Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T23:26:08.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seismic Performance and Effects of Different Joint Shapes for Unbonded Precast Segmental Bridge Columns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2016

H.-L. Wang ,
S.-W. Liu  and
Z. Zhang
H.-L. Wang*
Affiliation:
The Institute of Bridge EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalian, China
S.-W. Liu
Affiliation:
The Institute of Bridge EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalian, China
Z. Zhang
Affiliation:
The Institute of Bridge EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalian, China
*
*Corresponding author (wanghuili@dlut.edu.cn)
Get access

Abstract

To study the seismic performance and the effects of different joint shapes for unbonded precast segmental bridge columns under low-reversed cyclic loading, two 3-D finite element (FE) models respectively using plane-contact joints and shear resistant joints were established. In the FE models, the mechanical behaviors of concrete and tendons were respectively described by the damage-plastic model and the bilinear model, and the contact criteria was based on Coulomb's Friction. The results of nonlinear time history analysis showed that the deformation of the columns was mainly composed of alternately open-closed joints, and the failure of the column was mainly caused by concrete crush on the bottom segment. Compared with two model's hysteresis loop, backbone curve, ductility and residual deformation, it was found that the column with shear resistant joints had longer stable period of strength, better ductility, and smaller residual displacement than the column with plane-contact joints, so it had better seismic performance.

Keywords

Precast segmental bridge columnPosttensioned strandsHysteresis performanceSwing system
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Mechanics , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , August 2016 , pp. 427 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hewes, J. T. and Priestley, M. J. N., “Seismic Design and Performance of Precast Concrete Segmental Bridge Columns,” M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, San Diego, U.S.A. (2002).Google Scholar
2. Wang, Z. Q., Song, W., Wang, Y. Y. and Wei, H. Y., “Numerical Analytical Model for Seismic Behavior of Prestressing Concrete Bridge Column Systems,” Procedia Engineering, 14, pp. 2333–2340 (2011).Google Scholar
3. Wang, Z. Q., Ge, J. P. and Wei, H. Y., “Seismic Performance of Precast Hollow Bridge Piers with Different Construction Details,” Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 8, pp. 399–413 (2014).Google Scholar
4. Chou, C. C. and Chen, Y. C., “Cyclic Tests of Post-Tensioned Precast CFT Segmental Bridge Columns with Unbonded Strands,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35, pp. 159–175 (2006).Google Scholar
5. Palermo, A., Pampanin, S. and Marriott, D., “Design, Modeling, and Experimental Response of Seismic Resistant Bridge Piers with Posttensioned Dissipating Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 131, pp. 1648–1661 (2007).Google Scholar
6. Wang, J. C., Ou, Y. C., Chang, K. C. and Lee, G. C., “Large-Scale Seismic Tests of Tall Concrete Bridge Columns with Precast Segmental Construction,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37, pp. 1449–1465 (2008).Google Scholar
7. Motaref, S., Saiidi, M. S. and Sanders, D., “Shake Table Studies of Energy-Dissipating Segmental Bridge Columns,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, pp. 186–199 (2014).Google Scholar
8. Kim, T. H., Lee, H. M., Kim, Y. J. and Shin, H. M., “Performance Assessment of Precast Concret Segmental Bridge Columns with a Shear Resistant Connecting Structure,” Engineering Structures, 32, pp. 1292–1303 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. ElGawady, M. A., Booker, A. J. and Dawood, H. M., “Seismic Behavior of Posttensioned Oncrete-Filled Fiber Tubes,” Journal of Composites for Construction, pp. 616–628 (2010).Google Scholar
10. ElGawady, M. A. and Sha'lan, A., “Seismic Behavior of Self-Centering Precast Segmental Bridge Ents,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, pp. 328–339 (2011).Google Scholar
11. Youm, K. S., Cho, J. Y., Lee, Y. H. and Kim, J. J., “Seismic Performance of Modular Columns Made of Concrete Filled FRP Tubes,” Engineering Structures, 57, pp. 37–50 (2013).Google Scholar
12. Nikabakht, E., Rashid, K., Hejazi, F., Osman, S. A. and Mohseni, I., “Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of PC Segmental Bridge Columns Subjected to Quasi-Static Loading,” International Journal of Advancements Civil Structural and Environmental Engineering, 1, pp. 28–31 (2013).Google Scholar
13. Dawood, H., ElGawady, M. and Hewes, J., “Behavior of Segmental Precast Posttensioned Bridge Piers Under Lateral Loads,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, pp. 735–746 (2012).Google Scholar
14. Motaref, S., Saiidi, M. S. and Sanders, D., “Shake Table Studies of Energy-Dissipating Segmental Bridge Columns,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, pp. 186–199 (2014).Google Scholar
15. Trono, W., Jen, G., Panagiotou, M., Schoettler, M. and Ostergag, C. P., “Seismic Response of a Damage-Resistant Recentering Posttensioned-HYFRC Bridge Column,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000692 (2014).Google Scholar
16. Lee, J. and Fenves, G. L., “Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic Loading of Concrete Structures,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 124, pp. 892–900 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Hognestad, E., “Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete Members,” Technical Reports, College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign (1951).Google Scholar
18. Zhang, G. L. and Su, J., “Nonlinearity Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Based on ABAQUS,” Technology and Engineering, 20, pp. 5620–5624 (2008).Google Scholar