Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Quasi-static experimental study on seismic performance of exterior shear

key with different failure modes
Heng Mei a, b, Anxin Guo a, b, *
a
Key Lab of Smart Prevention and Mitigation of Civil Engineering Disasters of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin 150090, China
b
Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control of the Ministry of Education, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The shear key with horizontal failure mode manifests secondary stiffness-strengthening capacity comparing to
Shear key the diagonal and slide shear modes. It is more suitable for protecting bridges that sustain multiple hazard actions.
Horizontal failure mode However, the seismic performance of shear keys with horizontal failure mode has seldom been addressed. This
Quasi-static experiment
study designed and manufactured ten RC exterior shear key models involving 1:3 geometrical scaling to achieve
Monotonic cyclic loading
Seismic performance
three failure modes with specific reinforcement layouts. A quasi-static experiment was performed to investigate
the seismic performance of shear keys, including crack observation, force–displacement relationship, rotation
and stress distribution characteristics. The experiment results indicate that the failure mode depends on the
proportion of reinforcement capacity, and can affect the maximum resistance of shear keys. The shear key with
horizontal failure exhibits apparent secondary stiffness strengthening characteristics, whereas the diagonal and
sliding failure modes suffer persistent reduction under large deformations. Furthermore, the diagonal shear key
exhibits the highest residual capacity under severe damage. The measured data are compared with the existing
analytical models in terms of both peak capacity and envelope curves, showing the models are more applicable to
diagonal failure shear key than the others.

1. Introduction
As a critical component of transportation systems, bridges are ex­
pected to withstand seismic impacts. According to field investigations,
the superstructure and substructure of bridges can be damaged
depending on the capacity of lateral restraints. Shear key is a lateral
restraint fixed on the cap beam to provide lateral constraints for su­
perstructures. It has been widely used for small- and medium-sized
bridges owing to its reparability and detectability during post-
earthquake recovery. However, as a sacrificial component, it should
also be designed to protect the superstructures and eliminate damage to
pier columns. According to the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) [1], shear key should be
designed with overstrength ϕ = 1.5, and the required resistance de­
pends on the capacity of the pile or swing wall. Caltrans [2] developed a
design method using a reduction factor to ensure early failure before the
structural component.
Owing to insufficient research on this bridge safety component,
several bridges have been severely damaged during intensive seismic
events in the past decades. For example, during the Wenchuan earth­
quake in China, several highway bridges were destroyed owing to the
poor design of shear keys [3–6]. Several bridges in Chile have been re­
ported to be severely damaged or collapsed owing to the inappropriate
design of shear key restrainers, in which the diagonal shear failures were
frequently observed [7–10]. Accordingly, Chile’s specification [11]
suggests designing shear keys with half of the total horizontal seismic
force acting in the transverse direction. In addition, the gap should be set
with the value of the expected seismic displacement plus 50 mm. In the
2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, bridges suffered either pier collapse
or superstructure turnover depending on the design of the shear keys
[12–14]. Accordingly, the Design Specifications of Highway Bridges of
Japan [15] recommends a specific design for bridge shear keys with
large skewness and excessive displacement.
Over the past decades, various studies have been conducted to
explore the mechanical properties of shear keys considering the effects
of friction and reinforcement shear strength, among others, and various
models have been proposed to describe their seismic resistance capacity
[16–19]. Megally, Silva [20] performed a series of experiments to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: guoanxin@hit.edu.cn (A. Guo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116173
Received 14 November 2022; Received in revised form 25 March 2023; Accepted 15 April 2023
Available online 25 April 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Mei and A. Guo
understand the mechanical behavior of such components under mono­
tonic lateral forces. Their study investigated six exterior and seven in­
ternal shear keys using specimens built with different reinforcement
configurations and geometric layouts. Significant differences were
observed between the two types of shear keys. Silva, Megally [21] drew
conclusions on the properties of shear keys using experimental data from
Megally, Silva [20], and proposed a modified analytical model to eval­
uate their capacity. Accordingly, exterior shear was specifically studied
by other researchers. In their studies, specimens with abutment com­
ponents were tested, and the shear sliding failure was enforced on the
shear key to control the damage of other components [22,23]. Han,
Zhou [24] studied a vertical exterior shear key by performing an
experimental test on six specimens, in which two different failure modes
were identified. According to the test results, the seismic capacity of the
component was evaluated using an analytical formula. In addition to
experimental studies, shear keys were also investigated using numerical
approaches. Han, Zhou [25] numerically simulated the seismic response
of bridge with shear key component using nonlinear time-history anal­
ysis method. An effective response reduction was observed with respect
to the lateral reaction of the superstructure using sacrificial ability. Bi
and Hao [26] performed a more refined analysis, in which a solid model
was established using the finite element method (FEM). The continuum
and truss/beam elements were adopted to model the superstructure or
substructure, respectively. The seismic performance of the bridge as an
integrity was better described using a well-refined solid model.
Practical engineering and relevant research indicate that shear keys
with diagonal failure modes are typically used [27,28]. Moreover,
sliding failure shear keys are also implemented to match the demands in
post-disaster repair [29]. However, the seismic resistance capacities of
the two types of shear keys decline continuously after reaching the peak
strength. By contrast, shear keys with horizontal failure mode manifest a
Fig. 1. Geometric layout and reinforcement configuration.
2
Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173
secondary strengthening phenomenon after the load-carrying capacity is
reduced to a particular extent. This type of shear keys can enhance the
safety of bridges that sustain multiple earthquake scenarios, such as the
main shock and aftershock, as well as multi-hazard actions such as
earthquake and ensuing tsunami. However, studies on the seismic per­
formance of such shear keys are still limited yet.
This study performed a series of laboratory tests on RC shear key
specimens with horizontal, diagonal, and sliding failures to investigate
the mechanical properties of shear keys with different failure modes.
Five RC specimens with ten shear keys were designed and manufactured,
and quasi-static tests with monotonic cyclic loading were performed.
The force–displacement relationship, rotation and strain distribution of
the test models are analyzed using the test results. The main content of
this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the design of the
specimen and experimental setup; The observation of the crack evolu­
tion process is emphasized in section 3; Section 4 conducts an analysis
on the seismic performance of the shear key with different failure
modes, with emphasis on the hysteretic characteristics that include the
peak capacity and deformation, as well as the rotation angle and stress
variation. On this basis, the measured results are compared with existing
models in terms of the peak capacity and envelope curves. Further, the
concluding remarks are given in the last section.
2. Specimen design
2.1. Details of the tested specimens
This study used five specimens with ten test units of the RC exterior
shear key with different reinforcement configurations for the laboratory
tests. They were designed and constructed according to Chinese design
specification [30], with a 1:3 geometrical scaling. The specimens were
H. Mei and A. Guo Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173

designed with dimensions of 1840 mm(length) × 540 mm(width) ×
1100 mm(height). The foundation was designed to be 400 mm high to
satisfy sufficient reaction force. Fig. 1 shows the detailed geometric
layout and reinforcement configuration of the specimens. The shear key
reinforcement is mainly comprised of vertical, horizontal, and distrib­
uted components. Previous researches indicate that, the mechanical
behavior of precast shear keys depends on the capacity ratio between the
vertical reinforcement capacity Vv and horizontal reinforcement ca­
pacity Vh [31–33]. Therefore, two types of reinforcement configurations
were adopted for the specimen construction. Moreover, monolithic and
construction joints were considered for the interface conjunction to
achieve the horizontal, diagonal, and shear failure modes of the shear
keys. Table 1 summarizes the detailed parameters for each group of test
units.
As shown in Table 1, specimens SKH1-SKH4 were designed with a
higher capacity ratio of 2.49, whereas SKD1-SKD4 had a lower capacity
ratio of 0.80. Fig. 1(a) and (b) show the layouts of the corresponding
vertical and distributed reinforcements, respectively. A U-shaped rein­
forcement was adopted and installed along the inclined surface to
accommodate the non-uniform section of the shear key. Notably, the
SKH group on the left side of Fig. 1(a) had less vertical reinforcement
than the SKD group on the opposite side. The same distributed rein­
forcement was adopted for all specimens in each group except SKH4 and
SKD4, in which the transverse hoop was used in lieu of the distributed
rebar, as shown in Fig. 1(f)-(g). Fig. 1(d) and (e) show the cross-sections
of the SKH and SKD groups with 21Φ16 and 9Φ16 horizontal re­
inforcements, respectively, where Φ is the diameter of steel rebar. For
the shear key with sliding failure mode, specimens SKS1 and SKS2 have
the same capacity ratio as the SKH group, while they were constructed
with a dry construction joint between the shear key and abutment. The
anchorage length of the vertical and horizontal reinforcements was set
to 12.5d, where d is the diameter of the reinforcement. The tail of each
reinforcement was cast into the foundation to achieve reliable
anchoring. Therefore, the bond-slip effect can be eliminated in the
present study. In this study, C40 concrete (fcu,k = 40 MPa), HRB400 (fy
= 400 MPa), and HPB300 (fy = 300 MPa) steel rebars were used to
construct the specimens. To obtain the mechanical characteristics of the
concrete used in this study, twelve 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm
concrete cubes were tested, and the average compression strength is 45
MPa. The yield strength of the rebar is 450 and 325 MPa for the HRB400
and HPB300 steels, respectively.
2.2. Experimental setup
designed to accommodate the shear key specimens. As shown in Fig. 2
(a), two steel H-beams were connected using a linkage component in the
middle to transfer the external force from the actuator to the specimens
through two steel loading components at each side. In the vertical di­
rection, a steel distribution beam was placed above the loading com­
ponents to balance the vertical reaction, with 500 kN applied by a
hydraulic jack. Four steel rollers were installed at the bottom of the
loading components to eliminate interface friction, and the friction force
was recorded when the loading system is about to move as the load
increases at the initial loading phase. The average friction was small and
was eliminated from the test results in the following analysis.
Note that the vertical load has little contribution to the measured
lateral force since it is mainly withstood by the cylinders below. During
the experiment, the actuator pushed the steel frame to contact the
specimen using the designed loading protocol, and only one test unit in
each specimen was tested each time. After finishing one test unit, the
actuator acted in the opposite direction to test the other unit.
Exterior shear keys can only sustain monotonic loads under seismic
scenarios. Therefore, a quasi-static test with a monotonic-cyclic load was
performed on all specimens. A hybrid protocol was designed to control
the loading process in different phases, as shown in Fig. 3. The lateral
force was initiated from a force-controlled phase with a 100 kN incre­
ment, with two cycles for each level, until the deformation increased to
approximately 10 mm. Following the phase I protocol is the
displacement-controlled protocol, in which the displacement interval
varies at different substages: 2 mm (10–20 mm), 5 mm (20–50 mm), 10
mm (50–100 mm), and 20 mm (>100 mm). Three cycles were applied to
each level during the second phase. RC structure experiments are typi­
cally stopped when the residual resistance drops to 85 % of the peak
value [34,35]. Nevertheless, all the tested specimens in this work un­
derwent deformation of at least 100 mm to address the post-buckling
properties of the shear key specimens.
To obtain the force–displacement relationship of the specimens, four
LVDT sensors were installed to measure the structural deformation at
different positions, as shown in Fig. 4(a). During the tests, the LVDT
sensors were relocated symmetrically to the other side when the oppo­
site side was tested. In this figure, point A is used to measure the
movement near the top of shear key. Point B has the same elevation as
the loading location on the opposite side, and the measured result,
denoted by δ2 , refers to the shear key displacement corresponding to the
applied load. Point C is located at the half height of abutment, and is
used to measure the deformation of abutment as a whole. The LVDT at
point D on the foundation was used to measure the possible foundation
slip, denoted by δ4 . Therefore, the exact deformation of the shear key
can be calculated using δ2 = δ2 − δ4 . Furthermore, with δ1 and δ3 at
′

Fig. 2(a) shows the schematic of the test facility. An electro-hydraulic

points A and C, the rotation of the shear key specimens can be calculated
servo actuator with a maximum capacity of 2000 kN and stroke of ±
as follows:
200 mm was used to apply the horizontal force. The actuator was fixed
on the reaction wall with four post-tensioned bolts. To apply an external
force on the inclined surface of the specimen, a steel frame system was

Table 1
Reinforcement configuration of shear key specimens.
Group Specimen Horizontal reinforcement Vertical reinforcement Capacity Special
Ratio Layout
Configuration Total Rebar Configuration Total Rebar
Area Ratio Area Ratio
(mm2) (%) (mm2) (%)

SKH SKH1 21Φ16 4220 1.30 15Φ12 1696 0.75 2.49 Distributed rebar
SKH2 21Φ16 4220 1.30 15Φ12 1696 0.75 2.49
SKH3 21Φ16 4220 1.30 15Φ12 1696 0.75 2.49
SKH4 21Φ16 4220 1.30 15Φ12 1696 0.75 2.49 Hoops
SKD SKD1 9Φ16 1809 0.56 20Φ12 2261 1.00 0.80 Distributed rebar
SKD2 9Φ16 1809 0.56 20Φ12 2261 1.00 0.80
SKD3 9Φ16 1809 0.56 20Φ12 2261 1.00 0.80
SKD4 9Φ16 1809 0.56 20Φ12 2261 1.00 0.80 Hoops
SKS SKS1 21Φ16 4220 1.30 15Φ12 1696 0.75 2.49 Construction joint
SKS2 21Φ16 4220 1.30 15Φ12 1696 0.75 2.49

3
H. Mei and A. Guo Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173

Fig. 2. Experimental setup: (a) schematic of the test facility; (b) 3D diagram; (c) field photo.

succeeding section. In addition, 32 strain gauges were embedded on

each side of the specimen before construction. These strain gauges were
attached to different positions on the horizontal, vertical and distributed
reinforcements to obtain the stress distribution, as shown in Fig. 4(b)-
(d). Furthermore, six grouped strain gauges were adhered to each side of
the concrete surface to obtain the stress development before the con­
crete was severely damaged, as shown in Fig. 4(a).

3. Experimental observation

3.1. Horizontal shear failure mode

Under the external force action following the loading protocol,

specimens SKH1-SKH3 were damaged in the horizontal shear failure
mode, in which the damaged area was close to the interface between the
shear key and abutment. Notably, the peak capacity of SKH3 was
abnormally larger than that of the other specimens because the loading
system rotates to a particular angle about the axial when the load
magnitude approaches the peak value. Therefore, the data of SKH3 was
Fig. 3. Loading protocol of the experiment.
excluded in the subsequent discussions. Furthermore, the same situation
was avoided in the other tests by ensuring the stability of the loading
Δδ δ1 − δ3 δ2 − δ3 setups before performing the experiment. Fig. 5 shows the development
θ= = = (1)
Δh h1 h2 of concrete cracks in specimen SKH1 at protocol levels of 100 kN, 600
where h1 and h2 are the distances between the corresponding LVDT kN, 10 mm, 30 mm, 60 mm and 140 mm. To distinguish the cracks
sensors and rotation origin, respectively, as shown in Fig. 4(a). The easily, black and red lines were used to represent the minor and major
rotation origin is defined as the point around which the shear key rotates cracks, respectively. Fig. 6 shows the force–displacement relationship of
while subjected to lateral impact. To calculate the rotation angle, the specimen SKH1, and the protocol levels are marked on the envelope
rotation origin must be determined, and this is discussed in the curves.

4
H. Mei and A. Guo Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173

Fig. 4. Schematic of the LVDT sensor and strain gauge setups: (a) LVDT sensor setup; (b) vertical strain gauges; (c) horizontal strain gauges; (d) distributed
strain gauges.

Fig. 5. Development of the concrete cracks of specimen SKH1: (a) 100 kN; (b) 600 kN; (c) 10 mm; (d) 30 mm; (e) 60 mm; (f) 140 mm.

5
H. Mei and A. Guo
Fig. 6. Force-displacement relationship and envelope curves of shear keys (group SKH).
As shown in Fig. 5(a), the crack initiated at the inner vertex of the
interface at 100 kN. The initial crack developed at a small angle about
the horizontal plane when the force increased, and new cracks formed
around the major crack. The newly emerged cracks combined and pro­
duced primary damage when the protocol level increased to 600 kN, as
shown in Fig. 5(b). For the horizontal failure shear key, the primary
concrete damage developed to the backwall edge when the displacement
reached 9–12 mm and the lateral force was approximately 1100 kN. The
deformation at the peak resistance varied in different specimens ranging
from 10 to 18 mm. The crack angle at peak resistance changed signifi­
cantly comparing to the initial state, as shown in Fig. 5(c)-(d). Moreover,
the loading-carry capacity shows significant decline accompanied with
reinforcement fracture. The damaged area was confined next to the
major crack during the loading process, and the reinforcement was
found to broke successively at high protocol level. Fig. 5(f) shows the
ultimate failure of the shear key, where the shear key separated from the
abutment.
Fig. 6 indicates that shear key SKH1 had an initial stiffness of
approximately 322 kN/mm before the load increased to 500 kN, and the
stiffness was maintained well before reaching the peak capacity. By
contrast, the unloading stiffness remained stable throughout the loading
process. Notably, the capacity of the horizontal failure shear key had a
second-rising stage after a significant reduction at the peak value, as
Fig. 7. Development of the concrete cracks of specimen SKD1: (a) 200 kN; (b) 600 kN; (c) 10 mm; (d) 30 mm; (e) 60 mm; (f) 160 mm.
6
Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173
shown in Fig. 6. It should also be mentioned that horizontal shear failure
also occurred in specimen SKH4, although a transverse hoop was used.
Comparing the development of the shear key damage in this group
shows that, specimen SKH4 was comparable to the other horizontal
failure specimens in terms of the crack evolution. Furthermore, the en­
velope of SKH4 had a similar pattern with the others, whereas it showed
an earlier decline when the displacement increased to 100 mm.
3.2. Diagonal shear failure mode
The specimens in the SKD group were designed with a lower capacity
ratio of 0.80. The damaged area developed separately along the diagonal
direction. Fig. 7 shows the concrete damage at different protocol levels
for SKD1. The diagonal failure shear key had a preliminary crack at 200
kN. The initial damage developed at a larger angle than the horizontal
failure mode at approximately 45◦ , as shown in Fig. 7(b). The newly
emerged cracks gradually extended away from the diagonal and prop­
agated to the abutment. For the shear key with diagonal failure, the
crack expanded to the backwall edge at a displacement of 12–14 mm,
with the lateral force of approximately 1000 kN (Fig. 7 (c)). Conse­
quently, the measured deformation was larger than that of the SKH
group at the same protocol level. The displacement at peak resistance,
ranging from 25 to 30 mm, was larger than that in the horizontal failure
H. Mei and A. Guo
mode. According to the test observations, the primary concrete failure
formed along the diagonal and ended at the toe of the abutment, as
shown in Fig. 7(c). The resistance capacity of the SKD group decreased
progressively after reaching the maximum value. In addition, the peak
resistance was associated with the primary damage to the concrete
rather than the rebar failure observed in the horizontal failure speci­
mens. Large areas of concrete were damaged as the controlled
displacement increased. Moreover, the connection between the concrete
and reinforcement was completely destroyed at the ultimate stage, as
shown in Fig. 7(d)-(f). Fig. 8 shows the hysteretic relationship of SKD1.
The figure shows that the diagonal failure shear key had a larger initial
stiffness of 453 kN/mm than the horizontal failure shear key. However,
the stiffness decreased sooner after the force-controlled protocol
increased to 500 kN. Notably, specimen SKD4 also had a failure pattern
similar to the other specimens in the SKD group; however, the residual
resistance dropped to less than 200 kN at high protocol level.
3.3. Sliding shear failure mode
Specimens SKS1-SKS2 were broken with sliding shear failure owing
to the dry construction joint. Because the shear keys in this group were
designed with a detached interface, the resistance from the concrete
contribution became relatively small. Hence, the measured peak
strength was considerably lower than that of the other failure modes.
Fig. 9 shows the development of cracks in SKS1 over the entire loading
process. For this failure mode, the initial crack was found on the inter­
face layer at 100 kN, whereas a separative crack in the horizontal and
diagonal failure modes was not observed until 300 kN, as shown in Fig. 9
(a). The preliminary damage was then restricted to the dry construction
layer until the damage proceeded to the backwall, where the major
crack direction changed and diverged into several sub-cracks, as shown
in Fig. 9(b)-(d). For the sliding failure specimen, the load magnitude
Fig. 8. Force-displacement relationship and envelope curves of shear keys (group SKD).
7
Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173
increased to 700 kN with a displacement of 4.79 mm when the damage
developed to the backwall edge, and the displacement was approxi­
mately 30 mm when the maximum capacity was observed accompanied
by fractured reinforcement. In this case, most of the lateral impact was
sustained and transferred by the vertical reinforcement. Therefore, the
resistance capacity decreased with successive rebar failures after
reaching the peak value. Fig. 9(e)–(f) show the final stage of SKS1. It can
be seen that the horizontal damage at the initial stage ended at a larger
angle of approximately 45◦ . Fig. 10 shows the force–displacement
relationship of SKS1. The sliding shear failure mode specimen had the
least initial stiffness (271 kN/mm for SKS1) comparing to the other
failure modes at the initial stage due to the absence of concrete contri­
bution. Compared with the other failure modes, the loading and
unloading stiffness of the sliding failure shear key were maintained well
throughout the loading protocol because the vertical reinforcement
sustained the major impact without concrete participation.
4. Test result analysis
According to the test results of all the specimens, a detailed analysis
was performed in the succeeding section, emphasizing on the force­
–displacement curve, shear key rotation, and strain distribution.
4.1. Load-displacement relationship
The force–displacement relationship and envelope curve are signif­
icant for quantifying the seismic performance of structural components
and establishing a mechanical model to predict the structural behavior
of similar components [36,37]. Fig. 11 shows the piecewise stages of the
envelope curves for different failure modes. The horizontal axis was
nonuniformly scaled at different stages to better illustrate the mechan­
ical characteristics. Fig. 11(a) shows the envelope curves of the
H. Mei and A. Guo
Fig. 9. Development of the concrete cracks of specimen SKS1: (a) 300 kN; (b) 600 kN; (c) 20 mm; (d) 30 mm; (e) 60 mm; (f) 160 mm.
Fig. 10. Force-displacement relationship and envelope curves of shear keys (group SKS).
specimens in the horizontal failure mode. In this case, three phases were
identified: the approximate elastic stage before the first peak strength
(circles), the second rising stage between the first and second peak
strengths (triangle), and the softening stage after the second peak
strength. For example, the approximate elastic stage of specimen SKH2
persisted until the displacement increased to 17.70 mm. The second
rising stage lasted from 17.70 mm to 38.23 mm, located between the
vertical solid lines in Fig. 11(a). Subsequently, the third phase pro­
gressed until the end. The diamond on each envelope curve represents
the valley capacity after the peak capacity was reached. For the hori­
zontal failure shear key, the concrete and reinforcement contributed to
the resistance simultaneously in the first stage. Part of the vertical
reinforcement failed when the peak capacity was reached. The second
increase in resistance is related to the hardening effect of the vertical
reinforcement. Fig. 11(d) shows the reduction in the resistance after
reaching the peak values. It can be found that, the early reinforcement
fracture reduces the capacity by approximately 32 % on average
comparing to the peak strength. The third stage started after displace­
ment = 30 mm and proceeded with successive fractures occurring in the
8
Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173
remaining vertical reinforcement.
Comparing the envelope curves in the other two failure modes in­
dicates that the diagonal and sliding failure modes had only two phases
within the entire protocol, as shown in Fig. 11(b)-(c), including the
elastic stage before the peak strength and succeeding softening stage.
With respect to the diagonal failure shear key, the second rising stage
disappeared because the abutment concrete crashed at the peak
strength. Consequently, the resistance decreased owing to the dimin­
ished constraints on the vertical reinforcement. By contrast, the two-
stage envelope curve in the sliding failure mode was caused by non-
uniform stress in the vertical reinforcement. The interface connection
was absent and resulted in a successive fracture of the reinforced ele­
ments. The slightly damaged concrete resulted in an over-constraint on
the vertical reinforcement and the early failure of these reinforced ele­
ments. Consequently, the peak resistance was reduced significantly, and
the decline after the peak was also accelerated comparing to the other
failure modes.
Table 2 presents the critical points on the envelope curve for each
specimen, including the initial crack, protocol transition, peak
H. Mei and A. Guo Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173

Fig. 11. Envelope curves and capacity reduction of the specimens with different failure modes: (a) group SKH; (b) group SKD; (c) group SKS; (d) capacity reduction
ratio of group SKH (unit: kN).

Table 2
Critical performance of the envelop curves.
Specimens First crack Protocol Peak capacity Valley capacity Second peak
transition

Force Disp. Force Disp. Force Disp. Force Disp. Force Disp.
(kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)

SKH1 100 0.20 1123 10.00 1186 11.98 804 15.94 1055 29.93
SKH2 100 0.21 967 1230 17.70 844 24.06 946 40.23
SKH4 100 0.28 953 1209 16.23 806 28.30 896 48.71
SKD1 200 0.37 937 1183 22.59 N/A
SKD2 200 0.88 847 1203 23.16
SKD3 200 0.42 1121 1213 20.35
SKD4 100 0.26 1084 1164 11.98
SKS1 300 0.78 797 911 29.99
SKS2 300 1.08 724 934 30.13

resistance, valley resistance, and second peak point (if available). The
peak resistance was similar for the horizontal and diagonal failure
specimens, despite the different reinforcement configurations adopted
in each case. Therefore, the horizontal and vertical reinforcements can
contribute to the peak strength of the shear key by their respective
means. The horizontal and diagonal failure specimens had similar
stiffness at the initial stage. However, the stiffness differs in the diagonal
failure mode owing to the earlier tension failure of concrete, which was
caused by the deficient horizontal reinforcement. The abutment con­
crete crashed at the peak resistance in the horizontal failure mode.
Subsequently, most of the external force was transmitted by the vertical
reinforcement. The principal effect of the horizontal reinforcement was
eliminating the damage evolution in the abutment. By contrast, for the
diagonal failure mode, the primary crack extended to the abutment toe
at the peak strength, leading to the decline of resistance. Further, the
sliding failure mode specimen had the least resistance at approximately
900 kN because the interface connection was absent for this failure
mode. However, the displacement at the maximum capacity was com­
parable with that of the diagonal mode at approximately 30 mm. The
vertical rebar was significant for sustaining the external impact by

9
H. Mei and A. Guo
transferring the lateral impact from the rebar distortion. Consequently,
the shear key component was found to suffer successive rebar fractures
at the end of the test.
4.2. Rotation
Shear key rotation is a critical indicator that characterizes the
bending of vertical reinforcements. As described in Section 2, the rota­
tion of the shear key is governed by the geometric relationship in Eq. (1).
The position of the rotation origin can be determined using the LVDT
sensor data at different heights. According to field observations, the
damage to the shear key above the interface is negligible. Therefore, a
rigid body assumption was made with respect to the upper part of the
shear key, which rotated around the origin during the test. Accordingly,
the rotations to the rotation origin were equal for points A and B, as
shown in Fig. 12. The least-squares method (LSM) was used for the
regression analysis. Fig. 13 shows a part of the regression results. The
displacement at points A and B was subtracted from point C to exclude
the identical translation at both points. The relative displacement at
point B, denoted by δB = δ2-δ3, and at the top point A, denoted by δA =
δ1-δ3, were consistent with the fitting lines in the logarithmic scale. Note
that, the variance below 10-2 mm was negligible because the original
data was from the initial protocol stage, where the data can have minor
effects on the regression. Moreover, the height of the rotation origin
varied according to the damage state of the specimen and increased with
force. Therefore, the exact displacement δ2 = 30 mm was selected as the
′
threshold, and the rotation height was reanalyzed using the obtained
data.
Table 3 presents the rotation height from the regression analysis and
the goodness of fit factors (R2) for each specimen before and after the
threshold. The rotation height varied significantly with the failure mode.
The sliding failure mode specimen had the largest rotation height (e.g.,
404.81 mm for specimen SKS1), whereas the diagonal failure specimen
had the smallest result (e.g., 234.00 mm for specimen SKD1). The hor­
izontal failure specimen had a moderate rotation height comparing to
the other specimens (e.g., 341.85 mm for specimen SKH1). The rotation
angle was calculated for each specimen at several protocol levels using
the rotation height obtained from the regression analysis, as listed in
Table 3. The diagonal failure mode specimen had the largest rotation
because its rotation height was lower than that of the other specimens.
The horizontal failure mode specimen had the least rotation at 30 mm
and 60 mm, despite its the rotation height being lower than that of the
sliding failure specimen, because the interface constraint was absent for
the sliding mode shear key.
4.3. Strain distribution
4.3.1. Horizontal shear failure
The internal strain distribution can aid in understanding the damage
state of the shear key model. Figs. 14-16 show the strains at different
Fig. 12. Diagram of geometric relationship for determining rotation origin.
10
Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173
protocol levels for SKH1, including 500 kN, 10 mm, 20 mm, and 30 mm.
The levels after 30 mm were neglected owing to the minor variation in
the strain when the shear key was severely damaged. The results from
the gauges installed at different positions were selected for comparison.
The horizontal axis denotes the last letter in each strain gauge number.
For example, the horizontal tick 1 in Fig. 14(a) represents the strain
gauges next to the backwall edge, such as RHR11, RHR21, and RHR31,
and the vertical tick 1 denotes the gauges on the first row, such as
RHR11, RHR12, and RHR13. Note that, the second and first cycles were
adopted for the force-controlled and displacement-controlled stages,
respectively, in order to reflect the maximum strain at each protocol
level. The cross mark denotes the strain gauge that failed owing to the
large deformation.
Fig. 14 shows the strain of the horizontal reinforcement in SKH1. The
first row of reinforcement was significant for sustaining the lateral
impact and had the largest strain response than the others rows. The
position with the maximum strain also changed with distance from the
interface. For the first row, RHR13, the gauge closer to the inner vertex,
had the largest value. RHR22 and RHR32 in the middle had the largest
values for the second and third rows, respectively. Furthermore, gauge
RHR11 was broken at displacement δ = 10 mm, whereas the other
horizontal reinforcement was operational over the loading process, as
shown in Fig. 14(d).
By contrast, the effect of vertical reinforcement differed according to
the location of the reinforcement and strain gauges. The reinforcement
of column 3 had a larger strain than the others at the top (RUC31) and
bottom (RUC33) because it was fixed next to the load-applying point.
For example, the gauge in the middle, RUC32, had a lower result than
RUC22, indicating that the force reached the interface when it propa­
gated to the intermediate rebar, as shown in Fig. 15(a)-(b). The strain of
the first column reinforcement became dominant after δ = 20 mm,
whereas the others declined. Furthermore, the strain of RUC22 became
negative when the protocol level increased and was broken later than
the horizontal reinforcement at δ = 30 mm. Fig. 16 shows the strain of
the distributed reinforcement, where the solid and dashed lines denote
the vertical and horizontal segments, respectively. The strain of RNC31
remained the highest throughout the loading process because the major
crack extended across it, whereas the other vertical segments remained
under 2000 με. The first failure of the vertical segments was observed at
δ = 30 mm, as shown in the vertical reinforcement in Fig. 15(d). The
strain of the horizontal segments varied according to their positions and
remained relatively low during the loading process. Therefore, vertical
segments are more significant than horizontal segments in the hori­
zontal failure shear key.
4.3.2. Diagonal shear failure
Figs. 17-19 represent the stress distribution in the shear key with the
diagonal shear failure mode. Different protocol levels were selected in
comparison with the horizontal failure mode because the displacement-
controlled stage started at less than 1000 kN for this failure mode,
including 10, 20, 30, and 60 mm. Fig. 17 shows the strain development
in the horizontal reinforcement. In this case, the area of the horizontal
rebar was reduced to 43 % of the horizontal failure specimen, and the
development length of the reinforcement increased. Consequently,
gauge RHR11 had the maximum strain at the initial stage, in lieu of
RHR13 in specimen SKH1. The first gauge failure occurred at RHR11 at
δ = 16 mm, later than the horizontal failure mode because more con­
crete contributed to the resistance. Furthermore, the reinforcements in
rows 2 and 3 became dominant after δ = 20 mm as the major crack
extended across them.
Four columns of vertical reinforcement were employed for the shear
key with the diagonal failure mode to reduce the capacity ratio Vh /Vv , as
shown in Fig. 18. Compared with the horizontal reinforcement, the
strain change was insignificant with respect to the vertical part. The
strain at the bottom of the third column (RUC33) had a maximum value
at δ = 10 mm and 20 mm and was broken at δ = 30 mm. The added
H. Mei and A. Guo Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173

Fig. 13. Regression analysis on rotation origin: (a) SKH1; (b) SKH2; (c) SKD1; (d) SKD2; (e) SKS1; (f) SKS2.

Table 3
Rotation height and rotations at critical protocol levels.
Tested Rotation R2 Rotation R2 Rotations at critical levels
specimen height height (deg)
(mm) (mm)

δ ≤ 30 mm δ > 30 mm Peak resistance 30 mm 60 mm

SKH1 341.85 0.9968 310.21 0.9969 0.4525 0.9289 2.3319

SKH2 294.77 0.9960 322.38 0.9575 0.5269 0.9087 1.9676

SKH4 327.94 0.9985 257.72 0.9968 1.0229 0.8362 1.2246
SKD1 234.00 0.9858 252.12 0.9954 1.9736 2.6617 4.5872
SKD2 243.39 0.9711 200.55 0.9408 1.6859 2.4441 3.4971
SKD3 245.75 0.9852 278.69 0.9707 1.6190 2.3896 3.3142
SKD4 225.20 0.9977 256.45 0.9989 1.0635 1.2478 2.0276
SKS1 404.81 0.9919 306.83 0.9979 1.1527 1.1547 2.6703
SKS2 380.96 0.9567 424.10 0.9442 0.9561 0.9460 1.7945

Fig. 14. Strain development of horizontal reinforcement at different protocol levels (Specimen SKH1): (a) 500 kN; (b) 10 mm; (c) 20 mm; (d) 30 mm.

column had a relatively low strain response during the process, indi­
cating that it had a limited effect on the resistance. It is noteworthy that
most of the vertical reinforcement was maintained under the yield strain
throughout the test because the constraint on reinforcement diminished
when the concrete was gradually crushed.
Fig. 19 shows the strain development in the distributed reinforce­
ment. Compared with the horizontal failure mode, the distributed
reinforcement in the diagonal failure mode exhibited a higher response
before δ = 30 mm. The strain of gauge RNR22, fixed on the horizontal
segment of the distributed rebar, has the maximum value among the
others before it failed, in lieu of the vertical segment RNC31 in the
horizontal failure mode, as shown in Fig. 19(b)-(c). Fig. 19(d) shows that
most of the gauges on the distributed reinforcement had an over-
threshold strain at high protocol level because the concrete was

11
H. Mei and A. Guo Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173

Fig. 15. Strain development of vertical reinforcement at different protocol levels (Specimen SKH1): (a) 500 kN; (b) 10 mm; (c) 20 mm; (d) 30 mm.

Fig. 16. Strain development of distributed reinforcement at different protocol levels (Specimen SKH1): (a) 500 kN; (b) 10 mm; (c) 20 mm; (d) 30 mm.

Fig. 17. Strain development of horizontal reinforcement at different protocol levels (Specimen SKD1): (a) 10 mm; (b) 20 mm; (c) 30 mm; (d) 60 mm.

Fig. 18. Strain development of vertical reinforcement at different protocol levels (Specimen SKD1): (a) 10 mm; (b) 20 mm; (c) 30 mm; (d) 60 mm.

Fig. 19. Strain development of distributed reinforcement at different protocol levels (Specimen SKD1): (a) 10 mm; (b) 20 mm; (c) 30 mm; (d) 60 mm.

12
H. Mei and A. Guo
Fig. 20. Strain development of horizontal reinforcement at different protocol levels (Specimen SKS1): (a) 10 mm; (b) 20 mm; (c) 30 mm; (d) 60 mm.
Fig. 21. Strain development of vertical reinforcement at different protocol levels (Specimen SKS1): (a) 10 mm; (b) 20 mm; (c) 30 mm; (d) 60 mm.
Fig. 22. Strain development of distributed reinforcement at different protocol levels (Specimen SKS1): (a) 10 mm; (b) 20 mm; (c) 30 mm; (d) 60 mm.
severely crushed.
4.3.3. Sliding shear failure
Figs. 20-22 show the strain distribution in the sliding failure shear
key group, SKS. The same protocol levels were selected for the SKD
group. Fig. 20 shows the horizontal reinforcement strain throughout the
test. All reinforcements, except RHR11, had relatively low strain under
the yield level during the test. This indicates that the abutment under the
interface had a limited effect on the capacity. The development length
improved because the lateral force is more transferred by the vertical
reinforcement. As a result, the row 2 reinforcement exhibited a larger
result than the other rows, despite row 1 being dominant in the other
failure modes.
Fig. 21 shows the strain evolution in the vertical reinforcement. The
vertical rebar in the sliding failure specimen had the least strain
response before the maximum capacity. However, an early failure of the
strain gauge was observed with respect to RUC22 at δ = 10 mm, whereas
it occurred near the peak capacity in the other failure modes. Further,
the gauges near the interface had a larger response because the force was
mainly transferred there. RUC31 was an exception because it was
installed close to the load-applying point. The strain of RUC12 became
negative at δ = 10 mm and increased to over 3000 με at the end of the
test. Therefore, the vertical reinforcement next to the backwall sustained
a considerable compressive effect near the interface.
Fig. 22 shows the strain development in the distributed reinforce­
ment. In this case, a dry construction joint separated the shear key and
abutment. Consequently, the distributed reinforcement had the least
strain result comparing to the other failure modes, and most gauges
13
Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173
remained intact at the end of the experiment. The gauge with the
maximum strain changed from the first row (RNR12) to the second row
(RNR23) when the protocol level increased because the concrete dam­
age expanded. By contrast, the vertical segments had a negligible reac­
tion during the loading process, mostly with a value lower than 1500 με.
4.3.4. Strain on concrete surface
Cracks on the concrete surfaces can also reflect the internal stress
state. Figs. 5, 7, and 9 show the schematics of crack development at
various load magnitudes and failure modes. It was found that he diag­
onal failure shear key had the most distributed cracks, whereas the
sliding failure shear key had the least cracks, and they are restricted to
the construction joint. The horizontal failure shear key had moderate
cracks that occurred close to the interface and extended downward
when it reached the backwall edge. The results of the grouped strain
gauges are shown in Tables 4 and 5 to understand the complex stress
state at different positions. In addition, the complex stress state was
analyzed according to the geometric relationship of these gauges. The
directions of the maximum and minimum principal stress/strain can be
calculated using the grouped gauges result, and the Poisson ratio ν =
0.218 was taken for concrete.
Accordingly, Fig. 23 shows the direction of the principal stress/
strain, in which the absolute value was used for the illustration. As can
be observed here, the direction varied significantly for different failure
modes. The diagonal failure mode specimen had the largest angle of 40◦ .
The horizontal failure specimen exhibited a lower result at 32◦ . The
crack in the sliding failure shear key merged almost parallel to the
interface, and the average angle was 22◦ . The results of all failure mode
H. Mei and A. Guo Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173

Table 4
Results of outer strain gauge on concrete surface at the initial stage.
Tested Horizontal Vertical Diagonal Max principal Min principal Max shear Max principal
specimen strain strain strain strain strain strain direction
(με) (με) (με) (με) (με) (με) (deg)

SKH1 87.00 − 44.00 − 9.00 128.59 − 28.85 78.72 − 29.98

SKH2 12.00 115.00 85.00 124.30 − 0.267 62.28 − 30.62
SKH4 38.00 112.00 82.00 123.08 30.37 46.36 –33.53
SKD1 40.00 100.00 55.00 104.28 17.20 43.54 − 40.93
SKD2 79.00 − 104.00 38.00 209.28 − 59.66 134.47 − 41.40
SKD3 − 1.00 276.00 82.00 248.12 − 144.54 196.33 − 40.00
SKD4 16.00 130.00 63.00 127.28 − 26.25 76.77 − 37.72
SKS1 77.00 − 27.00 − 25.00 93.64 − 27.14 60.39 –23.05
SKS2 162.00 − 84.00 − 90.00 188.89 − 96.82 142.86 − 21.80

Table 5
Results of inner strain gauge on concrete surface at the initial stage.
Tested Horizontal Vertical Diagonal Max principal Min principal Max shear Max principal
specimen strain strain strain strain strain strain direction
(με) (με) (με) (με) (με) (με) (deg)

SKH1 116.00 − 4.00 36.00 170.62 23.75 73.43 − 31.72

SKH2 − 280.00 254.00 85.00 200.49 − 449.85 325.17 − 31.28
SKH4 80.00 − 188.00 − 100.00 150.97 − 176.55 163.76 − 31.59
SKD1 2.00 114.00 32.00 102.32 − 58.85 80.59 − 40.60
SKD2 110.00 − 28.00 78.00 221.23 19.18 101.02 − 41.26
SKD3 42.00 − 50.00 18.00 104.78 − 28.05 66.42 − 40.73
SKD4 92.00 10.00 60.00 152.94 41.43 55.76 − 38.19
SKS1 92.00 − 48.00 − 56.00 104.43 − 58.39 81.41 − 20.86
SKS2 120.00 − 137.00 − 143.00 134.54 − 163.95 149.24 − 21.83

earthquake, whereas the sliding failure mode has poor performance in

this respect. According to Fig. 24(a), the maximum energy dissipation
occurs at around 60 mm for both horizontal and diagonal failure modes,
whereas the sliding failure shear key indicates a stable result within
30–100 mm and reaches to the peak values at around 120 mm. Hori­
zontal failure shear key exhibits a moderate result that corresponds to an
acceptable performance during earthquake by extensively considering
the second-strengthening stage. Furthermore, the transverse reinforce­
ment in SKD4 results in a significant decrease of dissipated energy, while
it has negligible effects on SKH4, as seen in Fig. 24(c).

4.5. Comparison with existing analytical models

A number of researchers, as well as design codes for shear key

Fig. 23. Principal direction analysis results based on grouped strain gauges.
shear keys were consistent with the field observations shown in Figs. 5, 7
and 9. However, it is noteworthy that the analysis results in Tables 4 and
5 were only applicable within the initial stage because the grouped
strain gauges were damaged when the crack width increased at higher
load magnitudes.
4.4. Energy dissipation analysis
The energy dissipated by RC structures is an important parameter to
characterize their seismic performance, and RC structures dissipate en­
ergy mainly by inelastic deformation related to concrete and rein­
forcement. According to the field investigation and test results, the ways
in which shear keys dissipate energy varies considerably depending on
the failure modes. Therefore, the energy dissipation is analyzed for each
cycle of loading, and the overall energy dissipation is compared with
respect to different failure modes, as seen in Fig. 24. It is found the di­
agonal failure shear key has the largest energy dissipation, while the
sliding failure mode has the least, showing that diagonal failure shear
key can more effectively dissipate energy for bridges subjected to an
component, have addressed the importance of estimating the mechani­
cal properties of RC shear keys, and several analytical models have been
proposed to predict the peak capacity and envelope curve. In this study,
the test results and existing models are compared in Fig. 25, in which the
average capacity for each failure mode is presented by a shadow region.
It can be found here that, the peak capacity of diagonal failure shear key
can be relatively well estimated by Megally (2001) model, whereas the
method by Zielinski (1995) yields poor applicability. In addition,
AASHTO method provides an over-estimated strength, while Caltrans
has significantly lower capacity than the measurement. By contrast, the
fitness of prediction becomes lower for horizontal failure mode, since
the related researches is yet limited in amount. Specifically, the sliding
failure shear key has poor estimation on the peak strength, where the
minimum error is >7 % for Megally-friction (2001) model, implying the
existing codes can barely predict the peak capacity of this type of shear
key.
Furthermore, the experimental outcomes are compared with the
existing research in terms of the force–displacement relationship
throughout the loading process. The analytical model proposed by
Megally is employed for this purpose, and the results of different failure
modes are presented in Fig. 26. As Megally’s model was originally
developed for a monolithically-casted shear key, the results of sliding

14
H. Mei and A. Guo Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173

Fig. 24. Energy dissipation of different failure modes: (a) energy in each loading cycle; (b) overall energy at each loading cycle; (c) maximum energy at Δ = 100 mm;
(d) maximum energy at Δ = 140 mm.

for this failure mode, where the capacity difference value is over 300 kN,
see Fig. 26(b).

5. Conclusion

This study presents a quasi-static experiment on the seismic perfor­

mance of RC exterior shear keys with three failure modes. Ten quasi-
static experiments were performed on exterior shear keys with hori­
zontal, diagonal, and sliding failure modes. Based on the test results and
analysis, the conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows:

(1) The RC shear key exhibits different seismic performances

Fig. 25. Comparison of peak capacity between test results and existing models.
failure shear key are excluded here for comparison. It can be seen here
that the analytical model agrees well with both horizontal and diagonal
failure shear keys before the peak capacity. The maximum capacity is
overestimated for horizontal failure mode but underestimated for di­
agonal failure mode. Nonetheless, Megally’s method shows a poor per­
formance toward the post-peak capacity for horizontal failure shear key.
The second-strengthening stage is not reflected, while a plateau stage is
defined in this approach instead, as seen in Fig. 26(a). The figure also
indicates that the capacity after 60 mm is significantly overestimated
with a maximum value of 300 kN. In comparison, the analytical model
shows relatively good agreement with diagonal failure shear key, in
which the post-peak capacity is well predicted prior to the plateau-like
stage. However, the ultimate strength is considerably underestimated
depending on the reinforcement configuration. The capacity ratio
of the horizontal and vertical reinforcements is the primary factor
affecting the failure mode under cyclic action. This study shows
that the shear keys exhibits horizontal failure when the capacity
ratio approaches 2.49, whereas diagonal failure is associated with
a ratio close to 0.80.
(2) The force–displacement relationship indicates that the exterior
shear key with the horizontal failure mode exhibits an evident
secondary-strengthening capacity. The shear key with diagonal
failure exhibits the largest initial stiffness that gradually de­
creases as protocol proceeds. By contrast, the sliding failure shear
key has the least stiffness owing to the absence of interface
connection.
(3) The peak resistance of the shear keys is affected by multiple
factors, including the horizontal, vertical, distributed reinforce­
ment, and the interface state. For the shear key with horizontal
failure mode, the vertical reinforcement determines the capacity
because the sufficient horizontal rebar ensures the development

15
H. Mei and A. Guo
Fig. 26. Comparison of envelope curves for shear keys with different failure modes: (a) horizontal failure mode; (b) diagonal failure mode.
of the ultimate strength. However, with a deficient horizontal
constraint, the resistance depends on the capacity of the hori­
zontal reinforcement because the concrete is crushed ahead of the
rebar fracture, resulting in the diagonal failure mode.
(4) Existing codes and researches can provide acceptable capacity
estimation for diagonal failure shear key, whereas it is poorly
predicted for the shear keys with horizontal or sliding failure
modes. Further study is required to present more accurate
method for the capacity prediction of these two failure modes.
(5) Existing model of shear key envelope curve shows relatively good
agreement with diagonal failure mode in terms of the curve shape
but underestimates the peak capacity and ultimate strength.
However, it has limited applicability to horizontal failure shear
key due to the poor prediction toward peak capacity, second-
strengthening stage and post-peak capacity.
In this study, the horizontal failure shear key presents significant
second-strengthening phase that follows a local minimum capacity. This
property can be further employed to promote the robustness of bridge
once sustaining a succeeding event such as after-shock, tsunami and
landslide. Consequently, the safety of superstructures can be guaranteed
by the sufficient residual strength of this type of shear key. It should be
noted that, the exact criterion of capacity ratio that determines the
failure mode is not available in this research, since it mainly focuses on
the comparison between different failure modes. To this regard, further
efforts are required to provide insights in the prospective research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Heng Mei: Investigation, Data curation. Anxin Guo: Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
The financial supports from the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (51921006, 51725801), Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities (FRFCU5710093320) and Heilongjiang Touyan
Innovation Team Program are greatly appreciated by the authors.
16
Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173
References
[1] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, customary U.S. units.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. 2012.
[2] Caltrans. Caltrans bridge design specifications. California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, California, USA. 2000.
[3] Yen WP, Chen G, Yashinski M, Hashash Y, Holub C, Wang K, et al. Lessons in bridge
damage learned from the Wenchuan earthquake. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2009;8:
275–85.
[4] Li J, Peng T, Xu Y. Damage investigation of girder bridges under the Wenchuan
earthquake and corresponding seismic design recommendations. Earthq Eng Eng
Vib 2008;7:337–44.
[5] Han Q, Du X, Liu J, Li Z, Li L, Zhao J. Seismic damage of highway bridges during
the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2009;8:263–73.
[6] Kawashima K, Takahashi Y, Ge H, Wu Z, Zhang J. Reconnaissance report on
damage of bridges in 2008 Wenchuan, China, earthquake. J Earthq Eng 2009;13:
965–96.
[7] Buckle I, Hube M, Chen G, Yen W, Arias J. Structural performance of bridges in the
offshore Maule earthquake of 27 February 2010. Earthq Spectra 2012;28:533–52.
[8] Kawashima K, Unjoh S, Hoshikuma J, Kosa K. Damage of bridges due to the 2010
Maule, Chile, earthquake. J Earthq Eng 2011;15:1036–68.
[9] Schanack F, Valdebenito G, Alvial J. Seismic damage to bridges during the 27
February 2010 magnitude 8.8 Chile earthquake. Earthq Spectra 2012;28:301–15.
[10] Yashinsky M, Oviedo R, Ashford S, GabaldonL F, Hube M. Performance of highway
and railway structures during the February 27, 2010 Maule Chile earthquake.
EERI/PEER FHWA Bridge Team. Report 2010.
[11] de Carreteras M. Manual de Carreteras. Ministerio de Obras Publicas, Dirección de
Vialidad, Volumen 3: vólumen N 3. Instrucciones y criterios de diseño, Capítulo
3.1000: Diseño de Puentes y Estructuras Afines. Ministerio de Obras Públicas
Santiago, Chile. 2015.
[12] Takahashi Y, Hoshikuma J. Damage to road bridges induced by ground motion in
the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. Journal of JSCE 2013;1:398–410.
[13] Scawthorn C, Porter KA, Risk S. Aspects of the 11 March 2011 Eastern Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami. Reconnaissance. Report 2011.
[14] Akiyama M, Frangopol DM, Arai M, Koshimura S. Reliability of Bridges under
Tsunami Hazards: Emphasis on the 2011 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake. Earthq Spectra
2013;29:295–314.
[15] Japan Road Association. Design specifications of highway bridges, Part V: Seismic
design. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Road Association. 2012.
[16] Zilch K, Reinecke R. Capacity of shear joints between high-strength precast
elements and normal-strength cast-in-place decks. PCI/FHWA/FIB International
Symposium on High Performance ConcretePrecast/Prestressed Concrete
InstituteFederal Highway AdministrationFederation Internationale du Beton. 2000.
[17] Mattock AH. Shear transfer in concrete having reinforcement at an angle to the
shear plane. Special Publication 1974;42:17–42.
[18] Loov R, Patnaik A. Horizontal shear strength of composite concrete beams with a
rough interface. PCI J 1994;39:1.
[19] Mansur M, Vinayagam T, Tan KH. Shear transfer across a crack in reinforced high-
strength concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 2008;20:294–302.
[20] Megally SH, Silva PF, Seible F. Seismic response of sacrificial shear keys in bridge
abutments. SSRP 2001:23.
[21] Silva PF, Megally SH, Seible F. Seismic performance of sacrificial exterior shear
keys in bridge abutments. Earthq Spectra 2009;25:643–64.
[22] Bozorgzadeh A, Megally SH, Ashford SA, Restrepo JI. Seismic response of
sacrificial exterior shear keys in bridge abutments. SSRP 2007;4:14.
[23] Bozorgzadeh A, Megally SH, Restrepo JI, Ashford SA. Capacity evaluation of
exterior sacrificial shear keys of bridge abutments. J Bridg Eng 2006;11:555–65.
[24] Han Q, Zhou Y, Zhong Z, Du X. Seismic capacity evaluation of exterior shear keys
of highway bridges. J Bridg Eng 2017;22:04016119.
[25] Han Q, Zhou Y, Ou Y, Du X. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete sacrificial
exterior shear keys of highway bridges. Eng Struct 2017;139:59–70.
H. Mei and A. Guo
[26] Bi K, Hao H. Modelling of shear keys in bridge structures under seismic loads. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 2015;74:56–68.
[27] Wilches J, Santa Maria H, Leon R, Riddell R, Hube M, Arrate C. Evolution of
seismic design codes of highway bridges in Chile. Earthq Spectra 2021;37:
2174–204.
[28] Wilches J, Santa María H, Riddell R, Arrate C. Influence of the use of external shear
keys on the seismic behavior of Chilean highway bridges. Eng Struct 2017;147:
613–24.
[29] Wilches J, Leon R, Santa María H, Fernández C, Restrepo JI. New technique for
self-centering shear keys in highway bridges. Eng Struct 2022;250:113395.
[30] Ministry of Transport. JTG/T B02-01-2008, Guidelines for seismic design of
highway bridges. China Department of Transportation. 2008.
[31] Xu L, Li J. Experiment on seismic performance and its imporovement of reinforced
concrete retrainer. China Journal of Highway Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2014;27:41–8.
17
Engineering Structures 287 (2023) 116173
[32] Liu K, Han Q, Zhou Y, Ding Z. Behavior experiment and capacity evaluation of
resilient exterior shear key of bridge (in Chinese). Engineering Mechanics 2016;33
(171–8):211.
[33] Bozorgzadeh A, Megally SH, Restrepo JI, Ashford SA. Seismic response and
capacity evaluation of exterior sacrificial shear keys in bridge abutments.
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
BC, Canada. 2004.
[34] Huang H, Hao R, Zhang W, Huang M. Experimental study on seismic performance
of square RC columns subjected to combined loadings. Eng Struct 2019;184:
194–204.
[35] Meda A, Minelli F, Plizzari GA. Flexural behaviour of RC beams in fibre reinforced
concrete. Compos B Eng 2012;43:2930–7.
[36] Tavares DH, Padgett JE, Paultre P. Fragility curves of typical as-built highway
bridges in eastern Canada. Eng Struct 2012;40:107–18.
[37] Shang Q, Wang T, Li J. Seismic fragility of flexible pipeline connections in a base
isolated medical building. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2019;18:903–16.