-RD 684.3, Washington State Dept. of Transpor-
tation, Olympia, WA.
Cousins, T. E., Johnston, D. W., and Zia, P. (1990). “Transfer and develop-
ment length of epoxy coated and uncoated prestressing strand.” PCI J.,
35(4), 92–103.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Davis, P. M., Janes, T. M., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2012).
“Unbonded pre-tensioned columns for bridges in seismic regions.”
Rep. No. 2012/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Berkeley, CA.
ElGawady, M., Booker, A., and Dawood, H. (2010). “Seismic behavior of
posttensioned concrete-filled fiber tubes.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061
/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000107, 616–628.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (2011). “Accelerated bridge
construction: Experience in design, fabrication and erection of prefab-
ricated elements and systems.” FHWA-HIF-12-013, U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, Washington, DC.
Finnsson, G. (2013). “Unbonded pre-tensioned bridge columns with hybrid
fiber-reinforced concrete shells.” M.S.C.E. thesis, Univ. of Washington,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Seattle.
Galusha, J. (1999). “Precast, post-tensioned concrete walls designed to
rock.” M.S.C.E. thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Guerrini, G., Restrepo, J., Massari, M., and Vervelidis, A. (2015). “Seismic
behavior of post-tensioned self-centering precast concrete dual-
shell steel columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0001054, 04014115.
Haber, Z., Saiidi, M., and Sanders, D. (2014). “Seismic performance of
precast columns with mechanically spliced column-footing connec-
tions.” ACI Struct. J., 111(3), 639–650.
Haraldsson, O. S. (2015). “A pre-tensioned bent system for accelerated
construction in seismic regions.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Haraldsson, O. S., Janes, T. M., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2013).
“Seismic resistance of socket connection between footing and precast
column.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000413,
910–919.
Hewes, J. T., and Priestley, N. M. J. (2002). “Seismic design and perfor-
mance of precast concrete segmental bridge columns.” Rep. No. SSRP-
2001/15, State of California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Ishizuka, T., Hawkins, N. M., and Stanton, J. F. (1984). “Experimental
study of the seismic resistance of a concrete exterior column beam
sub-assemblage containing unbonded post-tensioning tendons.” Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Kennedy, B. (2015). “Rocking connection between a precast bridge column
and cap beam.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Kennedy, B. J., Thonstad, T., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2014).
“Cyclic testing of an unbonded pre-tensioned bridge column with rock-
ing detail: Capbeam specimen.” Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Khaleghi, B., et al. (2012). “Accelerated bridge construction in Washington
State: From research to practice.” PCI J., 57(4), 34–49.
Mantawy, I., Thonstad, T., Sanders, D., Stanton, J., and Eberhard, M.
(2016). “Seismic performance of precast, pretensioned, and cast-
in-place bridges: Shake table test comparison.” J. Bridge Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000934, 04016071.
Marriott, D., Pampanin, S., and Palermo, A. (2009). “Quasi-static and
pseudo-dynamic testing of unbonded post-tensioned rocking bridge
piers with external replaceable dissipaters.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., 38(3), 331–354.
Marsh, L. M., Wernli, M., Garrett, B. E., Stanton, J. F., Eberhard, M. O.,
and Weinert, M. D. (2011). “Application of accelerated bridge construc-
tion connections in moderate-to-high seismic regions.” NCHRP Rep.
698, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Mashal, M., and Palermo, A. (2014). “Quasi-static experimental testing of
emulative and low-damage seismic technologies for accelerated bridge
construction (ABC) in seismic areas.” Proc., National Accelerated
Bridge Construction Conf., Miami.
© ASCE 04017094-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
Matsumoto, E., Waggoner, M., Kreger, M., Vogel, J., and Wolf, L. (2008).
“Development of a precast concrete bent-cap system.” PCI J., 53(3),
74–99.
Mole, A. (1993). “Seismic response of hybrid connections in precast con-
crete frames.” M.S.C.E. thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Motaref, S., Saiidi, M., and Sanders, D. (2014). “Shake table studies of
energy-dissipating segmental bridge columns.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000518, 186–199.
Ou, Y. C., Tsai, M. S., Chang, K. C., and Lee, G. C. (2010). “Cyclic behav-
ior of precast segmental concrete bridge columns with high perfor-
mance or conventional steel reinforcing bars as energy dissipation
bars.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 39(11), 1181–1198.
Palermo, A., Pampanin, S., and Marriott, D. (2007). “Design, modeling,
and experimental response of seismic resistant bridge piers with post-
tensioned dissipating connections.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2007)133:11(1648), 1648–1661.
Pang, J. B. K., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2010). “Large-bar con-
nection for precast bridge bents in seismic regions.” J. Bridge Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000081, 231–239.
Priestley, M. J. N., and Tao, J. R. (1993). “Seismic response of precast pre-
stressed concrete frames with partially debonded tendons.” PCI J.,
38(1), 58–69.
Priestley, M. J. N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J. R., and Pampanin, S. (1999).
“Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESS five-story precast
concrete test building.” PCI J., 44(6), 42–67.
Raynor, D. J. (2000). “Bond assessment of hybrid frame continuity
reinforcement.” M.S.C.E. thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Restrepo, J., and Rahman, A. (2007). “Seismic performance of self-
centering structural walls incorporating energy dissipators.” J. Struct.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1560), 1560–1570.
Schaefer, J. A., Kennedy, B., Stanton, J. F., and Eberhard, M. O. (2014a).
“Unbonded pretensioned bridge columns with rocking detail.” Rep.
No. 2014/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Berkeley, CA.
Schaefer, J. A., Thonstad, T., Kennedy, B. J., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton,
J. F. (2014b). “Cyclic testing of an unbonded pre-tensioned bridge
column with rocking detail: Footing specimen 01.” Network for Earth-
quake Engineering Simulation, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Solberg, K., Mashiko, N., Mander, J., and Dhakal, R. (2009). “Performance
of a damage-protected highway bridge pier subjected to bidirectional
earthquake attack.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)
135:5(469), 469–478.
Stone, W. C., Cheok, G. S., and Stanton, J. F. (1995). “Beam-column con-
nections subjected to cyclic loads.” ACI Struct. J., 92(2), 229–249.
Tran, H. V. (2015). “Drilled shaft socket connections for precast columns in
seismic regions.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Trono, W., Jen, G., Panagiotou, M., Schoettler, M., and Ostertag, C. P.
(2015). “Seismic response of a damage-resistant recentering posttensioned-
HYFRC bridge column.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000692, 04014096.
Walsh, K. Q., and Kurama, Y. C. (2012). “Effects of loading conditions on
the behavior of unbonded post-tensioning strand-anchorage systems.”
PCI J., 57(1), 76–96.
White, S., and Palermo, A. (2016). “Quasi-static testing of posttensioned
nonemulative column-footing connections for bridge piers.” J. Bridge
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000872, 04016025.
Wight, G., and Ingham, J. (2008). “Tendon stress in unbonded postten-
sioned masonry walls at nominal in-plane strength.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:6(938), 938–946.
Yamashita, R., and Sanders, D. (2009). “Seismic performance of precast un-
bonded prestressed concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J., 106(6), 821–830.
J. Struct. Eng.