Visual Inspection & Capacity Assessment
of Earthquake Damaged Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Elements
Final Report
Report CA08- 0284
November 2008
Division of Research
& Innovation
Level IV
Level II Level III
Level V
Visual Inspection & Capacity Assessment of Earthquake
Damaged Reinforced Concrete Bridge Elements
Final Report
Report No. CA08- 0284
November 2008
Prepared By:
Department of Structural Engineering
School of Engineering
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093- 0085
California Department of Transportation
Structure Maintenance and Investigations
1801 30th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
Prepared For:
California Department of Transportation
Structure Maintenance and Investigations
1801 30th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
California Department of Transportation
Division of Research and Innovation, MS- 83
1227 O Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
DISCLAIMER STATEMENT
This document is disseminated in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report
reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented
herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California
or the Federal Highway Administration. This publication does not constitute a standard,
specification or regulation. This report does not constitute an endorsement by the Department of
any product described herein.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
TR0003 ( REV. 10/ 98)
1. REPORT NUMBER
CA08- 0284
2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER
3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Visual Inspection & Capacity Assessment of Earthquake Damaged Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Elements
5. REPORT DATE
November, 2008
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR( S)
Marc Veletzos1, Mario Panagiutou1, Jose Restrepo1, Stephen Sahs2
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
1SSRP- 06/ 19
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
1Department of Structural Engineering
School of Engineering
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093- 0085
2California Department of Transportation
Structure Maintenance and Investigations
1801 30th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
10. WORK UNIT NUMBER
11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
DRI Research Task No. 0284
Contract No. 65A0156
12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS
California Department of Transportation
Division of Research and Innovation, MS- 83
1227 O Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
913
15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
This report captures the ‘ fundamental research components’ developed primarily by UCSD researchers within a larger
research- to- deployment effort coordinated by the Caltrans Division of Structures Maintenance and Investigations ( SM& I)
of the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans). The larger effort includes ‘ deployment products’ developed
jointly by UCSD researchers in collaboration with Caltrans SM& I staff consisting of a training manual for visual capacity
assessment, an inspection manual with detailed procedures for post- earthquake inspection, and associated slide sets
used for training of bridge engineers involved with emergency response. The deployment products and other
resource materials are summarized in appendices to the report and can be obtained through direct request
to Caltrans SM& I.
16. ABSTRACT
The overarching objective of this project was to produce standard procedures, and associated training materials, for the
conduct of post- earthquake visual inspection and capacity assessment of damaged reinforced concrete ( RC) bridges
where the procedures are consistent with both Caltrans seismic design strategies and the extensive body of research
laboratory testing that has been conducted in support of Caltrans seismic design.
This report presents the fundamental research concepts and experiment- based resources used in the broader
development by Caltrans of standard procedures and associated training materials. It includes: 1) a summary report
describing principles for classification and capacity assessment of earthquake damaged reinforced concrete bridges,
and 2) an extensive visual catalog of RC bridge damage from both laboratory tests and field observations; all
characterized using a consistent engineering terminology tied to bridge performance.
17. KEY WORDS
Reinforced Concrete Bridge, Earthquake, Visual
Inspection, Column Damage, Capacity Assessment,
Emergency Response
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
No restrictions. This document is available to the public
through the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION ( of this report)
Unclassified
20. NUMBER OF PAGES
392 Pages
21. PRICE
Reproduction of completed page authorized
Visual Inspection & Capacity Assessment of Earthquake
Damaged Reinforced Concrete Bridge Elements.
Final Report
Preface:
This report captures the ‘ fundamental research components’ developed primarily by UCSD
researchers within a larger research- to- deployment effort coordinated by the Caltrans Division of
Structures Maintenance and Investigations ( SM& I) of the California Department of Transportation
( Caltrans). The larger effort includes ‘ deployment products’ developed jointly by UCSD researchers
in collaboration with Caltrans SM& I staff consisting of a training manual for visual capacity
assessment, an inspection manual with detailed procedures for post- earthquake inspection, and
associated slide sets used for training of bridge engineers involved with emergency response. The
deployment products and other resource materials are summarized in appendices to the report and
can be obtained through direct request to Caltrans SM& I.
Abstract:
The overarching objective of this project was to produce standard procedures, and associated
training materials, for the conduct of post- earthquake visual inspection and capacity assessment of
damaged reinforced concrete ( RC) bridges where the procedures are consistent with both Caltrans
seismic design strategies and the extensive body of research laboratory testing that has been
conducted in support of Caltrans seismic design.
This report presents the fundamental research concepts and experiment- based resources used in the
broader development by Caltrans of standard procedures and associated training materials. It
includes: 1) a summary report describing principles for classification and capacity assessment of
earthquake damaged reinforced concrete bridges, and 2) an extensive visual catalog of RC bridge
damage from both laboratory tests and field observations; all characterized using a consistent
engineering terminology tied to bridge performance.
Visual Inspection & Capacity Assessment of Earthquake
Damaged Reinforced Concrete ( RC) Bridge Elements.
Final Report
Section 1: Summary Report - Post Seismic Inspection and Capacity Assessment of RC
Bridges ( UCSD Report SSRP- 06/ 19)
Section 2: Visual Catalog of RC Bridge Damage
Part 1: Laboratory Test Photos and Associated Hysteresis Curves for Component Behavior
Part 2: Catalog of Bridge Damage from Historical Earthquakes 1971- 2004
Part 3: Comparison of Observed Damage between Laboratory Tests and Historical Earthquakes
Part 4: Bridge Component Damage for Performance Levels IV and V
Part 5: Performance Curves for Various Bridge Components
Appendices: Summary of Related Resources Available By Request Through SM& I
A: Research Deployment Products ( Developed Collaboratively by UCSD and SM& I)
B: Resources Used in Caltrans Emergency Response Training ( Developed by SM& I)
Visual Inspection & Capacity Assessment of Earthquake
Damaged Reinforced Concrete Bridge Elements.
Final Report
Section 1
Summary Report:
Post Seismic Inspection and Capacity Assessment
of Reinforced Concrete Bridges
( UCSD Report SSRP- 06/ 19)
STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
RESEARCH PROJECT
Report No.
SSRP– 06/ 19
Final
POST SEISMIC INSPECTION AND
CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF
REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGES
by
MARC J. VELETZOS
MARIOS PANAGIOTOU
JOSÉ I. RESTREPO
Final Report Submitted to the California Department of
Transportation ( Caltrans) Under Contract No. 65A0156
July 2006
Department of Structural Engineering
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093- 0085
University of California, San Diego
Department of Structural Engineering
Structural Systems Research Project
Report No. SSRP– 06/ 19
Post Seismic Inspection and Capacity Assessment of
Reinforced Concrete Bridges
by
Marc J. Veletzos
Graduate Student Researcher
Marios Panagiotou
Graduate Student Researcher
José I. Restrepo
Associate Professor of Structural Engineering
Final Report Submitted to the California Department of Transportation
( Caltrans) Under Contract No. 65A0156
Department of Structural Engineering
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093- 0085
July 2006
i
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Post Seismic Inspection and Capacity Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Bridges
5. Report Date
June, 2006
6. Performing Organization Code
UCSD/ SSRP- 06/ 19
7. Author( s)
Marc J. Veletzos, Marios Panagiutou, Jose I. Restrepo
8. Performing Organization Report No.
UCSD / SSRP- 06/ 19
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Department of Structural Engineering
School of Engineering
10. Work Unit No. ( TRAIS)
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093- 0085
11. Contracts or Grant No.
65A0156
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
California Department of Transportation
Engineering Service Center
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report
1801 30th St., West Building MS- 9
Sacramento, California 95807
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of Transportation.
16. Abstract
California has experienced several moderate size earthquakes in the last 30 years, yet the Office of Structures Maintenance and
Investigation at the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) does not have a standard procedure or a training program for
the assessment of damage and the determination of the remaining load capacity of earthquake damage reinforced concrete ( RC)
bridge elements. In order to develop a standard procedure and training program, a Visual Bridge Catalog has been developed that
documents damage from laboratory experiments and from historic earthquakes and classifies the performance of an array of bridge
components, sub- assemblages, and systems in a consistent format. Results from the evaluation of numerous case studies using this
damage/ performance approach has lead to the formulation of Training and Inspection Manuals to aid in post- earthquake visual
inspection of reinforced concrete bridges. In addition to these manuals and the visual catalog, an online computer based training class
has been developed to easily communicate this information to Caltrans Maintenance and Inspection Engineers.
This report presents excerpts of the Visual Catalog, summarizes the Training and Inspection Manuals, and outlines the damage
assessment and load capacity determination procedures for earthquake induced damage to reinforced concrete bridge columns.
17. Key Words
Seismic, inspection, assessment, columns, reinforce concrete
18. Distribution Statement
Unlimited
19. Security Classification ( of this report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classification ( of this page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
18
22. Price
Form DOT F 1700.7 ( 8- 72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ii
Disclaimer
The accuracy of the information presented in this report is the sole responsibility of the
authors. All recommendations, opinions, and conclusions presented in the report are
those of the authors, and do not necessarily express the beliefs of the California
Department of Transportation or the State of California.
iii
Acknowledgments
This research project was made possible by funding from the California Department of
Transportation under contract No. 65A0156. The input of Steve Sahs, Tom Harrington
and others at Caltrans was greatly appreciated.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the hard work of our undergraduate
Structural Engineering interns, Jose Amador, Jose Ramirez, Justin Chung, Justin Chang,
Alex Gascon, Chad Closs and our web- designer Dasha Tymoshenko. Without their
efforts much of this work could not have been completed.
iv
Abstract
California has experienced several moderate size earthquakes in the last 30 years, yet the
Office of Structures Maintenance and Investigation at the California Department of
Transportation ( Caltrans) does not have a standard procedure or a training program for
the assessment of damage and the determination of the remaining load capacity of
earthquake damage reinforced concrete ( RC) bridge elements. In order to develop a
standard procedure and training program, a Visual Bridge Catalog has been developed
that documents damage from laboratory experiments and from historic earthquakes and
classifies the performance of an array of bridge components, sub- assemblages, and
systems in a consistent format. Results from the evaluation of numerous case studies
using this damage/ performance approach has lead to the formulation of Training and
Inspection Manuals to aid in post- earthquake visual inspection of reinforced concrete
bridges. In addition to these manuals and the visual catalog, an online computer based
training class has been developed to easily communicate this information to Caltrans
Maintenance and Inspection Engineers.
This report presents excerpts of the Visual Catalog, summarizes the Training and
Inspection Manuals, and outlines the damage assessment and load capacity determination
procedures for earthquake induced damage to reinforced concrete bridge columns.
v
Table of Contents
Disclaimer..................................................................................................................... ..... ii
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. iii
Abstract....................................................................................................................... ...... iv
Table of Contents................................................................................................................ v
List of Figures.................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
2. Caltrans Current Practice ............................................................................................ 3
3. Post Earthquake Inspection and Assessment Tools.................................................... 4
3.1. Visual Catalog of RC Bridge Damage................................................................ 4
3.2. Capacity Assessment Training Manual .............................................................. 6
3.3. Post- Earthquake Inspection Manual for RC Bridge Columns............................ 7
3.4. Web- Site and On- Line Training Course ............................................................. 7
4. Inspection and Assessment Protocol........................................................................... 9
4.1. Phase I – Determine Performance Curve............................................................ 9
4.2. Phase II – Identify Damage Level .................................................................... 12
4.3. Phase III – Assess Bridge System..................................................................... 14
5. Protocol Testing........................................................................................................ 15
6. Performance Curve Pilot Study ................................................................................ 16
7. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 17
8. References................................................................................................................. 18
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Experpt from " Visual Catalog of RC Bridge Damage" ..................................... 5
Figure 2 - Excerpt from " Capacity Assessment Training Manual" .................................... 6
Figure 3 - Excerpt from " Bridge Seismic Inspection and Capacity Assessment" Web- Site
............................................................................................................................... ..... 8
Figure 4 - Performance Curves ......................................................................................... 10
Figure 5 - Column Failure Mode and Performance Curve Decision Making Flowchart . 11
Figure 6 - Visualization of Remaining Capacity of Bridge Columns............................... 14
List of Tables
Table 1 – Performance Assessment ( Hose, 2001) ............................................................ 13
Table 2 - Decision- making Matrix for Damaged Bridge Columns .................................. 13
1
1. Introduction
California is expecting to experience several moderate size earthquakes per decade. The
San Francisco Bay area alone has a 62% probability of experiencing a Magnitude 6.7 or
greater earthquake by the year 2032 ( Michael et. al., 2004). Seismic events of this
magnitude can cause disruptions to the road network and result in important economic
losses as a result of the impact. Despite this fact, the Office of Structures Maintenance
and Investigation ( SMI) at Caltrans does not have a standard procedure or a training
program for the assessment of damage and the determination of the remaining load
capacity of earthquake damage reinforced concrete ( RC) bridge elements.
Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the Mora Drive Overcrossing in Santa Clara
County was closed and opened several times, because different departments had different
opinions on the safety of the bridge. The lack of consensus caused public confusion and
wasted the time and efforts of inspection engineers. This repeated closing and opening of
the same bridge was partly caused by confusion regarding departmental responsibilities,
which has since been clarified. It was also caused by discrepancies between the
experience and judgment of Caltrans engineers. A common inspection and assessment
protocol should prevent this from occurring in the future.
In order to develop a standard procedure and training program, Caltrans has supported a
project that has developed a number of inspection and assessment tools. These tools
include a first edition of a “ Visual Catalog of RC Bridge Damage”, a “ Capacity
Assessment Training Manual”, and a “ Post Earthquake Inspection Manual for RC Bridge
2
Columns”. All of these documents have been transcribed into a web- based format. In
addition to these manuals, an online computer based training class has been developed to
assist in training Caltrans Maintenance and Inspection Engineers.
The inspection and assessment tools are based on over fifteen years of bridge seismic
research. They touch upon details of seismic design practices and the historic
performance of bridge components. Yet they also provide a simple step by step approach
to post earthquake inspection and assessment that can be learned on the fly if necessary
3
2. Caltrans Current Practice
Following any emergency, SMI is officially responsible for all reports, investigations and
recommendations for California bridges. They are, however, not the first responders to
bridge sites. SMI has three offices in California ( Sacramento, Oakland, and Los Angeles)
and due to their locations, they can be many hours away from a large number of bridge in
the state. The first responders are typically district construction and maintenance crews
who are usually already out in the field. Engineers working in the SMI may have more
experience with post seismic inspection than local construction and maintenance
engineers, but there is no standard procedure for what to look for or guidelines on how to
assess the remaining capacity of bridges after a significant seismic event. Thus, the
decisions are ultimately based on the experience and judgment of each individual
engineer, which can vary greatly.
4
3. Post Earthquake Inspection and Assessment Tools
3.1. Visual Catalog of RC Bridge Damage
The “ Visual Catalog of RC Bridge Damage” documents damage from laboratory
experiments and from historic earthquakes and classifies the performance of an array of
bridge components, sub- assemblages, and systems in a consistent format. The Visual
Catalog organizes photos of over one hundred test units from forty research reports
dating back to 1990. The damage to each test unit has been classified into five different
damage levels. The Visual Catalog also includes a force- displacement diagram of the test
to document the performance of each test unit. A sample page from the Visual Catalog is
shown in Figure 1. The Visual Catalog also organizes and classifies photos from
fourteen historic earthquakes dating back to the 1971 San Fernando event.
5
F1 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V ( buckling of long. bars) Level V
Figure 1 - Experpt from " Visual Catalog of RC Bridge Damage"
The intention is that this document will be used by inspection and maintenance engineers
as a reference to confirm the type and level of damage observed after an earthquake. It
will also be used as a teaching tool to train engineers in identifying the failure type and
level of damage to bridge components.
6
3.2. Capacity Assessment Training Manual
The “ Capacity Assessment Training Manual” will be a primary teaching tool for
inspection and maintenance engineers. This document discusses seismic design concepts
such as inelastic response, plastic hinge mechanisms, and capacity design principles. It
explains the vulnerabilities of bridge from different design provision eras and reviews the
past performance of RC bridge components and the seismic vulnerabilities of different
construction methods. The training manual also discussed post earthquake bridge
evaluation and ends with lessons learned about damage evaluation and capacity
assessment. An excerpt from this manual is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 - Excerpt from " Capacity Assessment Training Manual"
7
3.3. Post- Earthquake Inspection Manual for RC Bridge Columns
The “ Post Earthquake Inspection Manual for RC Bridge Columns”, clearly identifies a
simple step by step procedure that guides maintenance and inspection engineers in the
determination of the remaining capacity of damaged reinforced concrete bridge
structures. The general protocol is outlined elsewhere in this paper. Ideally, Caltrans
engineers will be trained in the procedure prior to a significant seismic event. This,
however, is not always practical, so the protocol has been developed to be simple enough
to be followed in the field without prior training if necessary.
3.4. Web- Site and On- Line Training Course
The information in the above documents has been transformed into a web- site for easy
access and information transfer. Inaccessible information is useless information, so every
attempt has been made to make all these tools as available as possible. The home page of
the web- site is shown in Figure 3.
8
Figure 3 - Excerpt from " Bridge Seismic Inspection and Capacity Assessment" Web- Site
9
4. Inspection and Assessment Protocol
Since the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, bridges in California have been designed with
the goal of restricting all seismic damage to the columns while all other components
remain essentially undamaged. Because of this fact, the focus of the inspection and
assessment protocol has been limited to bridge columns. The primary goal of the post
seismic inspection and assessment protocol is to keep things simple and conservative.
Thus the protocol can be summed up in three phases.
Phase I - Determine the performance curve
Phase II - Identify the damage level
Phase III - Assess bridge system
4.1. Phase I – Determine Performance Curve
This phase is probably the most complicated and time intensive portion of the protocol as
it requires access to all construction drawing of the bridge. Each column needs to be
associated with a performance curve that best summarizes the expected seismic response.
There are three performance curves to choose from: Ductile, Strength Degrading, and
Brittle ( see Figure 4). The engineer can determine the anticipated performance curve by
following the decision making flowchart shown in Figure 5. This phase is most
efficiently performed before hand in the office. The use of summary tables identifying
the design detail and the performance curve for every column is recommended.
10
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level V
Level V
Lateral Force
Ductile Curve
Strength Degrading Curve
Brittle Curve
X
X
X
Lateral Displacement
Figure 4 - Performance Curves
11
“ BRITTLE”
Shear
dominated
failure
“ STRENGTH
DEGRADING”
Flexural failure
or
End
End
End
1. Column Retrofits
2. Aspect Ratio
3. Column
Reinforcement Splices
4. Column Transverse
Reinforcement
Any
longitudinal
splices in
column
Yes
No
“ BRITTLE”
Shear
Dominated
Failure
F- F
column
jacket
retrofit
Yes
No
“ DUCTILE”
flexure failure
P- F
column jacket
retrofit
Yes
“ STRENGTH
DEGRADING” flexural
failure but the column
will retain vertical load
capacity 􀃎
collapse possible
Start
Yes
No
Column
trans rebar
spacing
> 8”
“ STRENGTH DEGRADING” Flexure
failure. Regardless of column
reinforcement, under extreme cycles the
splice may slip and act more like a
strength degrading column. The column
may retain vertical load capacity.
􀃎 collapse is unlikely
“ BRITTLE” Shear failure.
The column may not retain
vertical load capacity
􀃎 collapse possible
Yes
No
Make note of inadequate
development of column
long. rebar. Use this
information to assess the
bridge system
l < ld
4a. Check Column
TRANSVERSE
Reinforcement
Spacing
Check for
Column
Retrofits
3b. Check
LONGITUDINAL
Reinforcement for
Lap Splices
Check
Development of
Column
Longitudinal
Reinforcement
Yes
No
s <= min( 6db, 8”)
􀃎 “ DUCTILE”
Flexural failure
4b. Check Confinement
of Plastic Hinge Regions
( adjacent to fixed
connections at footing
and/ or bent cap)
s >=
min( 6db, 8”)
“ STRENGTH
DEGRADING”
Flexural failure
# 4 @ 12”
( typ. of pre ‘ 72)
or spacing
> 12”
Yes
No
“ BRITTLE”
Shear
Dominated
Failure
L/ D < 2 Yes “ BRITTLE”
Shear
Dominated
Failure
Check Aspect
Ratio
column
jacket
retrofit
Yes
No
No
3a. Check
TRANSVERSE
Reinforcement for
Lap Splices
Are hoops
or spirals
continuous
Yes
No
No
P
column jacket
retrofit
Yes
Check “ 2. Aspect Ratio”
and “ 3. Transverse
Reinforcement”. This
column may be moved
to “ BRITTLE” but will
be no better than
“ STRENGTH
DEGRADING”.
5. Comments
End
End
End
End
End
End
End
End
End
Splicing not an issue.
Check Column Transverse
Reinforcement
Figure 5 - Column Failure Mode and Performance Curve Decision Making Flowchart
12
4.2. Phase II – Identify Damage Level
This phase must be performed on the bridge site after a significant seismic event.
Engineers are guided by a step- by- step procedure with the goal of determining where
each column is on their respective performance curve. The steps are as follows.
Step 1 - Check for diagonal cracks.
Step 2 - Check for horizontal cracks.
Step 3 - Check for incipient concrete crushing or spalling.
Step 4 - Check for longitudinal bar buckling.
Step 5 - Check for rupture of transverse reinforcement
Step 6 - Determine the damage level based on the observations above.
The engineer is assisted by quantitative performance descriptions of each damage level
( see Table 1) and a decision making matrix ( see Table 2). It is recommended that the
engineer refer to the “ Visual Catalog of RC Bridge Damage” to confirm the level of
damage they determine after following the six step procedure.
13
Table 1 – Performance Assessment ( Hose, 2001)
Damage
Level
Performance
Level
Qualitative Performance
Description
Quantitative Performance
Description
I Cracking Onset of hairline cracks Barely visible residual cracks
II Yielding Theoretical first yield of
longitudinal reinforcement Residual crack width ~ 0.008in
III
Initiation of
Local
Mechanism
Initiation of inelastic
deformation. Onset of concrete
spalling. Development of
diagonal cracks.
Residual crack width 0.04in – 0.08in
Length of spalled region > 1/ 10 cross-section
depth.
IV
Full
Development
of Local
Mechanism
Wide crack widths/ spalling
over full local mechanism
region.
Residual crack width > 0.08in.
Diagonal cracks extend over 2/ 3 cross-section
depth. Length of spalled
region > ½ cross- section depth.
V Strength
Degradation
Buckling of main
reinforcement. Rupture of
transverse reinforcement.
Crushing of core concrete.
Lateral capacity below 85% of
maximum. Measurable dilation > 5%
of original member dimension.
Table 2 - Decision- making Matrix for Damaged Bridge Columns
Pronounced
Horizontal
Cracks
Pronounced
Diagonal
Cracks
Incipient
Concrete
Crushing/
Spalling
Long. Bar
Buckling
Damage
Level
Possible
Failure
Type
No Yes No No III Shear
Yes or No Yes Yes Yes or No IV or V Shear
Yes No No No II or III Flexure
Yes No Yes No IV Flexure
Yes No Yes Yes V Flexure
Field Observations Conclusions
14
4.3. Phase III – Assess Bridge System
In this phase, it is recommended that engineers plot the level of damage of each column
on their respective performance curve. This will assist the engineer in visualizing the
remaining capacity of the structure ( see Figure 6). It is important to note that bridges are
complex structures and decisions about the bridge should include issues beyond column
damage, such as damage to the superstructure, the abutments and expansion joints.
Lateral Force
Ductile Curve
X
Lateral Displacement
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level V
Bent 3 – Columns 1 and 2
Remaining Capacity
x
Lateral Force
Strength Degrading Curve
X
Lateral Displacement
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level V
Bent 4 – Col. 1 and 2
Remaining Capacity
x
Lateral Force
Brittle Curve
X
Lateral Displacement
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level V
Bent 2 – Col. 1 and 2
Remaining Capacity
x
Figure 6 - Visualization of Remaining Capacity of Bridge Columns
15
5. Protocol Testing
The inspection and assessment protocol has been tested on undergraduate and graduate
structural engineering students from the University of California at San Diego. The
students have been asked to assess a number of columns that have been tested at the
Charles Lee Powell Structural Laboratories and have been given no guidance other than
what is in the inspection and assessment tools. The students helped the authors identify
portions of the protocol that required clarification.
16
6. Performance Curve Pilot Study
A pilot study to identify the performance curve for every column on over two hundred
bridges in California has been completed. This pilot study will allow Caltrans engineers
to skip Phase I of the inspection and assessment protocol and save them valuable time
and effort in the immediate hours following a major earthquake.
17
7. Conclusions
Post earthquake inspection and capacity assessment tools have been developed to assist
Caltrans engineers after a significant seismic event. These tools include a “ Visual
Catalog of RC Bridge Damage”, a “ Capacity Assessment Training Manual” and a “ Post
Earthquake Inspection Manual for RC Bridge Columns”. These tools have been
transcribed into a web- based format to maximize accessibility and information transfer.
Furthermore an on- line training course has been developed that will assist in training
Caltrans maintenance and inspection engineers. These tools will help to standardize the
inspection and assessment of bridges and improve the efficiency of Caltrans engineers
during the important early hours after a large earthquake.
18
8. References
Hose Y. D., “ Seismic Performance and Flexural Behavior of Plastic Hinge Regions in Flexural Bridge
Columns”, PhD Dissertation, UCSD, 2001.
Michael A. J., Ross S. L., Simpson R. W., Zoback, M. L., Schwartz D. P., Blanpeid, M. L., Understanding
Earthquake Hazards in the San Francisco Bay Region, USGS Fact Sheet 039- 03, September, 2004.
Visual Inspection & Capacity Assessment of Earthquake
Damaged Reinforced Concrete Bridge Elements.
Final Report
Section 2
Visual Catalog of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Damage
Part 1: Laboratory Test Photos and Associated Hysteresis Curves for Component Behavior
Part 2: Catalog of Bridge Damage from Historical Earthquakes 1971- 2004
Part 3: Comparison of Observed Damage Between Laboratory Tests and Historical Earthquakes
Part 4: Bridge Component Damage for Performance Levels IV and V
Part 5: Performance Curves for Various Bridge Components
California Department of Transportation
Structure Maintenance and Investigations
Visual Catalog
of Reinforced Concrete
Bridge Damage
© Copyright 2007 California Department of Transportation
All Rights Reserved
Date: June 20, 2007
Acknowledgements
California Department of Transportation Structure Maintenance and Investigation would like to
acknowledge the University of California San Diego Department of Structural Engineering, Dr.
Frieder Seible ( Dean of Structural Engineering), for the outstanding work on the “ Visual
Inspection and Capacity Assessment of Earthquake Damaged RC Bridge Elements” research
project. This manual/ catalog is a result of that research.
Special acknowledgements go to the UCSD Project Managers, Dr. Yael “ Lilli” Van Dan Einde
and Dr. Jose Restrepo, and Graduate Researchers, Marios Panagiotou and Marc Veletzos. All
laboratory test and earthquake field photos have been gathered by UCSD researchers from
many sources including UCSD Structural Systems Research Projects, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, and Caltrans Structure Maintenance and
Investigations.
Other acknowledgements go to California Department of Transportation Structure
Maintenance and Investigation, Structure Division of Research, Division of Earthquake
Engineering, and Structure Design.
Key personnel for Structure Maintenance and Investigations were Tom Harrington, Office
Chief, who initiated the Research that generated Earthquake Inspection manuals and Senior
Bridge Engineer Stephen Sahs, the Research Project Manager and research contributor.
Disclaimer: The material and manuals generated from this research, “ Visual Inspection
and Capacity Assessment of Earthquake Damaged RC bridge Elements”, should be used as a
guide and training purposes only and should never replace engineering judgment in the field.
i
Visual Catalog of Bridge Damage
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………... i
Introduction
Organization …..……………………………………………………………………….. 1
Damage Levels ……………..…………………………………………………………. 2
Seismic Design Provisions ……………………………………………………………. 2
Discussion of Bridge Component Behavior…………………………………………… 5
References …..…………………………………………………………………………. 7
Part I - Laboratory Tests Photos
Components
Columns
Ordinary Columns
Flexural…............................................................................................... 13
Shear....................................................................................................... 35
Lap Splice............................................................................................... 46
Special Sections
Hollow………………………………………………………………… 50
Boundary elements................................................................................. 54
Flared ..................................................................................................... 58
Special Material
Lightweight …………………………………………………………… 63
MMX Steel …………………………………………………………… 67
Steel Column …………………………………………………………. 70
Joints ................................................................................................................. 73
Superstructure ………………………………………………………………. 80
Foundations ......................................................................... ……………….... 89
Abutments/ Shear Keys .................................................................................... 97
ii
Retrofit .........................................................................................................…. 105
Sub- Assemblages – Systems
Column Superstructure Sub- Assemblages ......................................................... 119
Column Foundation Sub- Assemblages .............................................................. 129
Double Deck Viaduct …..................................................................................... 131
Precast ………………………………………………………………………… 134
Part II - Field Photos from Historic Earthquakes
Classification According to Earthquake
San Fernando, USA 1971 .................................................................................. 141
Imperial Valley, USA 1979 …………………………………………….…….. 144
Whittier Narrows 1987 ...................................................................................... 146
Loma Prieta 1989 .............................................................................................. 150
Erzincan, Turkey 1992 ………………………………………………………. 158
Northridge, USA 1994 ...................................................................................... 160
Morgan Hill, USA 1994 ……………………………………………………… 178
Kobe, Japan 1995 .............................................................................................. 180
Adana- Ceyhan 1998 ……………………………………………………….…. 187
Izmit, Turkey 1999 ………………………………………………...……...….. 189
Duzce, Turkey 1999 ……………………………….…………………………. 193
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999 ....................................................................................... 195
Kocaeli, Turkey 1999 ……………………………………………………...….. 208
Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake, Japan 2004 ……………………………... 211
Classification According to Type of Damage
Columns
Flexural ……………………………………………………………….. 217
Shear …………….……………………………………………………. 222
Retrofit ……………..………………………………...……………….. 241
Joint Damage ………………………………………………………………… 243
Superstructure
Deck ……………………………...……………………………….…... 249
Cap beams/ Girder …..………………………………………………… 256
ii i
Span Collapse …………………………………………………………. 259
Movement.…………………………………………………………….. 264
Foundations/ Soil Damage …………………………………………………… 268
Abutments/ Shear Keys ……………………………………………………… 271
Bearing Damage …………………………………………………………….. 280
Total Collapse ……………………………………………………...………… 283
Part III - Correlation
Correlation of Field Photos with Laboratory Database
Flexural ………………….……………………………………………………. 288
Shear ……………………….………………………………………...……….. 292
Joints ……………………………….………….……………………...………. 295
Cap Beam – Column ………………………………………………………...... 298
Abutments/ Shear Keys ………………………………………………………... 300
Superstructure ………………………………………………………………... 305
Foundation …………………..………………………………...……………… 307
Other cases …….…………………….………………………………….….…. 309
Part IV – Details
Details of Extreme Damage Levels
Flexural Level V ................................................................................................ 312
Shear Level V .................................................................................................... 313
Lap Splice …...................................................................................................... 314
Retrofit – Level IV ............................................................................................. 315
Retrofit – Level V .............................................................................................. 316
Joints - Level V .................................................................................................. 317
Foundation - Level V ......................................................................................... 318
Shear Key – Level V .......................................................................................... 319
Part V – Performance Curves
Correlation of Damage Level with Performance Curves
Columns ………………….……………………………………………………. 321
Joints …………………………………………………………………………... 329
iv
Foundations ……………………………………………………………………. 332
Abutments ……………………………………………………………………... 337
Appendix
References by Catalog Number………………………………………………………... 339
1
INTRODUCTION
California is expecting to experience several moderate size earthquakes per decade. These
earthquakes can cause disruptions to the road network and result in important economic losses as a
result of the impact. Despite this fact, the Office of Structures Maintenance and Investigation at
Caltrans does not have a standard procedure or a training program for the assessment of damage and
the determination of the remaining load capacity of earthquake damage reinforced concrete ( RC)
bridge elements.
In order to develop a standard procedure and training program, Caltrans has supported a research
program that has developed a number of tools: a “ Visual Catalog of RC Bridge Damage”, a
“ Capacity Assessment Training Manual”, and a “ Post Earthquake Inspection Manual for Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Columns”. In addition to these manuals, an online computer based training class
has been developed to easily communicate this information to Caltrans Maintenance and Inspection
Engineers as well as to all other interested parties.
The “ Visual Catalog of RC Bridge Damage” documents damage from laboratory experiments and
from historic earthquakes and classifies the performance of an array of bridge components, sub-assemblages,
and systems in a consistent format. The intention is that this document will be used by
inspection and maintenance engineers as a reference to confirm the type and level of damage
observed after an earthquake. It can also be used as a teaching tool to train engineering in
identifying the type and level of damage to bridge components.
ORGANIZATION
The Caltrans Visual Bridge Catalog of Bridge Damage has been divided into five parts.
Part I is a catalog of laboratory test photos that are arranged by bridge component. The behavior of
each laboratory experiment is documented with photos from various damage levels as well as a
hysteresis curve of the response.
Part II is a catalog of photos from historical earthquakes dating from the 1971 San Fernando
earthquake to the 2004 Mid Niigata Prefecture earthquake in Japan. For ease of referencing, the
photos in this section have been arranged by earthquake as well as by type of damage.
Part III compares damage observed in laboratory experiments to damage from historical
earthquakes. The intent of this section is to prove to the reader that what is observed in carefully
controlled lab condition is in fact a realistic representation of in- situ behavior.
Part IV characterizes the damage at performance level IV and V for various bridge components.
This section provides more detail than shown in Part I.
Part V defines performance curves for various bridge components. The performance is classified
into one of three categories: ductile, strength degrading, or brittle. The damage level at various
stages along the curve is indicated to clearly illustrate proximity to component failure.
2
DAMAGE LEVELS
This catalog utilizes a five stage damage classification system. Damage level I indicates no damage
while damage level V indicates local failure or component collapse. See the table below for further
descriptions.
Level Damage
Classification
Damage
Description
Repair
Description
Socio- Economic
Description
I None Barely visible
cracking No Repair Fully Operational
II Minor Cracking Possible Repair Operational
III Moderate Open cracks;
onset of spalling Minimum Repair Life Safety
IV Major Very wide cracks;
extended spalling Repair Near Collapse
V Local
Failure/ Collapse
Visible permanent
deformation Replacement Collapse
SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS
Seismic design provisions have evolved significantly over the decades in order to fill deficiencies
that became apparent after significant seismic events. Or particular importance are the 1906 San
Francisco Earthquake, the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, and the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. In
order to accurately assess the remaining strength in a bridge structure after a seismic event, it is
imperative to understand the typical vulnerabilities of the design era. These vulnerabilities can be
identified by their physical characteristics and design details.
Pre 1971 Design
In 1940, California developed the first seismic design provision for bridge in the country. This early
seismic design code was simplistic and recognized that earthquakes produce forces that are
proportional to the dead weight of the structure. Until 1965 the maximum lateral seismic design
force was only 6% of the structural dead weight. In 1965, Caltrans incorporated the period of the
structure into the design equations along with various amplification factors. The maximum lateral
seismic design force increased to 13% of the weight of the structure. This was for very specific
cases and was not typical of all bridge structures.
Potential Vulnerabilities ( non- retrofitted bridges)
• Column shear failure
• Column longitudinal reinforcement pull- out
• Unseating of expansion hinges
Typical Design Details
• Column shear reinforcement 􀃎 # 4 at 12” ( typical, regardless of column size or size of
column longitudinal bars)
3
• Very short seat widths at expansion joints ( 6- 8” typ.)
• Inadequate lap splice of column long bars near footing (~ 20 db)
• Inadequate development of column long bars into footing (~ 20 db , without std. hooks)
• Lap splicing of column transverse rebar in cover ( i. e. no 135 deg seismic hooks into core
concrete)
1971 – 1994 Design
The 1971 San Fernando earthquake completely change the way California bridges are designed.
Bridge engineers recognized the importance of detailing and ductility in the response of bridge
structures, and the concept of capacity design was slowly incorporated into the design code. Bridges
that were in the design phase when the earthquake occurred had their lateral design forces increased
by a factor of 2 or 2.5 to about 0.3g, while future bridges had to account for fault proximity, site
conditions, dynamic structural response and ductile details for RC construction. These provisions
were incorporated into the Caltrans code in 1974 and while it was updated regularly, it remained, for
all practical purposes, unchanged when the 1994 Northridge earthquake occurred. By 1980 the
standard practice was to design for plastic shear of the columns. That is, the design intent was to fail
the column in flexure with all other portions of the bridge remaining elastic.
The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake prompted Caltrans to solicit the Applied Technology Council to
review and revise the Caltrans design standards, performance criteria, specifications and practices.
Work began in 1991, but their findings were not complete when the 1994 Northridge event occurred.
Potential Vulnerabilities ( non- retrofitted bridges)
• Column shear failure of plastic hinge regions
• Shear failure of flared columns
• Unseating of expansion joint hinges
Typical New Design Details
• Closer spacing and improved column shear detailing ( typical spacing 4”- 6”, but no
confinement/ anti- buckling requirement of plastic hinge region)
• Top reinforcement matt in footing and pile caps ( but no shear reinforcement)
• Column longitudinal splices prohibited at maximum moment locations
• Short seat widths at expansion joint hinges (~ 12”)
• Poor flare detailing ( no gap between top of flare and superstructure)
• No joint reinforcement
Potential Vulnerabilities ( retrofitted bridges)
• Failure of expansion joint hinge restrainers and subsequent unseating of expansion hinges,
particularly for bridges with large skew (> 30 deg)
Typical Retrofit Design Details
• Expansion joint hinge restrainers, short ( connected to concrete bolster on either side of
expansion joint)
Post 1994 Design
The Caltrans seismic design provisions of this era incorporated essentially all of the
recommendations from the Applied Technology Council as stated in ATC- 32. The
recommendations included a capacity design approach that will ensure a ductile flexural failure of
the column while all other bridge components remain elastic. In order to achieve this goal they
4
recommended minimizing the number of expansions joints, avoiding large skews, minimize the use
of column flares, considerations for shear demands in footings, joint shear in cap/ column and
footing/ column connections, anti- buckling reinforcement in column plastic hinges and increasing the
seat width at expansion joint hinges.
The 1994 Northridge earthquake validated the knowledge gained from recent research and from the
Loma Prieta earthquake. While significant damage occurred, it was primarily in not retrofitted pre
1971 designs or bridges with the early hinge restrainer retrofits. Bridges with steel jacket column
retrofits performed particularly well.
Typical New Design Details
• Tight confinement reinforcement in plastic hinge regions (~ 4” spacing)
• Long seats widths at expansion joints (~ 24”)
• Improved flare column details ( Gap between top of flare and superstructure)
• No lap splices in plastic hinge zones
• Shear reinforcement in footings
• Cap/ column and footing/ column joint reinforcement
Typical Retrofit Design Details
• Steel or concrete column jackets
• Expansion joint seat width extenders ( 8” XX- strong pipes)
• Top mat reinforcement in footings and perhaps additional piles.
• Expansion joint hinge restrainers, long ( connected from bolster at one side of hinge to the
superstructure web on the other side of the hinge)
DISCUSSION OF BRIDGE COMPONENT BEHAVIOR
Column Flexural Behavior
The flexural response of columns is influenced by a number of factors, including the axial load ratio,
aspect ratio, and reinforcement ratio. The most important factor of all, however, is the design details
that vary based on the era in which the column was designed.
Pre ’ 71 Designs
Columns designed to pre 1971 standards typically cannot obtain their full flexural capacity since
column shear failure will occur prior to development of column yield moments. However, if the
column yield moment is reached the strength will degrade quickly as the transverse reinforcement of
the plastic hinge region is deficient. Fracture of the transverse reinforcement is likely as is buckling
of the column longitudinal reinforcement.
A common practice for this design period was to lap splices the longitudinal column reinforcement
at the critical moment location just above the footing. Another common practice was to embed the
column longitudinal bars into the footing or bent cap without 90 degree hooks that ensure proper bar
development. In both cases the lap splice or embedment depth was less than 20 bar diameters. This
is insufficient to develop the yield strength of the reinforcement. Columns designed in this fashion
will not obtain the yield moment of the section and can be very brittle and lead to structural collapse.
See the ‘ Lap Splice’ section for more information.
5
’ 71-‘ 94 Designs
Columns designed between 1971 and 1994 typically do not adequately consider the cyclic
degradation of concrete shear strength within the plastic hinge. Consequently they develop the yield
moment of the section but degrade after repeated cycles due to shear failure in the hinge. Fracture of
the transverse reinforcement is likely as is buckling of the column longitudinal reinforcement.
Post ‘ 94 Designs
Columns designed after 1994 are characterized by heavy confinement of the plastic hinge region
with transverse reinforcement spaced at less than 6 longitudinal bar diameters. This type of design is
very ductile. The confinement ensures that the column longitudinal bars do not buckle and that
shear failure of the column and plastic hinge does not occur.
Column Shear Behavior
The shear strength of reinforced concrete sections comes from four essentially independent
mechanisms: 1) shear friction in the compression zone, 2) dowel action of the longitudinal
reinforcement, 3) aggregate interlock, and 4) transverse reinforcement truss mechanism. Dowel
action contributes minimally to the overall strength of the section and is unreliable, thus it is
typically ignored. The relative contribution of the remaining three mechanisms, to the overall
column behavior, is highly dependant on the era in which the bridge was designed.
Pre ’ 71 Designs
A typical pre 1971 column design has very little transverse reinforcement, typically # 4’ s at 12 inches
regardless of column size. Thus the column must rely predominantly on shear friction and aggregate
interlock. Problems arise as the concrete cracks because the aggregate interlock component of shear
strength reduces quickly with increasing crack width. The lack of transverse reinforcement produces
a very brittle column shear behavior, which loses all strength shortly after the column cracks appear.
’ 71-‘ 94 Designs
Columns design during this era follow the capacity design approach and typically provide sufficient
column reinforcement to develop the yield strength of the column. However, concrete shear strength
cyclic degradation and longitudinal column bar buckling was not completely appreciated at this time.
Thus it is not uncommon for shear failure to occur within the plastic hinge.
Post ‘ 94 Designs
Post 1994 column shear designs are characterized by closely spaced transverse reinforcement and
heavy confinement of plastic hinge regions. These designs will typically force a ductile flexural
failure of the column, but if this does not occur, ductile shear failure is likely. The shear demand is
transferred primarily by the transverse reinforcement in the form of a truss mechanism. Failure will
occur due to yielding and subsequent fracture of the transverse reinforcement after significant
cracking.
Column Lap Splice Behavior
A common practice for pre 1971 designs was to lap splices the longitudinal column reinforcement at
the critical moment location just above the footing. These lap splice are typically less than 20 bar
diameters long and are insufficient to develop the yield strength of the reinforcement. Columns
designed in this fashion will not obtain the yield moment of the section and can be very brittle and
may lead to structural collapse. Seismic response of lap splice connections can be improved with
sufficient clamping pressure from transverse reinforcement.
6
Hollow Column
Hollow columns are used on large, long span bridges to improve the efficiency of the piers by
removing unnecessary material at the center of the very large columns.
Circular column must have inner and outer circumferential hoops as well as radial ties to prevent
implosion. The radial ties must go around the longitudinal and circumferential bars to be effective.
Rectangular sections are not as susceptible to implosion because they have a wider effective
compression zone.
Flared Columns
Flared columns are used to engage more of the superstructure and to improve aesthetics. Prior to the
’ 94 Northridge earthquake, column flares were assumed, incorrectly, to be non- structural. Shear
failure of pre ’ 94 designed flared columns is possible since the column was designed for the shear
doe to yielding of the column, but not the shear do to yielding of the column and flare.
Post 1994 designs consider the strength of the flare or they provide a gap between the flare and the
superstructure to ensure that the flare is purely architectural and does not add any strength to the
column.
Lightweight Columns
Earthquake induced demands are proportional to the weight of the bridge structure. It stands to
reason that reducing the weight of the bridge will reduce the seismic demands and consequently the
size of structural members may be reduces as well. Thus using lightweight concrete may reduce the
cost of the bridge.
The shear strength of lightweight concrete is typically 75% that of normal weight concrete. To
account for this reduced concrete contribution to the total shear strength of a column, additional
transverse reinforcement may be necessary. If designed properly, lightweight concrete columns can
exhibit a desirable ductile flexural response.
Connections/ Joints
The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake showed the deficiencies in column- cap and column- footing
connections. This is particularly so for outrigger bents. Seismic design provisions did not provide
sufficient guidance until 1994. Prior to 1994, it was common practice to provide no shear
reinforcement in the connections. This will prohibit transfer of the column yield moment. Failure
can be brittle and lead to collapse of the structure.
Superstructure
Bridge superstructures have generally performed quite well during an earthquake. Problems have
arisen primarily at expansion joints where damage to bearings or local concrete spalling due to
impact of adjacent spans may occur. This type of damage is not catastrophic and is reparable.
Major problems have arisen due to inadequate seat length at expansion joints. Large relative
displacements between adjacent spans at expansion joints have, on occasion, exceeded the capacity
of the seat length, causing the supported span to collapse. This is particularly a problem in early ( pre
1971) bridge designs and for bridges with large skews, for which torsional deformations add to the
lateral displacement demands.
7
Foundations
Bridge foundations have generally performed well in earthquakes. Foundation damage that has
occurred has been after column damage and is minor compared to the column damage. Early ( pre
1971) bridge foundations are typically very small and have only a bottom matt of reinforcement and
no shear reinforcement. Thus they cannot carry a negative moment induced by soil overburden or
tension piles and flexure or shear failure of the footing or column- footing connection is possible.
Soil liquefaction or lateral spreading due to seismic motions is possible at some bridge locations.
Vertical settlement or lateral movement of bridge foundations may occur causing foundation,
column and potentially superstructure damage. Total structural collapse is not common unless the
movement is large enough to unseat the superstructure at an expansion joint.
Abutments/ Shear Keys
Abutment seismic design philosophy has generally been focused around the protection of piles
below the abutment. Thus various elements of the abutment are designed to be sacrificial in order to
limit the demands on the piles. Failure of shear keys due to transverse motion and punching shear
failure of the back wall is likely. Neither failure will cause total structural collapse, and is typically
repairable.
Liquefaction, lateral spreading or poor soil compaction at the abutment has caused vertical
settlement or lateral movement in a number of earthquakes. Unless this movement is large enough
to unseat the superstructure, total structural collapse is not common
REFERENCES
1. Benzoni, G., Ohtaki, T., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic Performance of Circular
Reinforced Concrete Columns under Varying Axial Load, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 96/ 04, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, August 1996.
2. Calderone, Anthony J., Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P., Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Bridge Columns Having Varying Aspect Ratios and Varying Lengths of Confinement, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER – 2000/ 08, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, January 2001.
3. Chai, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Flexural Retrofit of Circular Reinf. Concrete Bridge
Columns by Steel Jacketing- Experimental Studies, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP –
91/ 06, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, October 1991.
4. Dazio, A., Seible, F., Structural Testing of the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge East Spans
Pier W2, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2002/ 11, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2003.
5. Dowell, R., Burgueño, R., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Mari, A., The Terminal Separation
Replacement Structure Prooftest and Retrofit Test, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP –
94/ 15, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, October 1994.
6. Esmaeily- Gh, Asadollah, Xiao, Yan, Seismic Behavior of Bridge Columns Subjected to Various
Loading Patterns, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER – 2002/ 15, University
of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2002
8
7. Gibson, N., Filiatrault, A., and Ashford, S., Performance of Bridge Joints Subjected to a Large
Velocity Pulse, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 10, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, August 2001.
8. Hewes, J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design and Performance of Precast Concrete Segmental
Bridge Columns, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 25, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, June 2002.
9. Hines, E. M., Dazio, A., Seible, F., Structural Testing of the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge
East Span Skyway Piers, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2002/ 01, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, August 2002.
10. Holombo, J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Longitudinal Seismic Response of Precast Spliced-
Girder Bridges, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 98/ 05, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, April 1998.
11. Holombo, J., MacRae, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Steel Column Prooftests of the Bayshore
and Central Viaducts, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 95/ 05, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, April 1995.
12. Hose, Y., Seible, F., Priestley, N., Strategic Relocation of Plastic Hinges in Bridge Columns,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 97/ 05, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA, August 1997
13. Ingham, J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic Performance of Bridge Knee Joints - Vol. I,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 94/ 12, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA, June 1994.
14. Innamorato, D, Seible, F., Hegemier, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Ho, F., Full Scale Test of a Two
Column Bridge Bent with Carbon Fiber Jacket Retrofit, Advanced Composite Technology
Transfer ACTT- 96/ 10, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, August 1996.
15. Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Flexural Behavior of Lightweight Concrete
Columns under Seismic Conditions, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 96/ 08,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, December 1996.
16. Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Shear Behavior of Lightweight Concrete Columns
under Seismic Conditions, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 95/ 10, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, July 1995.
17. Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P., Seismic Performance of Well- Confined Concrete Bridge
Columns, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER – 1998/ 01, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2000.
18. MacGregor J. G., Wight J. K. “ Reinforced Concrete : Mechanics And Design”, 4th Ed., Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005.
19. Megally, S. H., Garg, M., Seible, F., Dowell, Robert K., Seismic Performance of Precast
Segmental Bridge Superstructures, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 24,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
20. Megally, S. H., Silva, P. F., Seible, F., Seismic Response of Sacrificial Shear Keys in Bridge
Abutments, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 23, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
9
21. Melek, Murat, Wallace, John W., Conte, Joel P., Experimental Assessment of Columns with
Short Lap Splices Subjected to Cyclic Loads, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
PEER – 2003/ 04, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, April 2003.
22. Moehle et al, “ Highway Bridges and Traffic Management”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 11,
Supplement C, Chapter 6, April, 1995
23. National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering.
http:// nisee. berkeley. edu/ northridge/ highway_ bridges. html ( accessed Dec 2004)
24. Ohtaki, T., Benzoni, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of a Full Scale Bridge Column-
As Built and As Repaired, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 96/ 07, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, November 1996.
25. Patty, J., Seible, F., Uang, C- M., Seismic Response of Integral Bridge Connections, Structural
Systems Research Project SSRP – 2000/ 16, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
October 2002.
26. Priestley, M. J. N., Seible F., Calvi G. M., “ Seismic Design And Retrofit of Bridges”, 1st Ed., New
York, New York : John Wiley And Sons, Inc., 1996.
27. Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Anderson, D., Proof Test of a Retrofit Concept for the San
Francisco Double- Deck Viaducts, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 92/ 03, University
of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, July 1992.
28. Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Benzoni, G., Seismic Response of Columns with Low Longitudinal
Steel Ratios, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 94/ 08, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, June 1994.
29. Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Chai, Y. H., Wong, R., Santa Monica Viaduct Retrofit - Full- Scale
Test on Col. Lap Splice with # 11 ( 35 mm) Reinforcement, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 92/ 08, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, September 1992.
30. Ranzo, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of Circular Hollow Columns Subjected to
High Shear, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 01, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, March 2001.
31. Roberts, J. E., “ Caltrans Structural Control for Bridges in High- Seismic Zones”, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2005, Vol. 34, pages 449- 470.
32. Sanchez, A., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of Flared Bridge Columns,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 97/ 06, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA, October 1997.
33. Schoettler, M., Restrepo, J., Seible, F., BART Aerial Guideway Bent Proof Test, Structural
Systems Research Project SSRP – 2002/ 13, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
October 2002.
34. Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Latham, C., Silva, P., Full- Scale Bridge Column/ Superstructure
Connection Tests under Simulated Longitudinal Seismic Loads, Structural Systems Research
Project SSRP – 94/ 14, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, June 1994.
10
35. Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Sun, Z. L., San Francisco Flexural Retrofit Validation Tests on
Rectangular Columns, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 90/ 07, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, December 1990.
36. Shmoldas, A., Shleifer, G., Seible, F., Innamorato, D., Carbon Fiber Retrofit of the Arroyo Seco
Spandrel Column, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 97/ 13, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, October 1997.
37. Silva, P., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Response of Standard Caltrans Pile- To- Pile Cap
Connections Under Simulated Seismic Loads, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP –
97/ 09, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, November 1997.
38. Silva, P. F., Sritharan, S., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Full- Scale Test of the Alaska Cast- In-
Place Steel Shell Three Column Bridge Bent, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP –
98/ 13, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, February 1999.
39. Sritharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic Design And Performance Of Concrete Multi-
Column Bents For Bridges, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 97/ 03, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, June 1997.
40. Sritharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic Response of Column/ Cap Beam Tee
Connections w/ Cap Beam Prestressing, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 96/ 09,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, December 1996.
41. Stephan, B., Restrepo, J., Seible F., Seismic Behavior of Bridge Columns Built Incorporating
MMFX Steel, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2003/ 09, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, October 2003.
42. Sun, Z., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Diagnostics and Retrofit of Rectangular Bridge Columns
for Seismic Loads, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 93/ 07, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, July 1993.
43. Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Experimental Evaluation of a Typical Bridge Column
Footing Designed to Current Caltrans Standards, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP –
95/ 08, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, March 1995.
44. Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Hamada, N., Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Bridge
Footings, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 94/ 11, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 1994.
45. Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Steel Jacket Retrofit for Enhancing Shear Strength of
Short Rectang. Reinforced Concrete Columns, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP –
92/ 07, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, July 1993.
11
Part I
Laboratory tests photos
12
Ordinary Columns
13
Flexural
14
F1 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V ( buckling of long. bars) Level V
15
F2- Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level II Level IV
Level V cycle 1 ( buckling of long. bars)
16
F3 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V ( permanent deformation)
17
F4 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph
Level IV Level V
Level V -( buckling of bars) Level V
18
F5 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level IV
Level V - cycle 1 - ( buckling of long. bars)
19
F6 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level V - cycle 1 – ( buckling of long. Bars)
20
F7 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level IV Level V – cycle 1 – ( buckling of long. Bars)
Level V Level V cycle 2 ( fracture of long. bars)
21
F8 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph
Level II Level III
Level V ( permanent deformation) Level V ( buckling of long. bars)
22
F9 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V ( buckling of long. bars)
23
F10 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V ( buckling of long bars)
24
F11 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V ( buckling of long. bars)
25
F12 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V ( permanent deformation)
26
F13 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V ( buckling of long bars)
27
F14 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level IV Level IV
Level V Level V
28
F15 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
29
F16 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph
Level II Level III
Level IV Level IV
30
F17 – Flexural/ Shear – Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
31
F18 – Flexural – Brittle
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V - ( buckling of long. bars)
32
F19 – Flexural – Ductile
Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V - ( buckling of long. bars)
33
F20 – Flexural – Strength Degrading
F- d Graph
Level III Level V
Level V Level V fracture stirrup, buckling bars
34
F21 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level III Level V ( permanent deformation)
Level V cycle 1 ( buckling of bars) Level V cycle 2 ( fracture of bars)
35
Shear
36
S1 – Shear – Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V
37
S2 – Shear – Brittle
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
38
S3 – Shear – Brittle
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
39
S4 – Shear – Brittle
F- d response Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
40
S5 – Shear – Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
41
S6 – Shear – Brittle
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
42
S7 – Shear – Brittle
F- d graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
43
S8 – Shear – Brittle
F- d graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
44
S9 – Shear – Brittle
F- d graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
46
Lap Splice
47
LS1 – Lap Splice – Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
48
LS2 – Lap Splice - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV ( inclination of cracks at splice)
Level V – well confined region below lap splice Level V - bond slip – space of bars
49
Special Sections
50
Hollow
51
SS1 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level V
Ref: SSRP 2001/ 01, HS- 1
52
SS2 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level V
53
SS3 – Shear – Brittle
Level II
Level IV Level V
54
Columns with Boundary Elements
55
SS4 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level III Level V
56
SS5 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d graph Level II
Level II Level II tension side
Level III Level III tension side
57
SS5 – Flexural – Ductile
Level IV Level IV Tension side
Level V Level V tension side
Level V
58
Flared
59
SS6 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
60
SS7 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level III
Level IV Level V
61
SS8 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d response Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
62
Special Material
63
Lightweight
64
SM1 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level IV
Level V Level V
65
SM2 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level IV
Level IV
Level V – permanent deformation Level V
66
SM3 – Shear –
Level III Level III
Level IV Level V
67
MMX Steel
68
SM4 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level V
Level V Level V
69
SM5 – Shear – Brittle
F- d Graph Level V ( Hoop fracture)
Level V longitudinal bar fracture) Level V
70
Steel Columns
71
SM6 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level V
72
SM7 – Shear – Brittle
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level V
73
Joints
74
J1 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
75
J2
Level III Level IV
Level IV Level V
76
J3 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V
77
J4 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level V
Level V
78
J5 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
79
J6 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level V
Level V
80
Superstructure
81
SP1 – Flexural - Brittle
F- d Graph
Level III
Level IV Level V
82
SP2 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph
Level III Level III
Level IV Level V
83
SP3 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
84
SP4 – Flexural – Brittle
F- d Graph
Level IV
Level V Level V
85
SP5 – Flexural – Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level V Level V ( Compression failure)
Level V ( prestress steel failure- lower tendon) Level V
86
SP6 – Flexural - Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level IV Level IV
Level V Level V
87
SP7 – Flexural – Brittle
F- d Graph Level I
Level IV Level V
Level V Level V
88
SP8 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
89
Foundations
90
F1 – Shear – Brittle
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
91
F2 – Degrading - Ductile
Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
92
F3 – Degrading – Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
93
F4 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III penetration of footing cracks
Level IV Level V
94
F5 – Flexural - Ductile
Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
95
F6 – Flexural – Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V column- footing shear cracks
96
F7 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V permanent deformation
97
Abutments/ Shear Keys
98
SK1 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
99
SK2 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level I
Level III Level V
100
SK3 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
101
SK4 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
102
SK5 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
103
SK6 – Shear – Brittle
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
104
SK7 – Shear
Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
105
Retrofit
106
R1 – Flexural
F- d Graph Without Retrofit
Without - Level IV Level III
Level V permanent deformation Level V bars rupture
107
R2 – Flexural - Ductile
Level I
Level II shear cracking at joint Level III spalling at gap region of cap beam
Level IV cap beam penetration of reinforcement Level V - fracture of long. Bars
108
R3 – Flexural
Level II flexural cracks at joint Level III joint shear cracks ( from pull out)
Level IV splitting cracks of cap beam Level IV
109
R4 – Flexural
Level II first cracks at interface Level III cracks in jacket filaments and gap
Level IV extensive spalling at plastic hinge Level V jacket cracks, bar rupture
110
R5 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level III without retrofit
Level V without retrofit Test setup – retrofit
Level IV after removal of jacket Level V after removal of jacket
111
R6 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Test setup
Level III spalling at gap region Level V permanent deformation
112
R7 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level I - Cracks on Pedestal
Level I - First vertical on column interface Level II - Above jacket cracks
Level III - Spalling of cover concrete at pedestal Level IV - Gap between pedestal column
113
R7 – Flexural
Concrete cones around starter bars Level IV Dilation of jacket
Level V - Sliding of column Level V
Level V
114
R8 – Flexural – Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level III
Level IV Level V
115
R9 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level III
Level V Level V
Level V
116
R10 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level I
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
117
R11 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph
Level II Level IV
Level IV ( Residual crack at end of test)
118
Sub- Assemblages - Systems
119
Column Superstructure
Sub- Assemblages
120
SM1 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level V
Level IV superstructure cracks Level IV superstructure cracks
121
SM2 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
122
SM3 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level IV Level V
123
SM4 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level IV
Level IV
124
SM5 – Shear - Brittle
F- d Graph Level III
Level III at bottom Level IV
Level IV Level V Girder
125
SM6 – Shear – Brittle
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level IV
Level IV Level V
126
SM7 – Shear – Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level IV bent cap Level V bent cap/ girder
127
SM8 – Shear – Brittle
F- d Graph Level II
Level III Level IV
Level V Level V
128
SM9 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level II Level III
Level IV Level V
129
Column Foundation Sub- Assemblages
130
SM10 – Flexural
Test setup
Level III Level V pile cap rotation
Level V residual displacement Level V
131
Double Deck Viaduct
132
SM11 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level II
Level II edge girder Level II outside face cap column
Level II cap beam between superstructure- girder Level III
133
SM11 – Flexural – Ductile
Level III outside face cap column Level III
Level IV outside face cap column Level IV top of edge girder
Level IV Level V
134
Precast
135
SM12 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level III
Level III Level IV
136
SM13 – Flexural – Ductile
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level V
137
SM14 – Shear – Brittle
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level IV
138
SM15 – Flexural - Ductile
F- d Graph Level III
Level IV Level V
139
Part II
Field photo database - Earthquake events
140
Classification according to Earthquake
141
San Fernando, USA 1971
142
San Fernando, USA 1971
Failure – buckling of long bars Failure – buckling of long bars
Shear failure Shear failure
Failure at Column Base Shear failure
143
San Fernando, USA 1971
Total failure Total failure
Span failure Pullout Failure
Exterior shear key failure
144
Imperial Valley, USA 1979
145
Imperial Valley, USA 1979
Abutment – Level V
Shear- Level V Abutment – Level V
New River Bridge
146
Whittier Narrows, USA 1987
147
Whittier Narrows, USA 1987
Cracks at column- beam interface Level III Top column spalling – Level II
Shear – Level V Shear – Level V
Shear – Level V Shear – Level V
148
Whittier Narrows, USA 1987
Joint shear crack- Level V Cap beam top – bottom spalling – Level III
Abutment damage – Level IV Abutment spalling- Level III
Abutment rocker support keeper plates failure Superstructure pounding – Level IV
149
Whittier Narrows, USA 1987
Shear Level V Fractured steel bars Level V
Shear Level - V Shear Level – Level V
150
Loma Prieta, USA 1989
151
Loma Prieta, USA 1989
Flexural – Level III Flexural – Level IV
Shear Level IV Shear Level IV
Shear Level V Shear – Level V
152
Loma Prieta, USA 1989
Shear – Level V Shear – Level V
Shear failure Joint Shear – Level V
153
Loma Prieta, USA 1989
Shear failure Shear failure
Joint damage – Level V
154
Loma Prieta, USA 1989
Joint failure Joint failure
Joint failure Collapse of girder bridge
Total failure Total failure
155
Loma Prieta, USA 1989
Abutment horizontal offset – Level V Abutment vertical offset – Level V
Beam damage – Level IV Total Failure
Total Failure Failure angle seats ( Oakland Bay Bridge)
156
Loma Prieta, USA 1989
Total Failure Collapsed deck ( Struve Slough Bridge)
Collapsed deck ( Cypress Street Viaduct) Shear cracking- Level IV
Lateral Displacement – Level V( Struve Slough) Deck cut- through by piers ( Struve Bridge)
157
Loma Prieta, USA 1989
Joint- Level V Joint- Level V ( I- 980)
Spalled concrete at base - Level IV Level V ( Corralitos Creek Bridge)
Misaligned hinge – Level V Shear Crack – Level IV ( Mora Drive Overpass)
158
Erzincan, Turkey 1992
159
Erzincan, Turkey 1992
Cracking of abutment wall – Level IV Pounding above piers – Level V
Shear crack on column – Level IV
Kemah Highway
160
Northridge, USA 1994
161
Northridge, USA 1994
Flexural – Level II Flexural – Level III
Flexural Level III Flexural Level IV
Flexural Level IV
162
Northridge, USA 1994
Shear Level III Shear Level III
Shear Level IV Shear Level IV
Shear – Level IV Shear – Level V
163
Northridge, USA 1994
Shear Level V Shear Level V
Shear Level V Shear Level V
Shear Level V Shear Level V
164
Northridge, USA 1994
Shear failure Shear failure
Shear failure Shear failure
Shear failure Shear failure
165
Northridge, USA 1994
Column superstructure spalling Level III Column foundation Flexural Level III
Shear collar failure Shear collar failure
Total Failure Shear cracks in abutment Level - IV
166
Northridge, USA 1994
Lap splice retrofit Lap splice retrofit
Lap splice retrofit Lap splice retrofit
167
Northridge, USA 1994
Shear – Level V Shear failure
Shear – Level V Shear failure
Failure Shear – Level V
168
Northridge, USA 1994
Total failure Total failure
Total failure Total failure
Total failure Total failure
169
Northridge, USA 1994
Pounding at movement joint – Level IV Pounding at movement joint – Level IV
Abutment damage- Level IV Abutment damage- Level V
Deck failure Damaged movement joint – Level IV
170
Northridge, USA 1994
Failure Abutment – wing - wall failure
Abutment failure Hinge fractured restrainer rods
Hinge restrainer pullout Hinge restrainer pullout close to abutment
171
Northridge, USA 1994
Deck collapse Abutment Failure
Failure of anchor bolts for a girder Spalling – Level IV
Disturbed soil – Level IV Separation of soil and column- Level V
172
Northridge, USA 1994
Soil separation Barrier cracking – Level IV
Deck damage- Level IV Curb separation – Level IV
173
Northridge, USA 1994
Joint movement – Level V Abutment connection cracks – Level V
Abutment damage – Level IV Abutment connection failure
Abutment failure Abutment failure
174
Northridge, USA 1994
Abutment – Level V Deck Collapse
Abutment Failure
Column Failure Column Base Failure
175
Northridge, USA 1994
Superstructure – Level IV Abutment Failure
Total Failure Span Colapse
( Gavin Canyon Undercrossing) – Span Collapse Deck Collapse
176
Northridge, USA 1994
Shear Failure Shear - Level V
Shear Level V Shear Level V
Column Failure Column Failure
177
Northridge, USA 1994
Deck and Abutment displacements – Level V Deck Failure
Column Failure Internal Shear keys damage – Level V
Abutment/ Deck displacement – Level V Abutment – Level V
178
Morgan Hill, USA 1994
179
Morgan Hill, USA 1994
Column – Level V Abutment Restrainer Failure
Sheared off bolts
Highway Bridge
180
Kobe, Japan 1995
181
Kobe, Japan 1995
Flexural level IV Flexural level IV
Shear Level V Shear Level V
Shear Level V Shear failure
182
Kobe, Japan 1995
Shear failure Shear failure
Shear failure Shear failure
Shear failure Shear failure
183
Kobe, Japan 1995
Shear failure Shear failure
Shear failure Shear failure
184
Kobe, Japan 1995
Shear failure Total failure
Total failure Total failure
Column failure Total failure
185
Kobe, Japan 1995
Total failure Column Weld failure
Total failure Total failure
Total failure Total failure
186
Kobe, Japan 1995
Totral failure Total failure- Weld failure
Total failure- permanent deformation Girder failure
187
Adana- Ceyhan 1998
188
Adana- Ceyhan 1998
Superstructure- Level IV
Superstructure- Level V Superstructure- Level IV
The Ceyhan Bridge
189
Izmit, Turkey 1999
190
Izmit, Turkey 1999
Total failure Abutment- Level III
Abutment- Level III Abutment- Level III
Span Collapse Failure of bearing pad
191
Izmit, Turkey 1999
Superstructure- Level V Abutment- Level V
Superstructure- Level V Superstructure- Level V
Superstructure- Level V Transversal movement – Level V
192
Izmit, Turkey 1999
Total failure- prestressed beam girder bridge Spalling due to Girder impact – Level IV
193
Duzce, Turkey 1999
194
Duzce, Trukey 1999
Slope failure Longitudinal movement- Level V
195
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
196
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Flexural – Level V Rupture of long reinforcement at joint
Joint column damage Level IV Reinforcement fracture
Shear failure Shear Failure
197
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Column shear- off Separation at construction joint
Superstructure drop off Column failure to excessive ground movement
Spans separation Ground separation near pier
198
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Abutment slumping Wing wall and embankment failure
Permanent deck transverse displacement –
Level V
Soil liquefaction around pier
Uneven bridge deck due to pier settlement Unseating of superstructure
199
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Unseating of Superstructure Unseating of Superstructure
Unseating of Superstructure Unseating of Superstructure
200
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Shear cracking- Level IV Shear cracking- Level IV
Shear cracking- Level IV
Mau- uo- Shi Bridge
201
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Column Damage, Level V Column, Bearing Damage, Level V
Lateral movement - Level V Bearing Damage – Level V
202
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Shear- Level V
Shear- Level V Total Failure
Unseating of Superstructure Shear- Level IV
I- jiang Bridge
203
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Superstructure Failure Superstructure Failure
Excessive movement- Level V Cap Beam- Superstructure- Level V
Jyi Lu Bridge
204
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Cap Beam- Superstructure- Level V Column- Shear- Level IV
Column- Shear- Level IV Column- Shear- Level IV
Jyi Lu Bridge
205
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Total Failure Total Failure
Total Failure Total Failure
Total Failure
Shih- Wui Bridge
206
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Total Failure Total Failure
Total Failure
Ming Ju Bridge
207
Chi- Chi, Taiwan 1999
Total Failure Expansion of joints- Level V
Shear- Level V Shear Failure ( Wu Shu Bridge)
Total Failure ( Pin ling bridge)
208
Kocaeli, Turkey 1999
209
Kocaeli, Turkey 1999
Deck failure ( tectonic compression zones) Shear Failure
Deck failure Abutment failure ( TEM bridge)
Abutment damage ( Sakarya River) Deck failure
210
Kocaeli, Turkey 1999
Level IV - Displaced spans ( TEM Sakarya Viaduct) Total Failure ( TEM Arifiye Road Bridge)
Total Failure ( Sakarya Bridge)
211
Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake, Japan
2004
212
Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake, Japan 2004
Shear- Level V Shear- Level V
Shear- Level V Shear- Level V
‘
213
Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake, Japan 2004
Shear- Level V Shear- Level V
Shear- Level V Shear- Level V
214
Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake, Japan 2004
Abutment- Level V Abutment- Level V
215
Classification according to type of
Damage
216
Columns
217
Flexural Damage
218
Flexural Damage
Level III Level V
Level V Failure
Level II Level III
219
Flexural Damage
Level II Level IV
Level II Level III
Level III Level IV
220
Flexural Damage
Level IV Level III
Level IV Level IV
Level V Level III
221
Flexural Damage
Level III Level V
Failure Level V
Level V Fractured steel bars Failure
222
Shear Damage
223
Shear Damage
Failure Failure
Failure Failure
Failure Failure
224
Shear Damage
Fialure Level V
Level V Level V
Level V Level V
225
Shear Damage
Level V Level V
Level V Level V
Failure Weld Failure
226
Shear Damage
Level IV Level III
Level III Level IV
Level IV Level IV
227
Shear Damage
Level V Level V
Level V Level V
Level V Level V
228
Shear Damage
Failure Failure
Failure Failure
Failure Failure
229
Shear Damage
Level V Failure
Level IV Failure
Level V Level V
230
Shear Damage
Level V Shear collar failure
Level V Level V
Level V Level V
231
Shear Damage
Failure Failure
Failure Failure
Failure Failure
232
Shear Damage
Level V Level V
Level V Level V
Failure Failure
233
Shear Damage
Failure Level V
Level V Level IV
Level IV Level V
234
Shear Damage
Level V Level V
Level V Level V
Level V Level V
235
Shear Damage
Level IV Level V
Level IV Level V
Level IV Failure
236
Shear Damage
Total failure Total failure
Failure Total failure
Failure Level IV
237
Shear Damage
Level V Failure
Failure Level V
Level IV Level IV
238
Shear Damage
Failure Total failure
Total failure Total failure
Total failure Total failure
239
Shear Damage
Failure Failure
Failure Failure
Failure Failure
240
Shear Damage
Failure
241
Retrofit
242
Retrofit
Lap splice retrofit Lap splice retrofit
Lap splice retrofit Lap splice retrofit
243
Joint Damage
244
Joint Damage
Joint- Shear Crack Level V
Level IV Level V
Level V Level V
245
Joint Damage
Level V Column Foundation Pedestal – Level V
Column Girder Interface – Level V Level IV
Level V Level V
246
Joint Damage
Level V Level V
Level V Level V
Joint Shear Failure Level IV
247
Joint Damage
Level V
248
Superstructure
249
Deck Damage
250
Deck Damage
Curb separation – Level IV Barrier cracking – Level IV
Level IV Level IV
Uneven deck due to pier settlement – Level V Deck failure ( tectonic compression zones)
251
Deck Damage
Failure Failure
Level IV Level V
Deck cut- through by piers Level V
252
Deck Damage
Level V Level IV
Slope failure causes road collapse Deck and Abutment displacements – Level V
Girder bridge collapse Abutment/ Deck displacement – Level V
253
Deck Damage
Failure of deck Level V
Level IV Level V
Level IV Level V
254
Deck Damage
Failure Failure
Collapse of girder bridge Failure
Level III Level IV
255
Deck Damage
Pounding above piers – Level V Level V
Level V Level V – Expansion of joints
Lateral Displacement – Level V
256
Cap Beam/ Girder
257
Cap Beam/ Girder
Buckling – Level V Level V
Level V Girder Failure
Level V Girder- Level V
258
Cap Beam/ Girder
Bottom Spalling Level III Separation abutment superstructure – Level V
259
Span Collapse
260
Span Collapse
Span Collapse Span Collapse
Span Collapse Span Collapse
Collapsed span Span Collapse
261
Span Collapse
Span Collapse Span Collapse
Span Collapse Span Collapse
Span Collapse Span Collapse
262
Span Collapse
Span Collapse Span Collapse ( TEM Arifiye Road Bridge)
Span Collapse Span Collapse
Span Collapse Pin ling bridge Span Collapse
263
Span Collapse
Span Collapse Collapsed span
Collapsed span Steel deck collapse
264
Movement
265
Movement
Lateral movement - Level V Movement Level IV
Movement Level V Movement Level IV
Movement Level V Movement Level V
266
Movement
Movement Damaged angle seats Movement Level V
Movement Level V Movement Level V
Movement Level V Movement Level IV
267
Movement
Movement Level IV Level V Longitudinal movement
Level V- Transversal movement Excessive movement – Level V
Level V– Longitudinal movement
268
Foundations/ Soil Damage
269
Foundations/ Soil Damage
Ground crack under a bridge Soil liquefaction around pier
Settlement around bridge column 10 cm. gap between column and soil- Level V
Ejected sand Soil failure due to fault line
270
Foundations/ Soil Damage
271
Abutments/ Shear Keys
272
Abutments/ Shear Keys
Level V Level IV
Level V Level V
Level V Level III
273
Abutments/ Shear Keys
Internal Shear Keys
Failure Level IV
Level V Failure
274
Abutments/ Shear Keys
Failure Failure
Level V Level III
Level III Level III
275
Abutments/ Shear Keys
Level IV Failure
Level V Transversal movement Failure
Level V Pounding damage Level V Separation of Abutment
276
Abutments/ Shear Keys
Level V Abutment slumping
Level V Level V
Level V Level V
277
Abutments/ Shear Keys
Abutment horizontal offset Abutment vertical offset
Level IV Level IV
Level V Level V
278
Abutments/ Shear Keys
Failure Failure
Failure Failure
Level IV Level IV- Crack due to Girder impact
279
Abutments/ Shear Keys
Abutment/ Superstructure separation Spalling of concrete at abutment
280
Bearing Damage
281
Bearing Damage
Failure of Elastomeric bearing Failure of anchor bolts on girder
Girder movement causes bearing failure Failure of bearing pad
Bearing sliding
282
Bearing Damage
Level IV Level IV
Level V
283
Total Collapse
284
Total Collapse
Total Failure Total Failure
Total Failure Failure Pin Ling Bridge
Total Failure Total Failure
285
Total Collapse
Failure Pre- stress concrete failure Total Failure ( Sakarya Bridge)
Failure Total Failure
Total Failure Total Failure
286
Total Collapse
Total failure Total failure
Total Failure Total Failure
Total Failure Pull out failure
287
Part III
Correlation of Field photo with
Laboratory database
288
Flexural
289
Flexural
Flexural – Level IV
Flexural – Level IV
Flexural Level V
290
Flexural
Flexural – Level V
Flexural – Level V
Flexural – Level V
291
Flexural
Flexural – Level III
Flexural – Level V – rupture of long. Bars
Flared Columns- Level IV
292
Shear
293
Shear
Shear – Level III
Shear - Level V
Shear - Level IV
294
Shear
Shear - Level V
Shear - Level V
Lap splice – Base – Level IV
295
Joints
296
Joints
Knee Joint - Level IV
Tee Joint - Level IV
Tee joint – Level V
297
Joints
Level V
Level IV
Level V
298
Cap Beam- Column
299
Cap Beam- Column
Level III
Level IV
300
Abutments- Shear Keys
301
Abutments- Shear Keys
Level V
Level V
Level III
302
Abutments- Shear Keys
Level IV
Level V
Level IV
303
Abutments- Shear Keys
Level V
Level v
Level V
304
Abutments- Shear Keys
Abutment- Shear key – Level V
Sami’s tests shear key
Tests in lab
External
Shear
Keys
305
Superstructure
306
Super Structure
Level IV
Level IV
Level V
307
Foundation
308
Foundation
Level V
Level V
309
Other Cases
310
Other Cases
Level V – gap between pedestal column
311
PART IV
Details of Extreme Performance
Levels
312
Flexural Level V
Buckling of longitudinal reinforcement
Fracture of longitudinal bars and stirrups Fracture of longitudinal bars
Permanent deformation
313
Shear Level V
diagonal crack ( plastic hinge region- base) Diagonal crack- midheight
Diagonal crack - midheight
314
Lap Splice
Level III - Crack at midheight Level V - BOND SLIP – space of bars
315
Retrofit Level IV
Gap between column pedestal Dilation of jacket
Extensive spalling – plastic hinge region
316
Retrofit Level V
Buckling of long bars
Sliding of column Permanent deformation
317
Joints Level V
Shear crack- tee joint Shear crack- knees joint
318
Foundations Level V
Shear cracks Pile cap rotation
Shear crack- retrofit foundation Shear splitting
319
Shear Keys Level V
Diagonal Shear crack
320
Part V
Correlation of lab photos with
Performance Curves
321
Column Performance Curves
322
Δ
X
Ductile Curve Force
Displacement
323
Δ
X
Ductile Curve Force
Displacement
324
Δ
X
Strength Degrading Curve Force
Displacement
325
Δ
X
Strength Degrading Curve Force
Displacement
326
Δ
X
Brittle Curve Force
Displacement
327
Δ
X
Brittle Curve Force
Displacement
328
Δ
X
Brittle Curve Force
Displacement
329
Joint Performance Curves
330
Δ
X
Ductile Curve ( J1) Force
Displacement
331
Δ
X
Brittle Curve ( J2)
Force
Displacement
332
Foundation Performance Curves
333
Δ
X
Ductile Curve ( F4)
Force
Displacement
334
Degrading Curve ( F3)
Δ
Limited Ductility Response
X
Force
Displacement
335
Brittle Curve ( F1)
Δ
Brittle Response
X
Force
Displacement
336
Brittle Curve ( F6)
Δ
Brittle Response
X
Force
Displacement
337
Abutment Performance Curves
338
Brittle Curve ( SK5)
Δ
Brittle Response
X
Force
Displacement
339
Appendix
References by Catalog Number
340
Catalog
# Reference Test Unit
F1
Calderone, Anthony J., Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P.,
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Having Varying
Aspect Ratios and Varying Lengths of Confinement, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER – 2000/ 08,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, January 2001.
328
F2
Calderone, Anthony J., Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P.,
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Having Varying
Aspect Ratios and Varying Lengths of Confinement, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER – 2000/ 08,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, January 2001.
328- T
F3
Calderone, Anthony J., Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P.,
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Having Varying
Aspect Ratios and Varying Lengths of Confinement, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER – 2000/ 08,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, January 2001.
828
F4
Calderone, Anthony J., Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P.,
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Having Varying
Aspect Ratios and Varying Lengths of Confinement, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER – 2000/ 08,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, January 2001.
1028
F5
Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P., Seismic Performance of Well-
Confined Concrete Bridge Columns, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center PEER – 1998/ 01, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2000.
415
F6
Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P., Seismic Performance of Well-
Confined Concrete Bridge Columns, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center PEER – 1998/ 01, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2000.
430
F7
Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P., Seismic Performance of Well-
Confined Concrete Bridge Columns, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center PEER – 1998/ 01, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2000.
815
F8
Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P., Seismic Performance of Well-
Confined Concrete Bridge Columns, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center PEER – 1998/ 01, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2000.
1015
341
F9
Hose, Y., Seible, F., Priestley, N., Strategic Relocation of Plastic
Hinges in Bridge Columns, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 97/ 05, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
August 1997
SRPH- 1
F10
Hose, Y., Seible, F., Priestley, N., Strategic Relocation of Plastic
Hinges in Bridge Columns, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 97/ 05, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
August 1997
SRPH- 2
F11
Hose, Y., Seible, F., Priestley, N., Strategic Relocation of Plastic
Hinges in Bridge Columns, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 97/ 05, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
August 1997
SRPH- 3
F12
Hose, Y., Seible, F., Priestley, N., Strategic Relocation of Plastic
Hinges in Bridge Columns, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 97/ 05, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
August 1997
SRPH- 4
F13
Gibson, N., Filiatrault, A., and Ashford, S., Performance of Bridge
Joints Subjected to a Large Velocity Pulse, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 10, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, August 2001.
F14
Esmaeily- Gh, Asadollah, Xiao, Yan, Seismic Behavior of Bridge
Columns Subjected to Various Loading Patterns, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center PEER – 2002/ 15, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2002
1
F15
Esmaeily- Gh, Asadollah, Xiao, Yan, Seismic Behavior of Bridge
Columns Subjected to Various Loading Patterns, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center PEER – 2002/ 15, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2002
2
F15
Esmaeily- Gh, Asadollah, Xiao, Yan, Seismic Behavior of Bridge
Columns Subjected to Various Loading Patterns, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center PEER – 2002/ 15, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2002
5
F16
Esmaeily- Gh, Asadollah, Xiao, Yan, Seismic Behavior of Bridge
Columns Subjected to Various Loading Patterns, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center PEER – 2002/ 15, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2002
6
F17
Hose, Y., Seible, F., Priestley, N., Strategic Relocation of Plastic
Hinges in Bridge Columns, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 97/ 05, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
August 1997
SRPH- 17
342
F18
Sun, Z., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Diagnostics and Retrofit of
Rectangular Bridge Columns for Seismic Loads, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 93/ 07, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, July 1993.
R1
F19
Sun, Z., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Diagnostics and Retrofit of
Rectangular Bridge Columns for Seismic Loads, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 93/ 07, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, July 1993.
R5
F20
Esmaeily- Gh, Asadollah, Xiao, Yan, Seismic Behavior of Bridge
Columns Subjected to Various Loading Patterns, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center PEER – 2002/ 15, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2002
3
F21
Lehman, Dawn E., Moehle, Jack P., Seismic Performance of Well-
Confined Concrete Bridge Columns, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center PEER – 1998/ 01, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December 2000.
407
S1
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Benzoni, G., Seismic Response of
Columns with Low Longitudinal Steel Ratios, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 94/ 08, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, June 1994.
S2
Hose, Y., Seible, F., Priestley, N., Strategic Relocation of Plastic
Hinges in Bridge Columns, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 97/ 05, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
August 1997
SRPH- 6
S3
Ohtaki, T., Benzoni, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of a
Full Scale Bridge Column- As Built and As Repaired, Structural
Systems Research Project SSRP – 96/ 07, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, November 1996.
L1
S4
Benzoni, G., Ohtaki, T., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic
Performance of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns under
Varying Axial Load, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP –
96/ 04, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, August
1996.
S5
Benzoni, G., Ohtaki, T., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic
Performance of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns under
Varying Axial Load, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP –
96/ 04, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, August
1996.
CS3
343
S6
Benzoni, G., Ohtaki, T., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic
Performance of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns under
Varying Axial Load, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP –
96/ 04, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, August
1996.
S7
Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Steel Jacket Retrofit for
Enhancing Shear Strength of Short Rectang. Reinforced Concrete
Columns, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 92/ 07,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, July 1993.
R1
S8
Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Steel Jacket Retrofit for
Enhancing Shear Strength of Short Rectang. Reinforced Concrete
Columns, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 92/ 07,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, July 1993.
R3
S9
Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Steel Jacket Retrofit for
Enhancing Shear Strength of Short Rectang. Reinforced Concrete
Columns, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 92/ 07,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, July 1993.
R5
LS1
Melek, Murat, Wallace, John W., Conte, Joel P., Experimental
Assessment of Columns with Short Lap Splices Subjected to Cyclic
Loads, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER –
2003/ 04, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, April 2003.
LS2
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Chai, Y. H., Wong, R., Santa Monica
Viaduct Retrofit - Full- Scale Test on Col. Lap Splice with # 11 ( 35
mm) Reinforcement, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP –
92/ 08, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, September
1992.
SS1
Ranzo, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of Circular Hollow
Columns Subjected to High Shear, Structural Systems Research
Project SSRP – 2001/ 01, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA, March 2001.
HS- 1
SS2
Ranzo, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of Circular Hollow
Columns Subjected to High Shear, Structural Systems Research
Project SSRP – 2001/ 01, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA, March 2001.
HS- 2
SS3
Ranzo, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of Circular Hollow
Columns Subjected to High Shear, Structural Systems Research
Project SSRP – 2001/ 01, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA, March 2001.
HS- 3
SS4
Hines, E. M., Dazio, A., Seible, F., Structural Testing of the San
Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Skyway Piers, Structural
Systems Research Project SSRP – 2002/ 01, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, August 2002.
344
SS5
Dazio, A., Seible, F., Structural Testing of the San Francisco-
Oakland Bay Bridge East Spans Pier W2, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2002/ 11, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2003.
SS6
Sanchez, A., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of
Flared Bridge Columns, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP
– 97/ 06, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, October
1997.
RDS1
SS7
Sanchez, A., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of
Flared Bridge Columns, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP
– 97/ 06, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, October
1997.
RDS2
SS8
Sanchez, A., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of
Flared Bridge Columns, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP
– 97/ 06, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, October
1997.
RDS6
SM1
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Flexural Behavior of
Lightweight Concrete Columns under Seismic Conditions, Structural
Systems Research Project SSRP – 96/ 08, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, December 1996.
FL1
SM1
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Flexural Behavior of
Lightweight Concrete Columns under Seismic Conditions, Structural
Systems Research Project SSRP – 96/ 08, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, December 1996.
SM2
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Flexural Behavior of
Lightweight Concrete Columns under Seismic Conditions, Structural
Systems Research Project SSRP – 96/ 08, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, December 1996.
FL3
SM3
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Shear Behavior of
Lightweight Concrete Columns under Seismic Conditions, Structural
Systems Research Project SSRP – 95/ 10, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, July 1995.
SM4
Stephan, B., Restrepo, J., Seible F., Seismic Behavior of Bridge
Columns Built Incorporating MMFX Steel, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2003/ 09, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, October 2003.
Unit 1
SM5
Stephan, B., Restrepo, J., Seible F., Seismic Behavior of Bridge
Columns Built Incorporating MMFX Steel, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2003/ 09, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, October 2003.
Unit 2
345
SM6
Holombo, J., MacRae, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Steel Column
Prooftests of the Bayshore and Central Viaducts, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 95/ 05, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, April 1995.
SM7
Holombo, J., MacRae, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Steel Column
Prooftests of the Bayshore and Central Viaducts, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 95/ 05, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, April 1995.
Retro
J1
Sritharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic Design And
Performance Of Concrete Multi- Column Bents For Bridges,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 97/ 03, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, June 1997.
MCB1
J2
Sritharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic Design And
Performance Of Concrete Multi- Column Bents For Bridges,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 97/ 03, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, June 1997.
MCB1
J3
Ingham, J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic Performance of
Bridge Knee Joints - Vol. I, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 94/ 12, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
June 1994.
Unit 1
J4
Ingham, J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic Performance of
Bridge Knee Joints - Vol. I, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 94/ 12, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
June 1994.
Unit 2
J5
Ingham, J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic Performance of
Bridge Knee Joints - Vol. I, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 94/ 12, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
June 1994.
Unit 5
J6
Ingham, J., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Seismic Performance of
Bridge Knee Joints - Vol. I, Structural Systems Research Project
SSRP – 94/ 12, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA,
June 1994.
Unit 7
SP1
Megally, S. H., Garg, M., Seible, F., Dowell, Robert K., Seismic
Performance of Precast Segmental Bridge Superstructures,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 24, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
100 INT
Phase I
SP2
Megally, S. H., Garg, M., Seible, F., Dowell, Robert K., Seismic
Performance of Precast Segmental Bridge Superstructures,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 24, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
100 INT-CIP
Phase
I
346
SP3
Megally, S. H., Garg, M., Seible, F., Dowell, Robert K., Seismic
Performance of Precast Segmental Bridge Superstructures,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 24, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
100 EXT
Phase I
SP4
Megally, S. H., Garg, M., Seible, F., Dowell, Robert K., Seismic
Performance of Precast Segmental Bridge Superstructures,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 24, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
50INT/ 50E
XT Phase I
SP5
Megally, S. H., Garg, M., Seible, F., Dowell, Robert K., Seismic
Performance of Precast Segmental Bridge Superstructures,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 24, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
100 INT
Phase II
SP6
Megally, S. H., Garg, M., Seible, F., Dowell, Robert K., Seismic
Performance of Precast Segmental Bridge Superstructures,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 24, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
100 INT-CIP
Phase
II
SP7
Megally, S. H., Garg, M., Seible, F., Dowell, Robert K., Seismic
Performance of Precast Segmental Bridge Superstructures,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 24, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
100 EXT
Phase II
SP8
Megally, S. H., Garg, M., Seible, F., Dowell, Robert K., Seismic
Performance of Precast Segmental Bridge Superstructures,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 24, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
50INT/ 50E
XT Phase
II
F1
Silva, P., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Response of Standard
Caltrans Pile- To- Pile Cap Connections Under Simulated Seismic
Loads, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 97/ 09,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, November 1997.
STD 1
F2
Silva, P., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Response of Standard
Caltrans Pile- To- Pile Cap Connections Under Simulated Seismic
Loads, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 97/ 09,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, November 1997.
STD 2
F3
Silva, P., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Response of Standard
Caltrans Pile- To- Pile Cap Connections Under Simulated Seismic
Loads, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 97/ 09,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, November 1997.
STD 3
F4
Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Experimental Evaluation of a
Typical Bridge Column Footing Designed to Current Caltrans
Standards, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 95/ 08,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, March 1995.
347
F5
Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Hamada, N., Seismic
Assessment and Retrofit of Bridge Footings, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 94/ 11, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, May 1994.
Retrofit
F2CR
F6
Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Hamada, N., Seismic
Assessment and Retrofit of Bridge Footings, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 94/ 11, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, May 1994.
F1RA
F7
Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Hamada, N., Seismic
Assessment and Retrofit of Bridge Footings, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 94/ 11, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, May 1994.
F3RR
SK1
Megally, S. H., Silva, P. F., Seible, F., Seismic Response of
Sacrificial Shear Keys in Bridge Abutments, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 23, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
1A
SK2
Megally, S. H., Silva, P. F., Seible, F., Seismic Response of
Sacrificial Shear Keys in Bridge Abutments, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 23, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
2C
SK3
Megally, S. H., Silva, P. F., Seible, F., Seismic Response of
Sacrificial Shear Keys in Bridge Abutments, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 23, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
2D
SK4
Megally, S. H., Silva, P. F., Seible, F., Seismic Response of
Sacrificial Shear Keys in Bridge Abutments, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 23, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
1A
SK5
Megally, S. H., Silva, P. F., Seible, F., Seismic Response of
Sacrificial Shear Keys in Bridge Abutments, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 23, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
1B
SK6
Megally, S. H., Silva, P. F., Seible, F., Seismic Response of
Sacrificial Shear Keys in Bridge Abutments, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 23, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
2B
SK7
Megally, S. H., Silva, P. F., Seible, F., Seismic Response of
Sacrificial Shear Keys in Bridge Abutments, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 2001/ 23, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, May 2002.
3A
348
R1
Chai, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Flexural Retrofit of Circular
Reinf. Concrete Bridge Columns by Steel Jacketing- Experimental
Studies, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 91/ 06,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, October 1991.
R2
Silva, P. F., Sritharan, S., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Full- Scale Test
of the Alaska Cast- In- Place Steel Shell Three Column Bridge Bent,
Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 98/ 13, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, February 1999.
R3
Innamorato, D, Seible, F., Hegemier, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Ho, F.,
Full Scale Test of a Two Column Bridge Bent with Carbon Fiber
Jacket Retrofit, Advanced Composite Technology Transfer ACTT-
96/ 10, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, August
1996.
SMV- I
R4
Innamorato, D, Seible, F., Hegemier, G., Priestley, M. J. N., Ho, F.,
Full Scale Test of a Two Column Bridge Bent with Carbon Fiber
Jacket Retrofit, Advanced Composite Technology Transfer ACTT-
96/ 10, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, August
1996.
SMV- II
R5
Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Sun, Z. L., San Francisco Flexural
Retrofit Validation Tests on Rectangular Columns, Structural
Systems Research Project SSRP – 90/ 07, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, December 1990.
R6
Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Steel Jacket Retrofit for
Enhancing Shear Strength of Short Rectang. Reinforced Concrete
Columns, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 92/ 07,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, July 1993.
R- 4
R7
Shmoldas, A., Shleifer, G., Seible, F., Innamorato, D., Carbon Fiber
Retrofit of the Arroyo Seco Spandrel Column, Structural Systems
Research Project SSRP – 97/ 13, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, October 1997.
R8
Dowell, R., Burgueño, R., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Mari, A., The
Terminal Separation Replacement Structure Prooftest and Retrofit
Test, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 94/ 15, University
of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, October 1994.
Proof Test
R9
Dowell, R., Burgueño, R., Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Mari, A., The
Terminal Separation Replacement Structure Prooftest and Retrofit
Test, Structural Systems Research Project SSRP – 94/ 15, University
of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, October 1994.