EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34

Published online 13 May 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1018

Seismic behavior of ductile rectangular composite bridge piers

S. J. Chen1,‡ , K. C. Yang2,∗, †, § , K. M. Lin1 and C. D. Wang1

1 Departmentof Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
P.O. Box 90-130, Taipei, Taiwan
2 Department of Construction Engineering, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology,

1 University Road, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

SUMMARY
The seismic resistance characteristics of a newly developed composite bridge pier system are examined
via a series of experimental studies. In this innovative bridge pier system, the shear strength is provided by
the steel tube and the concrete confined by the steel tube. No transverse shear reinforcement is used in this
system. Axial and flexural strengths of the bridge pier are exerted by the longitudinal reinforcements and
the concrete. A gap between the end of steel tube and the reinforced concrete foundation contributes to
the steel tube providing shear resistance only without sharing the flexural moment. From the experimental
results of this study, it is found that the flexural strength of the proposed composite bridge pier can be
predicted accurately by the conventional method that was used in the reinforced concrete structures. Shear
strength of the composite bridge pier can be obtained by summing up shear strengths of the concrete and
the steel tube. Excellent deformation capacities are also found from the experimental studies. The proposed
composite bridge pier system not only simplifies the construction work greatly, but also provides superior
seismic resistance as compared with that of the conventional method. Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.

Received 17 April 2009; Revised 1 April 2010; Accepted 5 April 2010

KEY WORDS: composite bridge pier; steel tube; seismic load; ductility

INTRODUCTION

Sufficient strength and ductility are essential for bridge piers to survive from a major earthquake.
For the reinforced concrete piers, the concrete and the longitudinal reinforcement provide axial
and flexural resistance, whereas shear resistance and ductility are mainly attributed from the
concrete and the transverse reinforcements. To ensure ductile behavior of bridge piers, a large
amount of transverse reinforcements are usually needed in order to confine the concrete and
prevent the buckling of longitudinal reinforcement. In the current design specifications [1, 2],
the requirement of the hoop reinforcement for a rectangular reinforced concrete column is as
follows:
  
Ag f
Ash 0.30sbc −1 c (1)
Ach fy

∗ Correspondence to: K. C. Yang, Department of Construction Engineering, National Kaohsiung First University of
Science and Technology, 1 University Road, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
† E-mail: kcyang@ccms.nkfust.edu.tw
‡ Professor.
§ Associate Professor.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

22 S. J. CHEN ET AL.

or

f c
Ash 0.12sbc . (2)
fy

In Equations (1) and (2), Ash is the total cross-sectional area of the tie reinforcement, s is the
spacing of hoops (mm), bc is the cross-sectional dimension of tied column measured to the outside
edges of the transverse reinforcement (mm), Ag is the cross-sectional area of the pier (cm2 ),
Ac is the cross-sectional area of core concrete (cm2 ), f c is the specified concrete compressive
strength (MPa), and f y is the yield strength of reinforcing bars (MPa). The spacing of transverse
reinforcement is limited to one-quarter of the minimum section dimension or 100 mm center-to-
center. For a commonly used rectangular bridge pier with a dimension of 2000–3000 mm, the
spacing of transverse reinforcement is usually limited to 100 mm. In addition, it is required to
provide ties for longitudinal bars if their spacing is larger than 350 mm. With such closely spaced
transverse reinforcements, the quality of concrete casting might be affected and the construction
cost is also increased greatly.
An innovative composite bridge pier system is presented in this study. This bridge pier system
utilizes the advantages of both the reinforced concrete and steel tube while excluding their short-
comings. The axial and flexural strengths of this composite pier are provided by the reinforced
concrete columns, and they can be determined by the conventional method used in the design
of the reinforced concrete columns. The steel tube is used to provide shear resistance and confine
the concrete. As a result, both the strength and deformation capacity of bridge pier are enhanced.
The steel tube also serves as the formwork for the casting of concrete that simplifies the construc-
tion work.
This system is similar to the steel jacket system used in the strengthening of existing reinforced
concrete bridge piers [3–6]. That is, the steel tube is used to enhance the shear strength and ductility
of the bridge piers. Having no transverse reinforcement distinguished the proposed composite pier
construction from the conventional steel jacketing method. Furthermore, this proposed composite
bridge piers is available for designing new bridges. This system is also different from the concrete-
filled steel tubular (CFT) column systems [7–9]. In the CFT column system, the steel tube is
designed to participate in resisting the axial, flexural and shear force. Owing to the interaction
between the flexural and shear forces, it is difficult to determine the shear force accurately.
In addition, the steel tube of CFT column is required to connect to the anchor frame in the
foundation to transverse the flexural force. Welding and/or bolting between the steel tube and
the anchor frame usually complicate the construction work and increase the cost of bridge pier
substantially. However, in the proposed composite bridge pier, the steel tube is not designed to resist
the axial or flexure force. The steel tube is aimed at confining the concrete and resist part of the
shear force. A gap of 5 cm between the end of the steel tube and the foundation is suggested. This
gap is to avoid direct bearing of the steel tube on the foundation. However, if the gap is too large,
premature spalling of the concrete and buckling of the longitudinal reinforcing bar may occur. The
empirical value of 5 cm following the design guidelines in the concrete pier as the first stirrup is
usually 5 cm away from the surface of the foundation. The steel tube is not required to connect to
the foundation, since it does not participate in the flexural resistance. This method simplifies the
construction work significantly by avoiding welding at the bottom of the steel tube, and it also
avoids the buckling of the steel tube at the bottom of the pier. By adopting this proposed composite
bridge pier system, the complicated construction work and possible defects due to closely spaced
transverse reinforcements and field welding can be avoided. Figure 1 shows the schematic drawing
of the proposed bridge pier system compared with the conventional reinforced concrete bridge
pier.
A series of experimental studies were carried out to investigate the behavior of the proposed
composite bridge piers, including specimens under monotonic loading and cyclic loadings. The
monotonic load tests examine the basic behavior of the proposed composite bridge pier system,
including the strength, the ductility and the comparison with the conventional reinforced concrete

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF DUCTILE RECTANGULAR COMPOSITE BRIDGE PIERS 23

concrete
erection
fixture
composite
bridge pier

steel cage gape

foundation
steel tube also
serve as formwork
(a)

concrete

RC
pier
steel cage

foundation

(b) formwork

Figure 1. Schematic of bridge pier system: (a) the proposed composite bridge pier and
(b) conventional reinforced concrete bridge pier.

pier. The cyclic load test is aimed at studying the behavior of the proposed composite under
recursion of seismic load.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In the proposed composite bridge piers, the axial and flexural strengths of this composite pier are
provided by the reinforced concrete columns and are determined to be identical to the conventional
method used in the design of reinforced concrete columns [2].
In the design of bridge pier, the design shear strength s Vn should be larger than maximal
factored load Vu , as shown in Equation (3).
Vn >Vu . (3)
The nominal shear strength of the proposed composite pier Vn is provided by the steel tube, Vs
and by the concrete, Vc , as follows:
Vn = Vc + Vs . (4)
The behavior of confined concrete has been examined extensively and the stress–strain model
of confined concrete was well established. These include the concrete confined by transverse
reinforcement for conventional reinforcement concrete piers and by the steel tube for the CFT
columns [9–14]. In general, the shear strength carried by confined concrete can be calculated as

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
24 S. J. CHEN ET AL.

the follows [2]:

 
P 
Vc =  1+ f c · Ae . (5)
140Ag
In Equation (5),  is the coefficient of shear strength of confined concrete depending on the
confinement, f c is the specified concrete compressive strength (MPa), Ag is the cross-sectional area
of the pier (cm2 ), Ae is the effective cross-sectional area for shear resistance (cm2 ), and Pis the
axial compressive load (kN). Although Equation (5) is usually used for the member with stirrups,
the steel tube of the proposed composite column can be considered as a series of independent
closely spaced peripheral hoops with thickness and spacing equal to the steel tube. The steel tube
also provides better confinement for the concrete and enhances the shear resistance contributed
from concrete [9–15]. In this pilot study, the enhanced shear resistance from the confinement is
neglected and a conservative value of 0.29 is used in Equation (5) to calculate the shear resistance
of the concrete.
For conventional reinforcement concrete member, the shear resistance can be modeled by the
truss analogy. The flexural compression concrete is treated as the top chord of the truss, whereas
the tensile reinforcing bars are considered as the bottom chord. The stirrups are acting as the web
members of the truss [16]. In the proposed composite pier system, the shear resistance relies on the
steel tube and the concrete. The shear strength provided by the steel tube can also be determined
from the truss analogy. It is assumed that an inclined crack in the  direction extends from the top
surface to the bottom surface of the steel tube in Figure 2. The shear strength Vs carried across
the crack by the steel tube is the vertical components of the tensile force developed in the steel
tube. Thus,
Vs = Av Fy = (ts D cot )Fy . (6)
In Equation (6), Av is the area of steel tube, ts is the thickness of steel tube, D is the length of
the steel tube, Fy is the yield stress of steel tube; and  is the inclined angle of the crack.
On the other hand, the shear strength of the steel tube may be considered as the shear area
equivalent to the area of a hoop Av at spacing s = Av /t in Equation (7) [17]. Equation (7) is the
well-known truss model for determining the shear strength provided by the hoops. After replacing
the spacing s by s = Av /t, the shear strength of the steel tube is determined, which is exactly the
same as Equation (6)
D
Vs = Av Fy cot . (7)
s
A similar method has been used in the retrofit of reinforced concrete piers to enhance their
strength and deformation capacity and this is usually known as the steel jacket method [5, 6].
The steel tube is considered as the continuous truss web member. The steel tube can also be

D D

concrete concrete
Vss Vss

Fy
Dcotθ concrete Dcotθ
θ s=Av/t
crack Fy
steel tube Steel tube
(b)
(a) (c)

Figure 2. Shear strength (Vs ) provided by steel tube.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF DUCTILE RECTANGULAR COMPOSITE BRIDGE PIERS 25

pictured as a series of independent closely spaced peripheral stirrups with thickness and spacing
equal to the steel tube as shown in Figure 2(c).

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RECTANGULAR COMPOSITE BRIDGE PIERS

As shown in Table I, a series of experimental studies were carried out to investigate the structural
behavior of the proposed rectangular composite bridge pier under monotonic and cyclic loads.
The studies include six specimens tested under monotonic load and two specimens subjected to
cyclic loads. Specimen ORC1 was the ordinary reinforced concrete bridge pier following the current
seismic design specification [1, 18]. Specimen ORC1 was aimed at producing reference data for
comparisons with the proposed composite specimens. Test series STR were rectangular composite
bridge piers which adopted the steel tube to replace transverse reinforcements. The design of
longitudinal reinforcement of Specimens ORC1, STR1, STR2 and STR3 were identical. Specimens
STU1 and STU2 were designed to examine the influence of shear studs on the force transmission of
the composite bridge piers. In addition, Specimens STR3 and STU2 were also aimed at studying the
effect of height-to-depth ratio. Specimens CR1 and CR2 were designed to investigate the behavior
of composite bridge under cyclic load. Table I summarizes the parameters of these specimens.
Figures 3 and 4 show the detail design of the specimens and the test setups for monotonic load and

Table I. Design parameters of bridge pier specimens.

Loading Confinements L
Specimens type (t × S) s (%) a (cm) (cm) Shear studs
ORC1 #3 rebar @ 12 cm 2.25 86 272 —
STR1 2 mm×70 cm 2.25 86 272 —
STR2 4 mm×70 cm 2.25 86 272 —
STR3 Monotonic 2 mm×120 cm 2.25 136 372 —
STU1 load 4 mm×70 cm 2.25 86 272 4×4@14 cm
STU2 4 mm×120 cm 2.25 136 372 4×4@24 cm
CR1 Cyclic load 3 mm×212 cm 2.27 250 335 4×7@30 cm
CR2 (1) 6 mm×212 cm 2.27 250 335 4×7@30 cm
Notes: (1) with axial compressive force of 0.1Pn = 490 kN. (2) s is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, t is
the tube thickness, S is the tube length, a is the shear span, L is the length of specimen; Figures 3 and 4.

CL sym.

P
#3@12cm for steel tube for
ORC1 specimen composite specimens

ORC1
d

S
dial gage STR1~STR3

a a shear
stud
L
(a) (b) STU1~STU2

Figure 3. Configuration and details and test setup of bridge pier specimens under
monotonic loads: (a) test setup and (b) cross sections.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
26 S. J. CHEN ET AL.

axial load

cyclic
load

steel tube

Rectangular
L a S shape

6@25 cm
LVDT
gap

Figure 4. Configuration and details and test setup of bridge pier specimens under cyclic loads.

Table II. Material properties of the specimens.

Specimens f c f ys Fy
ORC1 41 469 382
STR1 43 469 353
STR2 44 469 284
STR3 44 469 284
STU1 38 469 353
STU2 40 469 353
CR1 35 412 265
CR2 35 412 265

f c is the actual concrete compressive cylinder strength (MPa);

f ys is the yield stress of longitudinal reinforcements (MPa); Fy
is the yield strength of steel tube (MPa); The nominal strength
for concrete, longitudinal reinforcements and steel tube is 34.3,
412 and 245 MPa, respectively.

cyclic load, respectively. The central segment of the simply support beam as shown in Figure 3(a)
is strengthened to simulate the pier foundation. By this arrangement, specimens subjected to
monotonic loads were loaded by two-point loads so that the loading condition of the specimen
in the half span would be similar to the cantilever bridge pier subjected to lateral load. Strain
gages were used to monitor the strains on the reinforcing bars and steel tube. Linear variation
displacement transducers (LVDTs) were installed to measure the displacement of the specimens.
Tests were stopped when either the load was reduced to 60% of its maximum or noticeable failure
occurred. The material properties of the concrete, the reinforcing bars and the steel tubes are listed
in Table II.

BEHAVIOR OF COMPOSITE BRIDGE PIER UNDER MONOTONIC LOAD

The basic behavior of the proposed composite piers was first examined under monotonic load.
Specimens STR1, STR2 and STU1, with a smaller shear span of 86 cm, were designed to examine

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF DUCTILE RECTANGULAR COMPOSITE BRIDGE PIERS 27

its performance under shear load; specimens STR3 and STU2 with a longer shear span of 136 cm
were designed to examine its flexural performance. Specimens STR1 and STR3 were composite
piers with a 2-mm thick steel tube without shear studs. Specimen STU1 and STU2 were with
4-mm thick steel tube and shear studs, as listed in Table I.

Load–displacement relationship of composite bridge piers

The load–displacement relationships of Specimens ORC1, STR1, STR2 and STU1 are shown in
Figure 5. These specimens had the same amount of longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 2.25% and
height-to-depth ratio of 1.43. The height-to-depth ratio is defined as the shear span a, divided by
the effective depth of the specimen d, as shown in Figure 3 The ultimate strengths of these four
specimens were governed by the shear strength. Brittle failure was observed for ORC1 specimen
after a 2-cm wide shear crack was developed in the 45◦ direction.
With the same amount of longitudinal reinforcements but less shear resistance the proposed
composite specimen STR1 developed a higher strength and a superior deformation capacity as
compared with ORC1 as shown in Figure 5. The enhanced shear resistance of composite pier
specimen STR1 was about 18% greater than that of the ordinary reinforced concrete pier specimens
ORC1 due to the confining effect on the concrete and the shear strength provided by the steel
tubes. The strength is increased by about 25% as compared with that of RC specimen if shear
studs were installed inside the composite pier, as the results from STU1 specimen indicated.
In addition to enhance shear strength, the steel tube of the composite bridge pier also provided
confinement to the encased concrete to enhance the ductility of the pier. This was confirmed by
the strain readings on the tube of the specimens as shown in Figure 6. Strain on the steel tube
started to increase in the transverse direction as the load reached about 80% of the maximal load
(Figure 6, c4). There was no strain reading in the longitudinal direction even when the strain of
the longitudinal reinforcement reached 5ε y (Figure 6, c5) This also confirmed that the steel tube
provides shear resistance and confinement to the concrete, but it does not participate in the flexural
resistance. Furthermore, the excellent confinement provided by steel tube was demonstrated by
the superior deformation capacity of composite specimens as shown in Figure 5, compared with
that of the conventional reinforced concrete pier (Specimen ORC1). The typical failure mode of
the composite bridge piers under monotonic load was due to tearing of the steel tube at the weld
induced by dilation of the steel tube.
The proposed composite piers achieved a displacement ductility factor greater than 3 despite
these specimens failing in shear. Specimen STR2 provided better ductility and energy dissipa-
tion characteristics than specimen STR1 did because of better confinement given by a thicker
tube of 4 mm. Tables III and IV summarize the parameters examined in this study and the test
results. The experimental results showed that the simplified equations (Equations (4)–(6)) provide
a conservative value for the maximal strength of the composite bridge piers. It is shown that for
the conventional RC column ORC1, the experimental strength is 1.2 times of calculated strength.
As for the composite columns (STR1–CR2), the ratios of average test strengths to the calculated
strengths based on Equations (4)–(6) are 1.02–1.46, with an average value of 1.18, as shown in
Table IV. It is suggested to use Equations (4)–(6) for the strength of the composite pier for the
efficacy and accuracy.
It should be noted that ductility demand of the bridge column is related to the expected maximal
ground excitation and the code-specified design force. The present study examines the behavior
of the proposed composite bridge column. Specimen ORC1, a RC column which met the current
seismic design requirement, was used for comparisons. From Figure 5 and Table IV, it is found
that enhanced strength and ductility of the composite bridge column under monotonic load can be
obtained as compare with the RC column.

Effect of the tube thickness

In the design of Specimen STR1, the thickness of steel tube was calculated based on the shear
strength provided by the stirrups of reinforced concrete pier specimen ORC1. Both specimens
STR1 and ORC1 were governed by their shear strengths, which were significantly less than the

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
28 S. J. CHEN ET AL.

1600
STU1

1200
STR1
STR2

P (KN)
800
ORC1

400

0
0 40 80 120 160
Displacement (mm)

Figure 5. Load–displacement relationship of specimens designed as shear failure modes.

4
6
5

1 3
2
(a)

1 2 3
2000 2000 2000
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

Load (kN)

1500 1500 1500

1000 1000 1000

500 500 500
0 0 0
0 0.008 0.016 0 0.008 0.016 0 0.008 0.016 0.024
(b) strain strain strain

4 5 6
2000 2000 2000
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

Load (kN)

1500 1500 1500

1000 1000 1000
500 500 500
0 0 0
0 0.008 0.016 0.024 -0.004 0 0.004 0 0.008 0.016
(c) strain strain strain

Figure 6. Typical stresses distribution on the webs of specimens under monotonic load (Specimen STR1):
(a) gage position; (b) strain on longitudinal steel bars; and (c) strains on steel tube.

shear forces induced by the flexural moment (Table III). With the same design strength in shear and
flexural, the experimental results showed that the composite specimen STR1 had superior strength
and ductility as compared with that of the conventional reinforced concrete specimen ORC1.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF DUCTILE RECTANGULAR COMPOSITE BRIDGE PIERS 29

Table III. Design strength of specimens.

Specimen details Nominal strengths Calculated strengths
Height-to Mn∗ Vs∗ Vc∗ Vn∗ Mn Vs Vc Vn
Vn∗ Vn
Specimens -depth (a/d) confinements (kNm) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vu∗ (kNm) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vu

ORC1 1.43 #3 rebar 967 343 513 856 0.76 1213 470 580 1050 0.74
@12 cm
STR1 1.43 2 mm×70 cm 967 294 513 807 0.72 1213 423 594 1017 0.72
steel tube
STR2 1.43 4 mm×70 cm 967 588 513 1101 0.98 1213 682 600 1282 0.91
steel tube
STR3 2.27 2 mm×120 cm 967 294 513 807 1.13 1213 341 600 941 1.06
steel tube
STU1 1.43 4 mm×70 cm 967 588 513 1101 0.98 1213 847 557 1404 0.96
steel tube
STU2 2.27 4 mm×120 cm 967 588 513 1101 1.55 1213 847 572 1419 1.59
steel tube
CR1 5.55 3 mm×212 cm 569 331 287 618 2.72 528 358 347 705 3.33
steel tube
CR2 5.55 6 mm×212 cm 569 662 287 949 4.17 587 714 347 1061 4.52
steel tube
Vn is the shear strength for pier specimen; Vc is the shear strength of concrete, assuming  = 0.29 in Equation (5);
Vu is the shear strength corresponding to the design strength in flexural (Mu ); ∗ is based on nominal strengths;
The calculated strength is obtained based on the tested material properties listed in Table II. The reduction
factor  is not included in calculating the strength of bridge pier specimens listed in Table III.

Table IV. Summary of test results.

Height-to- Pcal. Pexp.  Dissipated
Pexp .
Specimens depth (a/d) confinements (kN) (kN) Pcal. (Dm /D y ) energy (kN cm)

ORC1 1.43 #3 rebar 1050 1256 1.20 1.38 1320

@12cm
STR1 1.43 2 mm×70 cm 1017 1481 1.46 3.29 5836
steel tube
STR2 1.43 4 mm×70 cm 1282 1472 1.15 4.57 8093
steel tube
STR3 2.27 2 mm×120 cm 892 912 1.02 3.25 6318
steel tube
STU1 1.43 4 mm×70 cm 1404 1567 1.12 5.47 9019
steel tube
STU2 2.27 4 mm×120 cm 892 1117∗ 1.25∗ 9.07 18 649
steel tube
CR1 5.55 3 mm×212 cm 211 245 1.16 6.12 24 246
steel tube
CR2 5.55 6 mm×212 cm 235 254 1.08 6.65 35 887
steel tube
Pcal is the design strength of specimens based on the real material properties; Pexp . is the maximum lateral
force derived from the experimental works; (Pexp . /Pcal )avg = 1.18 for composite column;  is displacement
ductility factor (= Dm /Dy ); Dm is the displacement corresponding to the ultimate shear strength; Dy is the
displacement corresponding to the yielding strength; Dissipated energy is the area under the maximum shear
strength (Pexp . ) and its corresponding displacement (Dm ).
∗ Test stopped due to limitation of loading capacity without loss of specimen strength.

Although the tube thickness was increased from 2 mm of specimen STR1 to 4 mm of specimen
STR2, no enhanced strength was gained in the shear strength with a thicker plate of 4 mm. Both
specimens STR1 and STR2 had similar strength of 1481 and 1472 kN, respectively. However,

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
30 S. J. CHEN ET AL.

1600

1200
STU2

P (KN)
800

STR3
400

0
0 40 80 120 160
Displacement (mm)

Figure 7. Load–displacement relationship of Specimens STR3, BSTU2.

the ductility increased noticeably by using a thicker plate. An increase in ductility by 39% was
observed as the thickness of the steel tube increased from 2 mm of specimen STR1 to 4 mm
of specimen STR2 as shown in Table IV. With the increase in plate thickness, the dissipated energy
also increased about 40%, which is listed in Table IV.

Effect of height-to-depth ratio

Besides the thickness of the steel tube, height-to-depth ratio, a/d, also affects the structural behavior
of the bridge pier as shown in Figure 3. With a smaller height-to-depth ratio, the bridge pier is
governed by its shear strength which is less ductile. Smaller height-to-depth ratios of 1.34 and
2.27 were selected to simulate the most rigorous situation for bridge pier subjected to seismic
load. With a larger height-to-depth ratio of 2.27, specimens STR3 and STU2 demonstrated more
ductile behaviors compared with those specimens with a smaller height–depth ratio of 1.34. Both
specimens STR3 and STU2 were able to retain their strength with a larger plastic deformation
after shear crack occurred on concrete (Figure 7). Failure occurred after tearing at the weld of
steel tube. With a larger height-to-depth ratio, greater flexural deformation was observed and the
bridge piers became significantly more ductile.

Effect of shear studs

Although the transfer of force between the steel tube and in-filled concrete was limited, the effect
of shear stud on the seismic performance was examined. It was noted that the ductility of the
composite specimen further increased 20% if shear studs were used. By a comparison of the
experimental results of specimens with shear studs (STU1, STU2) and without shear studs (STR1,
STR3) it was found that lateral stiffness and ductility of Specimens STU1 and STU2 were improved
by adding the shear studs on the steel tubes. Ductility increased by about 15% for specimens with
shear studs. However, the difference of strengths for specimens with and without shear stud was
less than 7%. This was because the shear stud was designed to restrain the local buckling of the
steel tube so that the inelastic deformation could be enhanced. From the comparison of Specimens
STU1 and STU2, it was found that a spacing of 24 cm provided satisfactory strength and ductility
of the composite pier.

Ductility and energy dissipation capacities of the composite bridge piers

A displacement ductility of 2–4 is usually recommended in the seismic design of bridge piers
[17, 18]. From the experimental studies of the proposed composite bridge pier, ductility of 3.25–9.07

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF DUCTILE RECTANGULAR COMPOSITE BRIDGE PIERS 31

was obtained and considered adequate (Table IV). The performance of the reinforced concrete
column could also be used as a reference. The reinforced concrete column, Specimen ORC1, is
constructed following the current seismic design codes [1, 2]. As shown in the comparison of
ORC1 and the proposed composite pier in Figure 5 and Table IV, the proposed composite pier
system demonstrates significant enhancement in the seismic resistance. Ductile behavior with large
energy dissipation capacity was observed from the proposed composite pier specimens which
adopted the steel tube to replace the transverse reinforcement. Highly dissipated energy was due
to the enhanced inelastic deformation of concrete provided by the confinement of the steel tube.
The improved energy dissipation is about 4.4–14.1 times of that of the conventional bridge piers
specimen ORC1 (Table IV). Specimens with thicker plates dissipate higher energy than those with
thinner plates. For specimens with shear studs, local buckling and tearing of the steel tube were
restrained to achieve a higher amount of dissipated energy.

BEHAVIOR OF COMPOSITE BRIDGE PIER UNDER CYCLIC LOADS

The goal of the studies of composite bridge piers under monotonic load was to investigate
the basic strength and deformation characteristics. The proposed composite bridge piers were
further examined by applying the cyclic load to the cantilever-type bridge pier as shown in
Figure 4. These series of studies examined the behavior of the composite column under recur-
sion of cyclic load. Although the behavior of specimen under monotonic load could not be
compared with that from cyclic load directly, the study of specimen under cyclic load provided
valuable information on the strength, energy dissipation and hysteresis behavior of composite
pier under recursion of lateral load. In this series of testing, two specimens CR1 and CR2 were
designed to test their flexural load performance under recursion of lateral load. The thickness
of the steel tube of CR1 and CR2 is 3 and 6 mm, respectively. This was to examine how the
thickness of the steel tube would affect the seismic resistance. The 3-mm plate provided about
50% of shear strength for specimen CR1. The 6-mm plate contributes about 67% of the shear
strength for specimen CR2. Based on the experimental results, it is noted that the enhanced
strength and ductility were limited as the thickness of the steel tube increased from 3 to 6 mm
(Table IV).
Figure 8 shows the hysteresis behavior of the composite bridge pier under the combined axial
load and lateral load with different designs on the steel tube. The axial load usually induces
second-order effect, which accelerates the pinching effect of the reinforced concrete bridge pier
during an earthquake excitation. However, the steel tube of the proposed composite pier provided
better confinement of the concrete and alleviated the pinching effect under cyclic load as shown
in Figure 8. The lateral force corresponds to the first yield of longitudinal reinforcement (Py ),
the maximal lateral force (Pexp. ) and the displacement ductility are also shown in these figures.
The hysteresis behaviors shown in Figure 8 indicate a stable performance of the composite bridge
pier under cyclic load. This is different from the conventional RC bridge pier that usually encounters
the pinching effect under both axial load and lateral load. The proposed composite bridge pier is
able to dissipate energy with only minor pinching effect because of the confinement provided by
the steel tubes.
Specimens reached the maximum lateral forces (Pexp. ) when the deformation ductility ratio
exceeded  = ±6 and the drift ratio became larger than 5% (Figure 8). The deformation ductility
is the ratio between the displacements at the maximal lateral force and at the yield force. All
the specimens retained at least 80% of their strength as deformation ductility reached  = ±9.
The specimens were considered reaching their ultimate state when the strength was reduced to
about 60% of the maximum strength (Pexp. ), or the longitudinal reinforcements fractured (Figure 9).
There was no tearing at the weld of the steel tube. Owing to the excellent confinement provided
by the steel tube, the plastic hinges developed in the composite pier specimens were from 20 to
25 cm, which were about 50% of section depth. Figure 9 shows the typical plastic hinge at the
bottom of the composite pier.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
32 S. J. CHEN ET AL.

Drift Ratio (%)

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
400
1.4
Ductility
Py 1.2
300
Pexp. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1
200 0.8
Lateral Force (KN) 0.6
100 0.4
0.2

P / Pexp.
0 0
-0.2
-100 -0.4
-0.6
-200 -0.8
-1
-300 -1.2
-1.4
-400
-225 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
(a) Lateral Displacement (mm)

Drift Ratio (%)

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
400 1.6
Ductility 1.4
300 1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Py 1
200 Pexp.
0.8
0.6
Lateral Force (KN)

100 0.4
0.2

P / Pexp.
0 0
-0.2
-100 -0.4
-0.6
-200 -0.8
-1
-300 -1.2
-1.4
-400 -1.6
-225 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

(b) Lateral Displacement (mm)

Figure 8. Hysteresis behavior of composite pier: (a) tube thickness = 3 mm and (b) tube thickness = 6 mm.

Figure 10 shows the average curvature of the composite specimens under cyclic loads. The plastic
curvature is the change of the drift angles for a unit segment of the specimen. The plastic curvature
of the section is about 0.35–0.40 rad/m. The experimental results shown in Figures 8–10 show
not only the ductile behavior of the proposed composite bridge pier, but also demonstrate the
consistency of the behavior of the proposed bridge pier with the design concept. The axial and
flexural strengths of this composite pier are provided by the reinforced concrete columns, whereas
the steel tube provides shear resistance and confines the concrete.
Comparing the test results of specimens under monotonic loads and cyclic loads, it is found
that the shear strength and deformation capacity of the composite bridge piers increase with the
increase in tube thickness. However, the benefit from a thicker plate is limited as long as the design
shear strength is equal to the maximal shear force (Vn /Vu = 1). The dissipated energy is enhanced
if a thicker plate is used. It is was also found that the ductility can be further improved by equally
spaced shear studs that distribute stress uniformly. In the design of the proposed composite bridge

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF DUCTILE RECTANGULAR COMPOSITE BRIDGE PIERS 33

fracture of
reinforcing fracture of
bars reinforcing
bars

plastic hinge

Figure 9. Typical behavior of plastic hinge at the bottom of composite pier (Specimen CR1).

100 100 100 100

75 75 75 75
HEIGHT (cm)

HEIGHT (cm)
HEIGHT (cm)

HEIGHT (cm)
50 50 50 50

25 25 25 25

GAP REGION
0 GAP REGION
0 0 0
-600 -400 -200 0 200 -200 0 200 400 600
(a) CURVATURE (10-3 / m) (b) CURVATURE (10 -3 / m)

Figure 10. Average curvature along the length of Specimen CR1: (a) push to
the north and (b) pull to the south.

pier, it is suggested to add the shear strength of steel tube and concrete together and this will
lead to a conservative low bound of shear strength. While the steel tube does not contribute to the
flexural resistance, the flexural strength of the proposed composite bridge piers can be determined
by the same method of the reinforced concrete bridge piers.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study proposed an innovative composite bridge pier system. This composite bridge pier adopts
a steel tube and an ordinary reinforced concrete core inside the tube. No transverse reinforcement
is used and the steel tube is not connected to the foundation. The reinforced concrete core serves
as an axial and flexural resisting member, and the steel tube provides the shear resistance and
the confinement of the concrete, enhancing the strength and ductility of the bridge pier. The steel
tube does not provide the axial load resistance. From the experimental studies of the proposed
composite bridge piers under monotonic load, ductility of 3.25–9.07 was obtained. For specimens
under cyclic load, the composite piers achieved a displacement ductility higher than 6 and a drift
ratio greater than 5% without significant decay on their strengths. The flexural strength of the

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
34 S. J. CHEN ET AL.

proposed composite bridge piers can be accurately predicted by adopting the same design method
of the reinforced concrete bridge piers, whereas the shear strength of the proposed composite
bridge pier is obtained from the summation of the shear strengths of the concrete and the steel
tube. The proposed bridge pier system not only enhances the seismic resistance, but also simplifies
the construction work greatly.

REFERENCES
1. AASHTO. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges-LRFDs (4th edn). American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington, DC, 2008.
2. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. American Concrete
Institute: Michigan, 2008.
3. Aboutaha RS. Rehabilitation of shear critical concrete columns by use of rectangular steel jackets. ACI Structural
Journal 1999; 96(1):68–78.
4. Aboutaha RS. Seismic resistance of steel-tubed high-strength reinforced-concrete columns. Journal of Structural
Engineering 1999; 125(5):485–494.
5. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Xiao Y, Verma R. Steel jacket retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns
for enhanced shear strength—Part 1: Theoretical considerations and test design. ACI Structural Journal 1994;
91(4):394–405.
6. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Xiao Y, Verma R. Steel jacket retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns
for enhanced shear strength—Part 2: Test results and comparison with theory. ACI Structural Journal 1994;
91(5):537–551.
7. Knowles RB, Park R. Strength of concrete filled steel tubular columns. Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE)
1969; 95(121):2565–2587.
8. Philip FB, William FC, David IM. Seismic performance of steel-encased concrete columns under flexural loading.
ACI Structural Journal 1995; 192(3):355–364.
9. Park R, Preiestley MJN, Gill WD et al. Ductility of square-confined concrete columns. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1982; 108(4):929–950.
10. Sheikh SA, Uzumeri SM. Analytical model for concrete confinement in tied columns. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1982; 108(12):2703–2722.
11. Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R. Observed stress–strain behavior of confined concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1988; 114(8):1827–1849.
12. Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1988; 114(8):1804–1826.
13. Hoshikuma J, Kawashima K, Taylor AW. Stress–strain model for confined reinforced concrete in bridge piers.
Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1997; 123(5):624–633.
14. Ghee AB, Priestley MJN, Paulay T. Seismic shear strength of circular reinforced concrete. ACI Structural Journal
1989; 86(1):45–59.
15. Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1994; 120(8):2310–2329.
16. Wang CK, Salmon CG. Reinforced Concrete Design (6th edn). Wiley: New York, 1998.
17. FHWA. Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges. FHWA-RD-94-052, 1995.
18. Applied Tech. Council. Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional Recommendations.
ATC-32. Applied Tech. Council: Berkeley, CA, 1996.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:21–34
DOI: 10.1002/eqe