Hollow Bridge Columns With Triangular Confining Reinforcement

Page 1 of 45
Hollow bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement
Tae-Hoon Kim a,*, Ick-Hyun Kim b, Jae-Hoon Lee c, and Hyun Mock Shin d
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Auburn University - Draughton Library on 04/29/19. For personal use only.
a Principal Researcher, Construction Technology Team, Samsung Construction & Trading Corporation,
145, Pangyoyeok-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 13530, Korea
b Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Ulsan, 93, Daehak-ro,
Nam-gu, Ulsan-si, 44610, Korea
c Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Yeungnam University, 280, Daehak-ro, Gyeongsan-si,
Gyeongsangbuk-do, 38541, Korea
d Emeritus Professor, Architectural and Civil Engineering Department, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066,
Seobu-ro, Jangan-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, 16419, Korea
* Corresponding author: Tae-Hoon Kim (e-mail: neopilot@naver.com)

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to assess the structural performance of hollow bridge
columns with triangular confining reinforcement. The proposed triangular
reinforcement details were equal to the conventional reinforcement details in terms of
required structural performance. The triangular confining reinforcement is also
economically feasible and rational, and facilitate shorter construction periods. Three
hollow cast-in-situ concrete and three precast concrete bridge columns were tested.
The behavior of the hollow columns is discussed in terms of their lateral load-drift
relationship, cumulative dissipated energy, and lateral load-strain curves. The
nonlinear finite element analysis program RCAHEST (Reinforced Concrete Analysis in
Higher Evaluation System Technology) was used to analyze hollow bridge columns,
1
Page 2 of 45
and adopted a modified joint element for the precast concrete bridge columns. The
results showed that the proposed innovative reinforcement details were superior to the
conventional reinforcement details, in terms of the required structural performance.

Key words: structural performance; hollow cast-in-situ bridge columns; hollow precast bridge columns; triangular
confining reinforcement; economically feasible

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
1. Introduction
Hollow column cross-sections are widely used because they offer the advantages of
high bending and torsional stiffness, reduced substructure weight, and resulting in
savings in foundation costs. For these reasons, reinforced concrete bridge columns
with hollow cross-sections are widely designed and constructed for highway, high-
speed rail, and other bridge columns (Lignola et al. 2011; Kim et al. 2013, 2014; Han et
al. 2014; Liang et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2018).
Traditional hollow reinforced concrete bridge columns are designed based on
economic considerations of the cost saving associated with reduced material and design
moments compared with increased construction complexity of hollow column cross-
sections, and hence increased labor costs (Zahn et al. 1990; Yeh et al. 2001; Delgado et
al. 2008; Kim et al. 2012a).
2
Page 3 of 45
Hollow reinforced concrete columns were used with two layers of confinement
reinforcement placed near the inside and outside faces, as well as cross-ties placed
through the wall thickness. In the previous studies performed by the authors (Kim et
al. 2013, 2014), a new configuration of confining reinforcement was proposed to solve
the problem of construction complexity of conventional hollow column cross-sections.
The proposed triangular reinforcement details were expected to help the column to
exhibit sufficient ductility and design strength. The triangular confining reinforcement
also plays a role in preventing longitudinal reinforcement buckling.
The main aim of this study is to expand the application of the triangular confinement
modules to hollow bridge columns with a hollow ratio (inner / outer diameter ratio) to
0.8. Additionally, current study extends the application of precast concrete bridge
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
columns along with the triangular confinement modules.
Precast segmental bridge columns provide the benefits of increasing construction
speed and quality, reducing environmental pollution, and decreasing life cycle costs.
Recently, various studies have been carried out abroad on the inelastic behavior and
performance of precast segmental bridge columns (Billington et al. 2001; Chou and
Chen 2006; Kim et al. 2010; Dawood et al. 2012; Kim et al. 2017). Billington et al.
(2001) proposed substructures by developing attractive and rapidly constructed
substructure systems for short- and moderate-span bridges. Chou and Chen (2006)
verified a method to estimate the experimental flexural displacement using two plastic
hinges in the segmental column. Kim et al. (2010) investigated the performance of
precast concrete segmental bridge columns with a shear resistant connecting structure.
Dawood et al. (2012) presented a detailed three-dimensional finite-element (FE) model
for segmental precast posttensioned (SPPT) bridge piers. Kim et al. (2017) established
3
Page 4 of 45
the behavior of hollow precast segmental prestressed concrete bridge columns under
cyclic loading.
In this paper, hollow cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete bridge columns are
tested under a constant axial load and a quasi-static, cyclically reversed horizontal load.
Many parameters can influence the overall hollow cross-section response, such as the
reinforcement details, the shape of the cross-section, the spacing of the transverse
reinforcement, and the material strength of the concrete and reinforcement.
An assessment method for the performance of hollow bridge columns with triangular
confining reinforcement is proposed. The proposed method uses the computer
program, RCAHEST, developed by the authors (Kim et al. 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012b,
2013, 2014, 2017, 2018). A joint element is modified in order to predict the inelastic
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
behaviors of segmental joints for hollow precast bridge columns.
2. Triangular confining reinforcement for hollow bridge columns
Hollow bridge columns have become popular in bridge construction during the last
few decades. Hollow cross-sections are often used for tall bridge columns to reduce
their mass, seismic inertia forces, and foundation forces (Kim et al. 2012b).
Figure 1 shows the developed hollow bridge column cross-sections with triangular
confining reinforcement details. In conventional practice, a number of layers of
longitudinal and transverse steel are placed near both the outside and inside faces of the
hollow circular cross-section of bridge columns, and are tied through the wall thickness
with cross-ties. Normally, a 135-degree bend or full hook should be specified for at
4
Page 5 of 45
least one end of the cross-tie. These hollow column cross-sections have increased
construction complexity, and hence increased labor costs (see Fig. 1(a)).
In the previous studies performed by the authors (Kim et al. 2013, 2014), the
developed reinforcement details for material quantity reduction consist of a stable
triangular structure that combines outside transverse reinforcement and triangular cross-
ties. The transverse steel placed near the inside face and the cross-ties may not
significantly contribute to the confinement of the concrete wall in the hollow cross-
section (Zahn et al. 1990; Hoshikuma and Priestley 2000). The details involve
applying a sparsely spaced inner reinforcement in circular hollow cross- sections, in
order to control non-structural cracks (the serviceability limit state) (see Fig. 1(b)).
This paper presents a new design concept of hollow cast-in-situ concrete and precast
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
concrete bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement. These innovative
reinforcement details offer economic feasibility and rationality, and facilitate shorter
construction periods (see Fig. 1(c)). Figures 1(c) and (d) also show the design concept
of the proposed hollow precast concrete bridge columns with triangular confining
reinforcement. A segmentally precast concrete bridge column consists of relatively
small, easily handled segments. After all the precast column segments were erected,
longitudinal reinforcement was inserted in the sheath prefabricated in the segments,
which were then mortar grouted. The use of precast segmental construction for
concrete bridges has increased in recent years due to the demand for shorter
construction periods and the desire for innovative designs that yield safe, economical
and efficient structures (Kim et al. 2010).
The proposed triangular reinforcement details with corrugated sheaths are both
structurally and constructionally efficient, facilitating shorter construction periods by
5
Page 6 of 45
prefabricating triangular modules and reducing steel congestion. The use of the
triangular modules can meet the tolerance of 3 mm required for segmental precast
columns, which has been often troublesome for regular precast columns. Each pre-
fabricated triangular module can also stand alone prior to fabricating a whole bridge
column cage. The developed pre-fabricated triangular confinement modules have
many structural and constructional advantages such as: superior concrete confinement;
seismic performance; increased moment capacity with outer longitudinal rebars;
reduced construction time; stability of steel cage modules; minimized tolerance
(particularly for precast segmental columns); reduced steel congestion; and material
efficiency.
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
3. Experimental investigation
3.1 Test specimens and procedure
An experimental investigation was conducted to evaluate the performance of hollow
bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement.
Three cast-in-situ and three precast hollow column specimens were tested under
cyclic lateral loads while being simultaneously subjected to constant axial loads. It is
considered appropriate to use the current code provisions (AASHTO 2014; MCT 2015)
on the concrete confinement for the plastic hinge regions in the design of hollow bridge
columns for use in moderate to low seismic regions by the following equation:
6
Page 7 of 45
𝑓′𝑐
(1) For a circular column: 𝜌𝑠 = 0.12𝑓𝑦ℎ
𝑓′𝑐
(2) For a rectangular column: 𝐴𝑠ℎ = 0.12𝑎ℎ𝑐𝑓𝑦ℎ
where 𝜌𝑠 = volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement; 𝑓′𝑐 = concrete compressive
strength; 𝑓𝑦ℎ = yield strength of transverse reinforcement; 𝐴𝑠ℎ = cross-sectional area
of column tie reinforcements; 𝑎 = vertical spacing of hoops; and ℎ𝑐 = core dimension
of tied column in direction under consideration.
Table 1 lists the materials properties used in cast-in-situ and precast column
specimens, and Figures 2 and 3 show the geometric details. The cast-in-situ circular
column has a 1400 mm outer diameter and 1050 mm inner diameter. The precast
rectangular column has a 1000×1000 mm cross-section with 500×500 mm hole in the

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
center.
The first character of the specimen ID refers to the shape of the cross-section
(Circular or Rectangular), the second character refers to the configuration type
(Conventional or Triangular) and the third character represents the spacing of the
confining steel (80 mm or 120 mm). In addition, the character N indicates that
minimum inner lateral reinforcement was used.
A schematic representation of the test set-up for column specimens is shown in Fig. 4.
The load was applied at the column top by a servo-controlled 3500 kN capacity
hydraulic actuator with a  600 mm stroke reaching off the laboratory strong wall.
The same procedures were used for each test. The column specimens were tested
under a 0.1𝑓′𝑐𝐴𝑔 and 0.07𝑓′𝑐𝐴𝑔 constant compressive axial load to simulate the
gravity load from bridge superstructures (see Table 1). The displacement was
represented by using drift ratio. The specimens were subjected to two cycles at each
7
Page 8 of 45
lateral displacement amplitudes of 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5
and 6.0 percent until failure.
Measurements were then manually triggered based on the lateral actuator running in
displacement control. Strains of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement were
measured with the strain gauges attached at the positions shown in Fig. 5. The strain
gauges placed at several locations in the region were affected by significant inelastic
flexural behavior.
3.2 Results of experiments
The drift responses for the column specimens are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Figures 6
and 7 also show the nominal strength of the columns and the damage of the specimens
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
beyond end of test. The nominal strengths obtained from the design code (AASHTO
2014; MCT 2015) are conservative for six hollow column specimens with proposed and
conventional reinforcement details.
It was observed from the test, the similarity in the shape of the hysteresis curves of
specimens. The physical phenomena that similarly occurred during all tests include:
cracking, yielding, spalling of cover concrete, buckling, and fracture of rebars.
Flexural cracks perpendicular to the column axis developed first in regions close to
the bottom end of the three cast-in-situ columns (drift 0.50%). The flexural cracks
became inclined and extended due to the influence of shear, typically at a stage
exceeding the first yield of longitudinal reinforcing bars (drift 1.50%). Plastic hinges
were fully formed at the bottom end of the columns, which contributed to the
development of ductility (drift 3.00%).
Minor concrete cracking was found on the surface of the column during the test of the
8
Page 9 of 45
three precast columns. The joint opening between the foundation and the first column
segment increased as the applied lateral displacement increased. Almost the entire
joint opening was concentrated at the joint between the foundation and the first column
segment. Other joints had not obviously opened by the end of the test.
The concrete cover at the base of the cast-in-situ and precast column specimens had
spalled off and hence the transverse reinforcement is clearly seen. Note that the core
concrete inside stirrups remained effective in carrying the compressive load.
Subsequent displacement steps in the negative direction beyond this point were
accompanied by a significant decrease in lateral load.
Figures 6 and 7 also show a good seismic performance of the proposed hollow cast-
in-situ concrete and precast concrete bridge column with respect to reference specimens:
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
CC-80 and RC-80. This is because more effective confinement is provided by links
having triangular reinforcement details than that provided by 90-degree hooks. The
opening of the 90-degree-hooks in the cross-ties, longitudinal bar buckling, core
crushing, fracturing of hoops or cross-ties occurred at large strain values. The
triangular confining reinforcement was evaluated to ensure that longitudinal
reinforcement buckling failure would not occur. Internal damage was also monitored
as shown in Figs. 6 and 7, further widespread damage in the conventional specimen
series rather than in the proposed specimen series.
All six hollow cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete bridge column specimens
exhibited ductile behavior under cyclic loading. The ductility ratios ranged from 4.9 to
6.6 (see Table 2). The displacement ductility is defined as the ratio between the limit
point and the yielding point. The yielding point was defined as the displacement
corresponding to the intersection of the horizontal line passing through 0.75𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 on
9
Page 10 of 45
the load-displacement envelope curve and the straight line passing through 0.75𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥
from the origin, and the limit point was defined as the displacement corresponding to
0.85𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 after the maximum load (Park 1998).

The hysteretic energy dissipation of the column specimens was evaluated based on
the cumulative dissipated energy (see Figure 8). The dissipated energy was
determined by integrating the areas bound by all the hysteretic loops and it was found
that the hysteretic energy dissipation increased as column drift increased. The
proposed triangular reinforcement detail exhibited hysteretic behavior with satisfactory
hysteretic energy dissipation, as shown in Figure 8. For specimens CC-80 and CT-80,
the cumulative dissipation energy was 2104182 kN-mm (drift 5.0%) and 2708244 kN-
mm (drift 5.5%), respectively.

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Figure 9 shows the typical measured steel strains in the transverse reinforcement for
hollow cast-in-situ concrete specimens with innovative details. It was found that the
transverse reinforcement was subjected to low demand, with strains typically not
reaching above 2,000 microstrain. This indicates that the triangular confining
reinforcement was adequate to prevent fracture of the transverse reinforcement.
As shown in the figures, the effect of negative confinement (cracking of the inner
concrete cover) is diminished, because the confining action of the inner transverse
reinforcement is transferred by the links’ tensile actions towards the outer transverse
reinforcement, providing improved confinement of the concrete region in-between. It
was also observed that the presence of inner transverse reinforcement does not
significantly contribute to the strength and ductility of the confined section. The inner
concrete cover tended to crack and spall off at higher levels of axial strain, leading to
the observed reduced ductility. This adverse effect has been referred to as ‘negative
10
Page 11 of 45
confinement’ (Papanikolaou and Kappos 2009).

4. Analytical investigation
4.1 Description of numerical simulation
A two-dimensional finite element model for the hollow cast-in-situ concrete and
precast concrete bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement was developed
in this study.
The model was created and analyzed using the general-purpose finite element
software, FEAP (Taylor, 2000). The proposed structural element library for
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
RCAHEST (Kim et al. 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012b, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018) is built
around the finite element analysis program shell named the Finite Element Analysis
Program (FEAP). The details of the nonlinear material model used were provided in
previous research.
The elements developed for the nonlinear finite element analyses of reinforced
concrete bridge columns are a reinforced concrete plane stress element and an interface
element. The nonlinear material model for the reinforced concrete comprises models
for concrete and models for the reinforcing bars.
Models for concrete may be divided into models for uncracked concrete and for
cracked concrete. For cracked concrete, three models describe the behavior of
concrete in the direction normal to the crack plane, in the direction of the crack plane,
and in the shear direction at the crack plane, respectively. A modified elasto-plastic
fracture model is used to describe the compressive behavior of concrete struts in
11
Page 12 of 45
between cracks in the direction of the crack plane. The basic and widely-known model
adopted for crack representation is based on the non-orthogonal fixed-crack method of
the smeared crack concept.

The post-yield constitutive law for the reinforcing bar in concrete considers the bond
characteristics, and the model is a bilinear model. The transverse reinforcements
confine the compressed concrete in the core region and inhibit the buckling of the
longitudinal reinforcing bars.
This study adopted the model proposed by Mander et al. (1988) for normal strength
concrete of below 30 MPa and adopted the model proposed by Sun and Sakino (2000)
for high strength concrete of above 40 MPa. An analytical model was proposed for
confined intermediate strength concrete from 30 MPa to 40 MPa. The model

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
incorporates all relevant parameters of confinement with a smooth transition from 30
MPa to 40 MPa (Kim et al. 2008, 2010, 2012b). The stress-strain relationship for
confined concrete is given by
𝑓′𝑐𝑐 (𝑓′𝑐𝑜 ― 30) (40 ― 𝑓′𝑐𝑜)

(3) 𝑓′𝑐𝑜
= 10 𝑠𝑘𝑆𝑢𝑛&𝑆𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑜 + 10 𝑠𝑘𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 for 30 MPa <𝑓′𝑐𝑜  40 MPa
𝜀𝑐𝑐 (𝑓′𝑐𝑜 ― 30) (40 ― 𝑓′𝑐𝑜)

(4) 𝜀𝑐𝑜 = 10 𝑛𝑘𝑆𝑢𝑛&𝑆𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑜 + 10 𝑛𝑘𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 for 30 MPa <𝑓′𝑐𝑜  40 MPa
where 𝑓′𝑐𝑐 = confined concrete compressive strength; 𝑓′𝑐𝑜 = unconfined concrete
compressive strength; 𝑠𝑘 = confining parameter of strength; 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = peak strain of
confined concrete; 𝜀𝑐𝑜 = peak strain of unconfined concrete; 𝑛𝑘 = confining
parameter of strain.
The models consider the yield strength, the distribution type, and the amount of
longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars to compute the effective lateral confining
stress and the ultimate compressive strength and strain of the confined concrete (Kim et
12
Page 13 of 45
al. 2008, 2010, 2012b). This is similar to the formula suggested by Mander et al.
(1988) for the triaxial stress condition, but the reduced confinement effectiveness
coefficient corresponding to the ratio of the inside-to-outside diameters of the bridge

column cross-section is applied.
Figures 10 and 11 show the finite element discretization and the boundary conditions
for hollow cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete bridge columns specimens,
respectively.
The 8-node isoparametric elements were used and in the cross-section where the load
is applied, a total of two 8-node elastic elements were used to prevent local concrete
failure. The 6-node interface elements between the footing and column were applied
to model the effects of localized discontinuous deformation. Accordingly, with the

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
stiffness changing rapidly in the column and footing, local discontinuous deformation
occurs that is part of the anchorage slip, shear slip at the joint plane, and penetration at
the joint plane.
The joints between the precast segments were also modeled using modified six-node
joint elements. In the joint model, the inelastic behavior of the joint elements is
governed by normal and tangential stiffness coefficients. In the simulation, the
modified joint elements representing these segmental joints had also cracked and
opened. Experimental evidence indicates that the failure of this material can be
described by a Coulomb type relationship. The angle of internal friction and cohesion
are respectively 45°and 5.88 MPa.
Figures 10(a) and 11(a) also show a method for transforming a hollow cross-section
into rectangular strips when using plane stress elements. For rectangular cross-
sections, equivalent strips are calculated. After the internal forces are calculated, the
13
Page 14 of 45
equilibrium is checked.
In this transformation of a hollow cross-section to a rectangular cross-section, a
cross-section with minimum error was selected through iterative calculations

concerning the moment of inertia for the cross-section and area of concrete and
reinforcements, to ensure that the behavior was similar to the actual behavior of bridge
columns with hollow cross-sections (Kim et al. 2018).
For the physical properties of reinforcements and concrete, the same values as those
used in the experiment were applied, as shown in Table 1.
4.2 Comparison with experimental results
The lateral load-displacement responses for column specimens are shown in Figs. 12
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
and 13. The analytical results show reasonable correspondence with the experimental
results; comparative data is summarized in Table 2. In predicting the results for the
specimens, the mean ratio of experimental to analytical maximum strength was 0.96,
with a Coefficient of Variation (COV) of 3%. Also, the mean ratio of experimental to
analytical ductility capacity was 0.91, with a COV of 6%.
The predicted ultimate strength was slightly larger than the actual strength of the
hollow bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement. Also, the predicted
displacement ductility was slightly overestimated compared to the actual column
displacement ductility.
The experimental hysteretic curves also shown in Figs. 12-13 exhibit asymmetry. It
was found that the main reasons were slip between base plate and column foundation,
initial axial load eccentricity. However, the analytical hysteretic curves exhibit
symmetry.
14
Page 15 of 45
Figure 14 compares the strain at each Gaussian integration point in the lower part of
the column at failure, obtained from a nonlinear finite element analysis of the specimens.
In Figure 14, the horizontal axis represents the outside and inside diameter of each
specimen while the vertical axis represents the strain in the lower part of the column at
each Gaussian integration point. The neutral axis locations predicted by the analytical
results are also shown. As shown in Figure 14, the neutral axes of the hollow circular
column specimens with proposed reinforcement details (CT-80 and CNT-80) are
located towards the centroid of the section. Also, the neutral axis of the hollow
circular column specimen with conventional reinforcement details (CC-80) is located
towards the centroid of the section. However, the neutral axes of the hollow
rectangular column specimens (RC-80, RT-80, and RT-120) were located in the wall at
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
failure.
5. Assessment of seismic performance
An analytical evaluation was developed to assess the damage states and performance
levels of solid reinforced concrete bridge columns (Kim et al. 2007). Explicit
descriptions of the different performance levels are defined to employ specific
engineering criteria (ATC 1996; FEMA 1997). This can be accomplished through
engineering limit states that can be expressed by limiting the values of quantities such
as damage indices (see Table 3). These damage indices were derived from a
parametric study using finite element analysis (Kim et al. 2007). The state of damage
in structures is often quantified by damage indices that are usually scaled to be zero in
15
Page 16 of 45
the case of an undamaged structure, and unity in the case of collapse.
Table 4 provides an example of such descriptions that might be associated with the
three performance levels. For the “fully operational” performance level, the column is
designed to remain almost undamaged, and repair is not required. For the “delayed
operational” performance level, the column is expected to sustain some damage that
impairs its full use and that might require repair. Finally, for the “stability”
performance level, the column can be expected to resist severe damage requiring partial
or complete replacement of the column (Kim et al. 2007, 2018).
The proposed assessment procedure predicts the damage state and performance level
for hollow cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete bridge column specimens as shown
in Fig. 15, and describes the damage close to that observed in the test, as shown in
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Table 5. As shown in Fig. 15, vertical gray lines indicate drift ratios corresponding to
three performance levels: fully operational, delayed operational and stability.
It can be also seen from Fig. 15 that the T specimen series provided the expected
performance prior to the C specimen series. As a result, the proposed triangular
reinforcement details were determined prior to the conventional reinforcement details in
terms of required structural performance.
Table 5 also shows the evolution of the damage index and include the physical
damage occurring during the test. The used damage index shows a reasonable gradual
progression of damage throughout the load history. In general, a good agreement was
found between these values and those obtained from the experimental results of the
hollow cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete bridge columns.
The sequence of damage was similar for all hollow cast-in-situ concrete and precast
concrete bridge columns. Concrete cracking, longitudinal reinforcement yielding,
16
Page 17 of 45
initial spalling of the concrete cover, complete spalling of the concrete cover,
longitudinal reinforcement buckling, and longitudinal reinforcement fracture were
observed in sequence.
It is expected that, by using the proposed assessment procedure, the seismic
performance of hollow cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete bridge columns with
triangular confining reinforcement can be predicted accurately, enabling more rational
and reliable design of hollow bridge columns.
6. Conclusions
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
This paper presents a new design concept of hollow cast-in-situ concrete and precast
concrete bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement. An experimental
and analytical study was conducted to investigate the structural performance of hollow
bridge column specimens. From the results of the studies, the following conclusions
were reached.
 An experimental and analytical study was conducted to quantify performance
measures and examine one aspect of detailing for a set of developed triangular
confining reinforcement. It was concluded that the design concepts and
construction methods are promising solutions to the application of hollow cast-in-
situ concrete and precast concrete bridge columns with triangular reinforcement
details.
 The triangular reinforcement details for material quantity reduction might be an
17
Page 18 of 45
excellent alternative to conventional reinforcement details for easier, more reliable,
and more rapid construction. In-depth discussion revealed that the pre-fabricated
triangular confinement modules for precast concrete bridge columns would offer
many structural and constructional advantages, such as better concrete confinement,
seismic performance, increased moment capacity with outer longitudinal
reinforcement, reduced construction time, stability of steel cage modules,
minimized tolerance, reduced steel congestion, and material efficiency.
 All six analyses predicted the experimental failure loads fairly well. The mean
ratio of experimental to analytical maximum strength was 0.96, with a Coefficient
of Variation (COV) of 3%. Also, the mean ratio of experimental to analytical
ductility capacity was 0.91, with a COV of 6%.

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
 The proposed assessment procedure should be carried out on hollow cast-in-situ
concrete and precast concrete bridge columns with triangular confining
reinforcement to evaluate the seismic performance level. Such an analysis for the
study of the seismic response of hollow bridge columns would lead to realistic and
safe design.
 More efforts should be directed to include certain procedures in the current design
codes to direct the engineers toward an acceptable method for evaluating the
structural performance in hollow bridge columns. Future work by the authors will
include a hollow bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement under
higher axial loads.
18
Page 19 of 45
References
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2014.

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition. AASHTO, Washington,
DC, USA.
ATC (Applied Technology Council) – 32. 1996. Improved Seismic Design Criteria for
California Bridges: Provisional Recommendations. Redwood City, California, USA.
Billington, S.L., Barnes, R.W., and Breen, J.E. 2001. Alternative substructure systems
for standard highway bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 6(2): 87-94.
Chou, C.-C., and Chen, Y.-C. 2006. Cyclic tests of post-tensioned precast CFT
segmental bridge columns with unbonded strands. Earthquake Engineering and

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Structural Dynamics, 35: 159-175.
Dawood, H., EIGawady, M., and Hewes, J. 2012. Behavior of segmental precast
posttensioned bridge piers under lateral loads. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE,
17(5): 735-746.
Delgado, P., Vila-Pouca, N., Arede, A., Rocha, P., Costa, A., and Delgado, R. 2008.
Experimental cyclic behavior of hollow-section bridge piers with different transverse
reinforcement details. Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1997. NEHRP Guidelines of the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA 273, Washington, D.C., USA.
Han, Q., Zhou, Y., Dum, X., Huang, C., and Lee, G.C. 2014. Experimental and
numerical studies on seismic performance of hollow RC bridge columns. Earthquakes
19
Page 20 of 45
and Structures, 7(3): 251-269.
Hoshikuma, J., and Priestley, M.J.N. 2000. Flexural behavior of circular hollow
columns with a single layer of reinforcement under seismic loading. Report No.
SSRP-2000/13. University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Kim, I.-H., Sun, C.-H., and Shin, M.S. 2012a. Concrete contribution to initial shear
strength of RC hollow bridge columns. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 41(1):
43-65.
Kim, T.-H. 2017. Hollow precast segmental prestressed concrete bridge columns with a
shear resistant connecting element. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 44(6):
472-484.
Kim, T.-H. 2018. Analytical seismic performance assessment of hollow reinforced

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
concrete bridge columns. Magazine of Concrete Research, Published Online.
Kim, T.-H., Choi, J.-H., Lee, J.-H., and Shin, H.M. 2013. Performance assessment of
hollow RC bridge column sections with reinforcement details for material quantity
reduction. Magazine of Concrete Research, 65(21): 1277-1292.
Kim, T.-H., Kim, Y.-J., Kang, H.-T., and Shin, H.M. 2007. Performance assessment of
reinforced concrete bridge columns using a damage index. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 34(7): 843-855.
Kim, T.-H., Lee, H.-M., Kim, Y.-J., and Shin, H.M. 2010. Performance assessment of
precast concrete segmental bridge columns with a shear resistant connecting structure.
Engineering Structures, 32(5): 1292-1303.
Kim, T.-H., Lee, J.-H., and Shin, H.M. 2014. Performance assessment of hollow
reinforced concrete bridge columns with triangular reinforcement details. Magazine
of Concrete Research, 66(16): 809-824.
20
Page 21 of 45
Kim, T.-H., Park, J.-G., Kim, Y.-J., and Shin, H.M. 2008. A computational platform for
seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete bridge piers with unbonded
reinforcing or prestressing bars. Computers and Concrete, 5(2): 135-154.

Kim, T.-H., Seong, D.-J., and Shin, H.M. 2012b. Seismic performance assessment of
hollow reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete bridge columns. International
Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 6(3): 165-176.
Liang, X., Beck, R., and Sritharan, S. 2015. Understanding the confined concrete
behavior on the response of hollow bridge columns. Report No. CA14-2264.
California Department of Transportation, CA, USA.
Lignola, G.P., Nardone, F., Prota, A., Luca, A.D., and Nanni, A. 2011, Analysis of RC
hollow columns strengthened with GFRP. Journal of Composites for Construction,

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
ASCE, 15(4): 545-556.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N, and Park, R. 1988, Theoretical stress-strain model for
confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 114(8): 1804-1826.
MCT (Ministry of Construction and Transportation). 2015. Korean Highway Bridge
Design Code (Limit State Design), MCT, Seoul, Korea.
Papanikolaou, V.K., and Kappos, A.J. 2009. Numerical study of confinement
effectiveness in solid and hollow reinforced concrete bridge piers: methodology.
Computers and Structures, 87(21-22): 1427-1439.
Park, R. 1998. Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing. Proc. of the
Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, VII,
Balkema, Rotterdam: 605-616.
Sun, Y.-P., and Sakino, K. 2000. A comprehensive stress-strain model for high strength
concrete confined by circular transverse reinforcement. The 6th ASCCS International
21
Page 22 of 45
Conference on Steel-Concrete Composite Structures, University of Southern
California: 1067-1074.
Taylor, R.L. 2000. FEAP – A Finite Element Analysis Program, Version 7.2 Users
Manual, Volume 1 and Volume 2.
Yeh, Y.-K., Mo, Y.L., and Yang, C.Y. 2001. Seismic performance of hollow circular
bridge piers. ACI Structural Journal, 98(6): 862-871.
Zahn, F.A., Park, R., and Priestley, M.J.N. (1990) Flexural strength and ductility of
circular hollow reinforced concrete columns without confinement on inside face. ACI
Structural Journal, 87(2): 156-166.

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
22
Page 23 of 45
List of Tables
Table 1. Properties of cast-in-situ and precast column specimens.

Table 2. Experiment and analysis results for cast-in-situ and precast column specimens.
Table 3. Failure criterion and damage index (Kim et al. 2007).
Table 4. Description of performance levels (Kim et al. 2007).
Table 5. Comparative evaluation of progressive damage for column specimens.

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
23
Page 24 of 45
List of Figures
Fig. 1. Hollow bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement (a) conventional
reinforcement details, (b) proposed reinforcement details, (c) construction method, and (d)
precast segmental columns.
Fig. 2. Hollow cast-in-situ concrete bridge column specimens (Unit: mm) (a) CC-80, (b) CT-80,
and (c) CNT-80.
Fig. 3. Hollow precast concrete bridge column specimens (Unit: mm) (a) RC-80, (b) RT-80, and
(c) RT-120.
Fig. 4. Loading setup for column specimens.
Fig. 5. Instrumentation of the test specimen (Unit: mm) (a) hollow cast-in-situ column, and (b)
hollow precast column.
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Fig. 6. Lateral load-drift relationship for cast-in-situ column specimens (a) CC-80, (b) CT-80,
and (c) CNT-80.
Fig. 7. Lateral load-drift relationship for precast column specimens (a) RC-80, (b) RT-80, and (c)
RT-120.
Fig. 8. Hysteretic energy dissipation (a) cast-in-situ column, and (b) precast column.
Fig. 9. Lateral load-strain curves of transverse reinforcement for cast-in-situ column specimens
(IT1 or IT2) (a) CC-80, (b) CT-80, and (c) CNT-80.
Fig. 10. Finite element model for cast-in-situ column specimens (a) transformation of a hollow
circular column to an idealized equivalent rectangular column, and (b) finite element mesh for
analysis.
24
Page 25 of 45
Fig. 11. Finite element model for precast column specimens (a) transformation of a hollow
rectangular column to an idealized equivalent rectangular column, and (b) finite element mesh
for analysis..
Fig. 12. Comparison of results from the experimental results (cast-in-situ column specimens) (a)
CC-80, (b) CT-80, and (c) CNT-80.
Fig. 13. Comparison of results from the experimental results (precast column specimens) (a)
RC-80, (b) RT-80, and (c) RT-120.
Fig. 14. Strain at each Gaussian integration point from analytical results.
Fig. 15. Assessment of performance level for specimens (a) cast-in-situ column, and (b) precast
column..
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
25
Page 26 of 45
Table 1. Properties of cast-in-situ and precast column specimens.
Longitudinal
Transverse reinforcement Cross-tie Axial
reinforcement
(D13) (D13) force

Cylinder (D19)
concrete
Specimen
strength Ratio
(MPa) 𝑓𝑦𝑙 𝜌𝑙 𝑓𝑦ℎ Space (Compared 𝑓𝑦ℎ Space 𝑃
(MPa) (%) (MPa) (mm) to (MPa) (mm) 𝑓′𝑐𝐴𝑔
AASHTO)
Outer
Outer 0.0047
@80, (49%), 18
CC-80 28.1
Inner Inner @80
@80 0.0047
(49%)
Outer
Outer 0.0047
@80, (49%), 12
CT-80 24.3 408.3 1.5 405.7 405.7 0.1
Inner Inner @80
@80 0.0047
(49%)
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Outer
Outer 0.0047
@80, (49%), 12
CNT-80 27.4
Inner Inner @80
@400 0.0009
(10%)
Outer
Outer 0.0083
@80, (52%), 12
RC-80 1.53
Inner Inner @80
@80 0.0083
(52%)
Outer
Outer 0.0100
@80, (63%), 8
RT-80 47.0 408.3 405.7 405.7 0.07
Inner Inner @80
@400 0.0020
(13%)
1.38
Outer
Outer 0.0067
@120, (42%), 8
RT-120
Inner Inner @120
@360 0.0022
(14%)
<Note> CNT-80, RT-80, RT-120: Minimum inner lateral reinforcement was used.
Page 27 of 45
Table 2. Experiment and analysis results for cast-in-situ and precast column specimens.
Ratio of experimental and

Experiment Analysis
analytical results
Specimen
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜇∆ 𝜇∆ 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜇∆
(kN) (kN)
CC-80 774.3 4.9 791.0 5.6 0.98 0.88
CT-80 762.4 5.5 787.7 5.9 0.97 0.93
CNT-80 776.6 5.1 785.3 5.6 0.99 0.91
RC-80 726.7 5.4 787.3 6.6 0.92 0.82
RT-80 699.4 5.8 754.3 6.1 0.93 0.95
RT-120 697.3 6.6 738.4 6.7 0.94 0.99

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Mean 0.96 0.91
Coefficient of Variation (COV) 0.03 0.06

Page 28 of 45
Table 3. Failure criterion and damage index (Kim et al. 2007).
Failure criterion Damage index

Material Type of failure
(𝜀𝑐𝑢 or 𝜀𝑡𝑢) ( 𝐷𝐼𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 or 𝐷𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒)
Compressive and
1.4𝜌𝑠𝑓𝑦ℎ𝜀𝑠𝑚 2𝜀𝑐𝑢 ― 𝜀𝑐𝑠 2
Concrete 0.004 + 1 ― 𝑓𝑡𝑔𝑐( )
shear 𝑓′𝑐𝑐 2𝜀𝑐𝑢
0.67
𝜀𝑡𝑠
Steel Tensile 0.10 1.20( )
2𝑓𝑡𝑔𝑟𝜀𝑡𝑢
<Note> 𝑓𝑡𝑔𝑐 = 1 ― 0.3𝐴𝐷𝑐, 𝑓𝑡𝑔𝑟 = 1 ― 0.3𝐴𝐷𝑟

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Page 29 of 45
Table 4. Description of performance levels (Kim et al. 2007).

Damage
Performance
Service Repair
level
State Index
Fully Limited epoxy

Fully service Hairline cracks ≤0.1
operational injection
Delayed Epoxy injection Open cracks

Limited service ≤0.4
operational Concrete patching Concrete spalling
Replacement of Bar buckling/Fracture

Stability Not useable ≤0.75
damaged section Core crushing
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Page 30 of 45
Table 5. Comparative evaluation of progressive damage for column specimens.
CC-80 CT-80 CNT-80 RC-80 RT-80 RT-120

Drift
(%)
Exp. Ana. Exp. Ana. Exp. Ana. Exp. Ana. Exp. Ana. Exp. Ana.
0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
First First First First First First

0.50 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
cracking cracking cracking cracking cracking cracking
1.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08
Open Open Open Open Open Open

1.50 0.24 0.23 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.21
cracks cracks cracks cracks cracks cracks
2.00 0.33 0.32 0.29 0.25 0.27 0.28
2.50 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.30 0.32 0.33
3.00 Spalling 0.43 Spalling 0.45 Spalling 0.43 Spalling 0.40 0.37 Spalling 0.38
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
3.50 0.53 0.54 0.53 0.41 Spalling 0.39 0.45
4.00 Buckling 0.68 Buckling 0.69 Buckling 0.66 0.48 0.49 0.51
4.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.50 0.58
5.00 Fracture 1.00 1.00 1.00 Buckling 0.72 Buckling 0.63 Buckling 0.75
5.50 - - Fracture 1.00 Fracture 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
6.00 - - - - - - Fracture 1.00 Fracture 1.00 Fracture 1.00

Page 31 of 45
Fig. 1. Hollow bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement (a) conventional
reinforcement details, (b) proposed reinforcement details, (c) construction method, and (d)
precast segmental columns.
(a) (b)
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
(c) (d)
6.
5 Longitudinal rebar inserting
2. Epoxy application at joint face
Sheath
Page 32 of 45
Fig. 2. Hollow cast-in-situ concrete bridge column specimens (Unit: mm) (a) CC-80, (b) CT-80,
and (c) CNT-80.
(a) (b) (c)

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Inner Inner Inner

@80 @80 @400
Outer Outer Outer

@80 @80 @80
Page 33 of 45
Fig. 3. Hollow precast concrete bridge column specimens (Unit: mm) (a) RC-80, (b) RT-80, and
(c) RT-120.
(a) (b) (c)

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Inner Inner Inner

@80 @400 @360
Outer Outer Outer

@80 @80 @120
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Fig. 4. Loading setup for column specimens.

Page 34 of 45
Page 35 of 45
Fig. 5. Instrumentation of the test specimen (Unit: mm) (a) hollow cast-in-situ column, and (b)
hollow precast column.
(a) (b)
CL : triangular confining reinforcement (inclined line); CL : triangular confining reinforcement (inclined line);
OT : outer transverse reinforcement; OL : outer OT : outer transverse reinforcement; OL : outer
longitudinal reinforcement; IL : inner longitudinal longitudinal reinforcement; IL : inner longitudinal
reinforcement; CT : triangular confining reinforcement reinforcement; CT : triangular confining reinforcement
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
(base line); IT : inner transverse reinforcement (base line); IT : inner transverse reinforcement
Page 36 of 45
Fig. 6. Lateral load-drift relationship for cast-in-situ column specimens (a) CC-80, (b) CT-80,
and (c) CNT-80.
(a)
1200
800
532.6 kN
400
Load (kN)
-400
-532.6 kN
-800
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
(b)
1200
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
800
535.7kN
400
Load (kN)
-400
-535.7kN
-800
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
(c)
1200
800
535.7 kN
400
Load (kN)
-400
-535.7 kN
-800
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
Page 37 of 45
Fig. 7. Lateral load-drift relationship for precast column specimens (a) RC-80, (b) RT-80, and (c)
RT-120.
(a)
1200
800
554.2 kN
400
Load (kN)
-400
-554.2 kN
-800
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
(b)
1200
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
800
534.7 kN
400
Load (kN)
-400
-534.7 kN
-800
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
(c)
1200
800
534.7 kN
400
Load (kN)
-400
-534.7 kN
-800
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
Page 38 of 45
Fig. 8. Hysteretic energy dissipation (a) cast-in-situ column, and (b) precast column.
(a)
3000000
Cumulative Dissipated Energy (kN-mm)
CC-80
2500000 CT-80
CNT-80
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
Drift (%)
(b)
3500000
Cumulative Dissipated Energy (kN-mm)
RC-80
3000000 RT-80
RT-120
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
Page 39 of 45
Fig. 9. Lateral load-strain curves of transverse reinforcement for cast-in-situ column specimens
(IT1 or IT2) (a) CC-80, (b) CT-80, and (c) CNT-80.
(a)
1200
800
400
Load (kN)
-400
-800
-1200
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-6
Strain ( x 10 )
(b)
1200
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
800
400
Load (kN)
-400
-800
-1200
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-6
Strain ( x 10 )
(c)
1200
800
400
Load (kN)
-400
-800
-1200
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-6
Strain ( x 10 )
Page 40 of 45
Fig. 10. Finite element model for cast-in-situ column specimens (a) transformation of a hollow
circular column to an idealized equivalent rectangular column, and (b) finite element mesh for
analysis.
(a)
350 480 630

Can. J. Civ. Eng.
150 250 600 250 150
(b)
8-node RC element 76
6-node Interface element 5
8-node Elastic element 2
Page 41 of 45
Fig. 11. Finite element model for precast column specimens (a) transformation of a hollow
rectangular column to an idealized equivalent rectangular column, and (b) finite element mesh
for analysis.
(a)
1000 250 250
500
1000
1000
500
500
500
Hollow Section Equivalent Section
(b)
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
8-node RC element 84
6-node Joint element 18
8-node Elastic element 2
Page 42 of 45
Fig. 12. Comparison of results from the experimental results (cast-in-situ column specimens) (a)
CC-80, (b) CT-80, and (c) CNT-80.
(a)
1200
800
400
Load (kN)
-400
-800 Experiment
Analysis
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
(b)
1200
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
800
400
Load (kN)
-400
-800 Experiment
Analysis
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
(c)
1200
800
400
Load (kN)
-400
-800 Experiment
Analysis
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
Page 43 of 45
Fig. 13. Comparison of results from the experimental results (precast column specimens) (a)
RC-80, (b) RT-80, and (c) RT-120.
(a)
1200
800
400
Load (kN)
-400
-800 Experiment
Analysis
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
(b)
1200
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
800
400
Load (kN)
-400
-800 Experiment
Analysis
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
(c)
1200
800
400
Load (kN)
-400
-800 Experiment
Analysis
-1200
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
Page 44 of 45
Fig. 14. Strain at each Gaussian integration point from analytical results.
0.10
CC-80
0.08
CT-80
CNT-80
0.06
0.04
Strain
0.02
0.00
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
-0.02
-0.04
-700-600-500-400-300-200-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Cross-section width (mm)
Page 45 of 45
Fig. 15. Assessment of performance level for specimens (a) cast-in-situ column, and (b) precast
column.
(a)
1.0
CC-80
CT-80
CNT-80
0.8
Stability
Damage index
0.6
0.4
Delayed operational
0.2
Fully operational
0.0
Can. J. Civ. Eng.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Drift (%)
(b)
1.0
RC-80
RT-80
RT-120
0.8
Stability
Damage index
0.6
0.4
Delayed operational
0.2
Fully operational
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Drift (%)

Hollow Bridge Columns With Triangular Confining Reinforcement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hollow Bridge Columns With Triangular Confining Reinforcement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 45

Hollow bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement

* Corresponding author: Tae-Hoon Kim (e-mail: neopilot@naver.com)

columns with triangular confining reinforcement. The proposed triangular

reinforcement details were equal to the conventional reinforcement details in terms of

required structural performance. The triangular confining reinforcement is also

relationship, cumulative dissipated energy, and lateral load-strain curves. The

nonlinear finite element analysis program RCAHEST (Reinforced Concrete Analysis in

conventional reinforcement details, in terms of the required structural performance.

confining reinforcement; economically feasible

al. 2014; Liang et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2018).

Traditional hollow reinforced concrete bridge columns are designed based on

moments compared with increased construction complexity of hollow column cross-

al. 2008; Kim et al. 2012a).

the problem of construction complexity of conventional hollow column cross-sections.

also plays a role in preventing longitudinal reinforcement buckling.

columns along with the triangular confinement modules.

Precast segmental bridge columns provide the benefits of increasing construction

(2001) proposed substructures by developing attractive and rapidly constructed

Dawood et al. (2012) presented a detailed three-dimensional finite-element (FE) model

reinforcement, and the material strength of the concrete and reinforcement.

confining reinforcement is proposed. The proposed method uses the computer

behaviors of segmental joints for hollow precast bridge columns.

2. Triangular confining reinforcement for hollow bridge columns

confining reinforcement details. In conventional practice, a number of layers of

developed reinforcement details for material quantity reduction consist of a stable

applying a sparsely spaced inner reinforcement in circular hollow cross- sections, in

concrete bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement. These innovative

reinforcement. A segmentally precast concrete bridge column consists of relatively

longitudinal reinforcement was inserted in the sheath prefabricated in the segments,

and efficient structures (Kim et al. 2010).

structurally and constructionally efficient, facilitating shorter construction periods by

column cage. The developed pre-fabricated triangular confinement modules have

seismic performance; increased moment capacity with outer longitudinal rebars;

reduced construction time; stability of steel cage modules; minimized tolerance

3.1 Test specimens and procedure

An experimental investigation was conducted to evaluate the performance of hollow

bridge columns with triangular confining reinforcement.

where 𝜌𝑠 = volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement; 𝑓′𝑐 = concrete compressive

strength; 𝑓𝑦ℎ = yield strength of transverse reinforcement; 𝐴𝑠ℎ = cross-sectional area

of column tie reinforcements; 𝑎 = vertical spacing of hoops; and ℎ𝑐 = core dimension

of tied column in direction under consideration.

rectangular column has a 1000×1000 mm cross-section with 500×500 mm hole in the

(Circular or Rectangular), the second character refers to the configuration type

minimum inner lateral reinforcement was used.

and 6.0 percent until failure.

displacement control. Strains of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement were

3.2 Results of experiments

conventional reinforcement details.

cracking, yielding, spalling of cover concrete, buckling, and fracture of rebars.

development of ductility (drift 3.00%).

concrete inside stirrups remained effective in carrying the compressive load.

accompanied by a significant decrease in lateral load.

opening of the 90-degree-hooks in the cross-ties, longitudinal bar buckling, core

crushing, fracturing of hoops or cross-ties occurred at large strain values. The

triangular confining reinforcement was evaluated to ensure that longitudinal

as shown in Figs. 6 and 7, further widespread damage in the conventional specimen

series rather than in the proposed specimen series.

corresponding to the intersection of the horizontal line passing through 0.75𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 on

0.85𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 after the maximum load (Park 1998).

proposed triangular reinforcement detail exhibited hysteretic behavior with satisfactory

mm (drift 5.5%), respectively.