Cyclic test and numerical study of seismic performance of precast segmental concrete double-columns

Abstract

The comparative research on the seismic performance of grouted sleeve connected pier (GS) and prestressed precast segmental concrete pier (PC) is mostly carried out by numerical simulation. In this study, the GS pier and the PC pier of the new railway project from Hetian to Ruoqiang are taken into consideration. Two kinds of 1/5-scale assembled double-column specimens are made, and the quasi-static tests are carried out. The overall seismic performance of the two spliced piers is studied, and compared in terms of failure mechanism, bearing capacity, ductility, stiffness and energy dissipation capacity. The results show that the failure modes of both GS pier and PC pier are characterized by bending. However, the specific failure location and form are different. The GS pier presents a complete hysteretic curve, large equivalent stiffness and strong energy dissipation capacity. The hysteretic area of the PC pier is small. However, it has good self-reset ability and quasi-static residual displacement. Finite element models are set up using DispBeamColumn fiber elements and ZeroLength elements. The models that are calibrated with the test data can effectively simulate the damage development under monotonic loading. The load—displacement curves are in good agreement with the backbone curves of the test results.

Keywords

pseudo static test / seismic performance / prestressed precast segmental concrete / double-column piers / steel sleeve connection / precast concrete prestressed steel

References

[1] ZhouY-H, OuY-C, LeeG C. Bond-slip responses of stainless reinforcing bars in grouted ducts [J]. Engineering Structures, 2017, 141: 651-665

[2] LiC, HaoH, BiK-M. Seismic performance of precast concrete-filled circular tube segmental column under biaxial lateral cyclic loadings [J]. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 17(1): 271-296

[3] TongT, ZhuoW-D, JiangX-F, et al.. Research on seismic resilience of prestressed precast segmental bridge piers reinforced with high-strength bars through experimental testing and numerical modelling [J]. Engineering Structures, 2019, 197: 109335

[4] BuZ-Y, OuY-C, SongJ-W, et al.. Cyclic loading test of unbonded and bonded posttensioned precast segmental bridge columns with circular section [J]. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2016, 21(2): 04015043

[5] OuY-C, ChiewanichakornM, ArefA J, et al.. Seismic performance of segmental precast unbonded posttensioned concrete bridge columns [J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2007, 133111636-1647

[6] XiaZ-H, GeJ-P, LinY-Q, et al.. Shake table study on precast segmental concrete double-column piers [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2020, 19(3): 705-723

[7] ZhangY-Y, WuG, Dias-Da-CostaD. Cyclic loading tests and analyses of posttensioned concrete bridge columns combining cast-in-place and precast segments [J]. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 17(11): 6141-6163

[8] LiT-T, QuH-Y, WangZ-Q, et al.. Seismic performance of precast concrete bridge columns with quasistatic cyclic shear test for high seismic zones [J]. Engineering Structures, 2018, 166441-453

[9] ZhuoW-D, LiuZ, ZhangJ-D, et al.. Comparison study on hysteretic energy dissipation and displacement components between cast-in-place and precast piers with high-strength bars [J]. Structural Concrete, 2018, 19(3): 747-757

[10] IchinoseT, KanayamaY, InoueY, et al.. Size effect on bond strength of deformed bars [J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2004, 18(7): 549-558

[11] Murcia-DelsoJ, StavridisA, ShingP B. Bond strength and cyclic bond deterioration of large-diameter bars [J]. ACI Structural Journal, 2013, 110(4): 659-669

[12] BuZ-Y, GuoJ, ZhengR-Y, et al.. Cyclic performance and simplified pushover analyses of precast segmental concrete bridge columns with circular section [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2016, 15(2): 297-312

[13] KuramaY C, SritharanS, FleischmanR B, et al.. Seismic-resistant precast concrete structures: State of the art [J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2018, 144(4): 03118001

[14] WangZ-Q, QuH-Y, LiT-T, et al.. Quasistatic cyclic tests of precast bridge columns with different connection details for high seismic zones [J]. Engineering Structures, 2018, 158: 13-17

[15] LuZ, WangZ-X, LiJ-B, et al.. Studies on seismic performance of precast concrete columns with grouted splice sleeve [J]. Applied Sciences, 2017, 7(6): 571

[16] LiJ-B, FanQ-Q, LuZ, et al.. Experimental study on seismic performance of T-shaped partly precast reinforced concrete shear wall with grouting sleeves [J]. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2019, 2813e1632

[17] HaberZ B, SaiidiM S, SandersD H. Seismic performance of precast columns with mechanically spliced column-footing connections [J]. ACI Structural Journal, 2014, 1113639-650

[18] AmeliM J, ParksJ E, BrownD N, et al.. Seismic evaluation of grouted splice sleeve connections for reinforced precast concrete column-to-cap beam joints in accelerated bridge construction [J]. PCI Journal, 2015, 60(2): 80-103

[19] HaberZ B, MackieK R, Al-JelawyH M. Testing and analysis of precast columns with grouted sleeve connections and shifted plastic hinging [J]. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2017, 22(10): 04017078

[20] AmeliM J, PantelidesC P. Seismic analysis of precast concrete bridge columns connected with grouted splice sleeve connectors [J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2017, 143204016176

[21] HaberZ B, SaiidiM S, SandersD H. Behavior and simplified modeling of mechanical reinforcing bar splices [J]. ACI Structural Journal, 2015, 1122179-188

[22] QuH-Y, LiT-T, WangZ-Q, et al.. Investigation and verification on seismic behavior of precast concrete frame pier used in real bridge structures: Experimentatl and numerical study [J]. Engineering Structures, 2018, 1541-9

[23] BillingtonS L, BarnesR W, BreenJ E. A precast segmental substructure system for standard bridges [J]. PCI Journal, 1999, 44(4): 56-73

[24] LiS, ZhaoT-Y, AlamM S, et al.. Probabilistic seismic vulnerability and loss assessment of a seismic resistance bridge system with post-tensioning precast segmental ultra-high performance concrete bridge columns [J]. Engineering Structures, 2020, 225(15): 111321

[25] HewesJ T, PristleyM J NSeismic design and performance of precast concrete segmental bridge columns [R], 2002, San Diego, University of California at San Diego

[26] GeJ-P, YanX-F, WangZ-Q. Seismic performance analysis of two-segment bridge columns with prestressing bars [J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2017, 14112390-2398(in Chinese)

[27] JiaJ-F, ZhaoJ-Y, ZhangQ, et al.. Experiment on lateral bearing behavior of post-tensioned segmental CFST bridge pier columns [J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2017, 30(3): 236-245(in Chinese)

[28] WangZ, WangJ-Q, LiuT-X. Axial compression ratio limit for self-centering precast segmental hollow piers [J]. Structural Concrete, 2017, 18(5): 668-679

[29] ZouS, WenliuhanH, ZhouF-L. Shaking table test of a high-speed railway bridge with a new isolation system [J]. Engineering Structures, 2019, 196109315

[30] YaoQ-F, ChenPStructural test of civil engineering [M], 2001, Beijing, China Construction Industry Press(in Chinese)