Seismic Repair Assessment of Hybrid Sliding–Rocking Bridge Columns through Integrated Experimentation and Expert Panel Solicitation

Valigura, Jakub; Salehi, Mohammad; Liel, Abbie B.; Sideris, Petros

doi:10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002776

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To identify the distinct effects of combined lateral‐torsional loading and biaxial lateral loading on the seismic damage of HSR columns, the damage observed following the cyclic tests with 1.3%, 2%, and 4% peak drift ratios (representing seismic hazards of 975, 2475, and > 4975 years of return period, respectively) on the two columns discussed in this paper is compared with that following similar tests on an identical cantilever column subjected to uniaxial lateral loading 50,55,56 . The majority of the damage observed after the tests under uniaxial lateral loading was confined to the bottom column segment, where the maximum moment occurred, as shown in Figure 28.…”

Section: Test Results and Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The above refinements increase the energy dissipation (refinement b), 49 reduce the column damage (refinements b, c, and d), and potentially reduce the construction and maintenance costs (refinement a) 56 of HSR columns. 49,50,56 An extensive experimental program with four identical Second-Generation HSR columns was recently conducted at the Center for Infrastructure Renewal (CIR) at Texas A&M University to evaluate the seismic performance of these columns. 50 A portion of this program investigated the response of two HSR columns, one with free and another with fixed top end rotation, under uniaxial reversed lateral loading.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Salehi et al 49 identified the key design variables influencing the seismic performance of HSR columns and, accordingly, proposed refinements to their original design 45,47 . These refinements, which led to the introduction of Second‐Generation HSR columns, 55,56 were:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A portion of this program investigated the response of two HSR columns, one with free and another with fixed top end rotation, under uniaxial reversed lateral loading 55 . The performance of a repaired column was also examined 56 . This paper focuses on the rest of the testing program, which investigated the response of the remaining two HSR columns under combined lateral‐torsional loading and biaxial lateral loading.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…49,50 Salehi et al 49 identified the key design variables influencing the seismic performance of HSR columns and, accordingly, proposed refinements to their original design. 45,47 These refinements, which led to the introduction of Second-Generation HSR columns, 55,56 were: a. reducing the maximum number of sliding joints to two, which can be located anywhere along the column height as long as they are protected from flexure-induced compressive damage; 47,49 b. selecting the friction coefficient at the sliding joints, the tendon prestress, and the cross-sectional dimensions such that sliding at the sliding joints and rocking (i.e., decompression) at the end joint(s) start at approximately the same base shear demand, which remains lower than the column's peak base shear strength; 47 c. refining the joint interface design to alleviate stress concentrations and prevent concrete spalling during sliding and generate the needed low coefficients of friction; d. ensuring that the total peak achievable sliding capacity of all sliding joints together accommodates at least 75% of the column displacement demand under design earthquake.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Experimental testing of hybrid sliding‐rocking bridge columns under torsional and biaxial lateral loading

Salehi

Sideris

Liel

2021

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hybrid sliding-rocking (HSR) bridge columns are precast concrete segmental columns with unbonded posttensioning, end rocking joints, and intermediate sliding joints. Having been developed for construction in seismic regions, HSR columns offer self-centering, energy dissipation, and low damageability. Recent advances in the computational modeling of HSR columns have resulted in the proposal of a number of refinements to their original design, leading to the introduction of Second-Generation HSR columns. Compared to First-Generation HSR columns, Second-Generation HSR columns use a reduced number of sliding joints made of high-performance polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) materials to provide desirable levels of sliding and frictional energy dissipation. The seismic performance of Second-Generation HSR columns was recently investigated through an extensive experimental study. The present paper discusses the major results of the tests performed on two half-scale HSR column specimens under combined lateral-torsional loading and biaxial lateral loading to demonstrate their performance under such loading scenarios. A variety of loading protocols were used to test each column specimen, including both cyclic and arbitrary paths. Both columns sustained minimal damage under displacement demands representing 975-and 2475-year seismic hazards, meeting their design objectives.Because of the torsional sliding at sliding joints, the column subjected to lateraltorsional loading did not exhibit any distinct torsional damage. The biaxial lateral loading was, however, found more damaging to HSR columns than torsional and uniaxial lateral loading.

show abstract

Section: Test Results and Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%