Seismic Analysis of Precast Segmental Bridge Piers

Hari P. Pokharel1

1
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd

Abstract The use of in-situ reinforced concrete piers is common for all types of
bridge superstructure, whether steel or concrete. Precast segmental piers are
preferred where the repetition of shape allows faster speed of construction, better
quality control and improved site safety for construction workers. It is especially
efficient on sites with restricted access, strict environmental requirements, or both.
Despite such merits, precast piers are not common in areas of moderate to high
seismicity and their relevant design methods and tools not well developed.
Australian standards AS5100 and AS1170.4 capture the current design
specifications for bridges under seismic actions. The design principles outlined in
the code are based on deriving a horizontal seismic design force using a force
reduction factor, Rf, also called a structural response factor; this is defined for
reinforced concrete piers. Equivalent factors are not defined for precast piers.
This paper outlines the method used to derive seismic design horizontal loads for
precast concrete segmental piers on the Hunter Expressway Viaducts. The method
analyses the behaviour of the structure and predicts its performance at different
levels of earthquake ground acceleration. Repair requirements after the seismic
event can also be predicted. This leads to a meaningful classification of
structures, reliable post disaster performance and enables a value-for-money
assessment relating to different levels of earthquake motions.

Introduction

The Hunter Expressway road project is located near Newcastle in New South
Wales. The Road and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA) has formed
an alliance with Thiess, Parsons Brinckerhoff and Hyder Consulting to design and
build a four lane road from F3 Freeway to Kurri Kurri. There are three twin
viaducts with a combined length of 840 metres being built using precast segmental
balanced cantilever method of construction. Internal span lengths are 75 metres,
while the end span lengths are 52 metres and 62 metres. Pier heights vary and
V. Ponnampalam, H. Madrio and E. Ancich 134
Sustainable Bridges: The Thread of Society
AP-G90/11_038© ABC 2011
Seismic Analysis Of Precast Segmental Bridge Piers 135

reach up to 30 metres above ground level. Reinforced concrete hollow piers were
proposed during the early stages but were replaced with precast concrete
segmental match cast piers incorporating epoxy joints and post tensioning as this
would benefit faster speed of construction, improve site safety for construction
workers and increase capacity to accommodate environmental constraints.

The precast piers are not commonly built in moderate-to-high seismic areas in
other parts of the world [1] [2] therefore the design method and tools are not yet
generalised in design codes. Although Australia is not in high seismic zone
compared to neighboring New Zealand, Indonesia or Japan, the design of bridge
substructure is still governed by earthquake load and the project site is in one of
the high seismic areas of Australia. The method of determining the horizontal
design earthquake force using force reduction factor as per the current Australian
Standard [3] [4] is considered unsuitable for the precast piers, and therefore a
different method has been adopted.

This paper explains the methodology used to derive the seismic design force and
explains this using a numerical example involving one of the three viaducts on the
Hunter Expressway project. From this, the performance of different components
during a seismic event can be evaluated—based on the load and displacement
characteristics—and in turn, enables prediction of the expected remedial work that
is required after the seismic event.

To limit the length of this paper, only the analytical part has been covered. Design
and detailing aspects have not been included.

Current Procedure of Deriving Design Load

The foundation for analysis comes from the seismic design requirements provided
by Australian bridge design standard AS5100.2. It is worth noting that this is
dependent on the ground acceleration and site factor provided in AS1170.4.
AS1170.4 is more focussed on the structural system relevant to building
structures, so not all parts is permissible for use in bridges.

Horizontal static design earthquake force (Hu), determined using Equation 1, is

equivalent to a fraction of its own dead load (Gg). The importance factor (I) that
is representative of the event consequence and risk mitigation measure is selected
based on the classification of the bridge. The earthquake design coefficient (C)
that is computed using Equation 2 depends on the period of free vibration of the
structure (T) and the site factor (S) is decided based on the specific geological
condition of site. Design ground acceleration (a) is based on the probability of the
event occurring once in 500 years. The strength capacities determined on the basis
136 Hary P.Pokharel

of these forces shall meet the ultimate limit state conditions in terms of strength,
stability and movements. The structures shall be repairable after the design level
event.
Structural response factor, Rf also called force reduction factor, is provided by
AS5100.2 in respect of bridges and covers most common systems of structural
configuration.

Hu = I C S Gg/Rf (1)
C = 1.25 a / T 2/3 (2)

The force calculated on this basis is an equivalent static force due to the dynamic
effect of an earthquake, which has to be within the ranges of maximum and
minimum limits given in the standard.

Difficulties in Current Design Approach for Precast Piers

When it comes to precast piers, there are two major difficulties in analysis. The
first is in quantifying the value of Rf since those given in AS5100.2 do not cover
prestressed concrete piers. AS1170.4 lists Rf values for a wide range of structural
systems but none are specific to a system of precast piers. A second difficulty
arises when deriving the period of structure due to unknown stiffness, which is
affected by the amount of prestressing force. In reference to this, the California
Department of Transportation [5] has seismic design criteria to assist with
selecting effective moment of inertia depending on the amount of reinforcement
and axial load for cracked reinforced concrete piers, but there is no such simplified
guidance regarding prestressed concrete piers.

While the analysis heeds these difficulties in deriving numerical values, it

highlights the need for more detailed insight when it comes to the basic
fundamentals of current earthquake design philosophy, particularly in reference to
prestressed concrete piers specifically.

The above method for deriving design force using force reduction factor is based
on reinforced concrete columns resisting reversible bending moments that in turn,
requires special detailing of confinement reinforcement. Once the structure
reaches its ultimate limit state moment capacity, a plastic hinge is formed. Failure
mode limits the damage occurring within the plastic hinge by losing concrete
cover while the concrete inside confinement can still take load. Capacity can be
restored with some repair work. In the case of prestressed hollow concrete piers
however, damage to the cover zone significantly reduces the portion of cross
section and the prestressing force is lost; this cannot be restored by repair. It is
very difficult to detail the confinement reinforcement due to congestion that is
Seismic Analysis Of Precast Segmental Bridge Piers 137

necessary within the plastic hinge. Even if this was possible, it has limited benefit
as the cover zone is about 20% of the overall cross section.

The reinforced concrete column has ductility that defines its reserve displacement
capacity beyond yielding of reinforcement. It also permits design at a lower
strength capacity which caters for energy dissipation through larger displacement,
beyond yielding of rebar reaching ultimate limit state condition. Force reduction
factor is assigned based on such deformation capacity but in the case of
prestressed concrete piers, displacement capacity is dependent on the number of
strands and the level of stressing force; this makes it difficult to assign the
appropriate strength reduction factor. The ultimate limit state condition in such
case may be due to the failure of concrete in compression rather than yielding of
steel and this leads to an undesirable brittle failure.

The designer needs to know the mode of failure while the asset owner needs to
know the cost of preventing failure. Performance evaluation is therefore, a
necessity. The current design practice of determining direct design capacity has
been questioned by academics and researchers [10].

The earthquake design co-efficient (C) in Equation 2 is derived from the

performance of the reinforced concrete pier having a critical damping ratio (ζ) of
5%. There is limited research to validate the assumption of damping in precast
piers with bonded tendons.

The behavior of precast segmental bridge decks has been extensively investigated
and the relevant design procedures established, however the equivalent for bridge
pier is limited and focused mainly on unbonded tendons. Other research work is
focused on structural elements for buildings where the deflection is controlled by
limiting the drift; their application excludes bridges. The structural configuration
adopted here consists of grouted internal tendons.

Derivation of Earthquake Horizontal Force

The first difficulty in quantifying the structural response factor (Rf) is overcome
by assuming Rf to have a numerical value of 1, which provides the result based on
linear elastic analysis instead of plastic analysis. The second difficulty is solved
by deriving the effective moment of inertia based on the analysis of the section,
the development of the moment curvature (M-Φ) curve using the applicable axial
loads. Effective moment of inertia depends on whether the section has cracked,
whether some or all of prestressing strands have yielded, and the level of
compressive strain in the concrete.
138 Hary P.Pokharel

To derive the moment curvature relation, a valid stress strain relationship

pertaining to concrete and to strands is required, as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2
respectively. Here, the effect of reversible force and the losses of prestress in the
strands have been considered negligible.

The joints between precast segments contain shear keys and epoxy is applied on
the surface before joining them. The ducts of the post-tensioning tendons are
made of corrugated metal and grouted after stressing the tendons. By this
arrangement, Euler Bernoulli’s theory of plain section remaining plain after
deformation is assumed to be valid.

Fig.1. Stress Strain Relation of Concrete

The effective damping factor for piers using bonded tendons is assumed to be
similar to reinforced concrete [8] therefore, the earthquake design co-efficient (C)
defined by Equation 2 is considered valid.

We can plot the curvature profile for a cantilever bridge pier with a static
horizontal force applied at its top using moment curvature cure. By integrating the
area of curvature, we arrive at Equations 3 and Equation 4 to get the deflection.

Φ = M / EI (3)
∆Φ = ∫ x M/EI dx (4)

We can also derive the load displacement (H-∆) characteristics of the bridge pier
for different lateral loads. Equation 4 is valid while the stress in the strand is less
than the yield stress. In the case of strand stress being greater than yield stress, a
Seismic Analysis Of Precast Segmental Bridge Piers 139

rotational angle at the base can be determined and then displacement adjusted to
account for the effect of a plastic hinge. This is done using Equation 5.

∆ = ∆Φ + ∆p (5)

Here ∆Φ is the deflection at the top of pier, computed using Equation 4. ∆p is the
deflection due to the rotation of the joint at the base, which can be derived
following a method proposed by Hewes et al [8] and Sungjin et al [9].

Fig.2. Stress Strain Relation of PT Strand

Effective stiffness Ke, the ratio of load H to displacement ∆, varies with the
magnitude of axial load because the curvature profile differs with the amount of
prestressing and bending moment. The period of free vibration can be calculated
based on the effective stiffness (Ke) using Equation 6

T = 2.π.√ (Ms/Ke) (6)

Ke = ∆ / H (7)

Now we can analyse the structural response to a harmonic motion in order to find
out the displacement demand. From Newton’s second law of motion, we know
Equation 8 to be as depicted below. Equations 9 and 10 relate to harmonic motion
where a’ is the response acceleration of the structure and ω is the frequency of
harmonic motion:

Force (H) = Mass (Ms) * Acceleration (a’) (8)

Δ = a’ / ω2 (9)
ω = 2π / T (10)
140 Hary P.Pokharel

Co-relating similarities of Equations (1) and (8) means that we can write:

a’ = 1.25 a I S g / T 2/3 (11)

where g is the gravitational acceleration; and

Gg = Ms. g (12)

For a given structural system of mass Ms, we can develop the H-Δ curve by
changing T in reference to different ground acceleration. This curve will be called
the demand characteristics curve.

The load displacement curves that were derived using stiffness and demand
characteristics will intersect at a point that gives the earthquake inertia force
maintaining equilibrium. Horizontal force, corresponding displacement and
effective period can now be determined. Further detail of this is explained in the
numerical example discussed later.

Design steps and necessary iterations to determine design load would be:
1. Design the section with suitable area of strands and effective PT force.
2. Develop a Moment Curvature (M-Φ) chart for the pier section that takes into
consideration the effect of effective prestressing force, the weight of the
superstructure and the self-weight of tall piers above the section being
considered.
3. For a horizontal load, derive both moment and curvature along its height.
4. Determine the effective moment of inertia (Ie) using the M-Φ curve.
5. Compute deflection by integrating the area of curvature. Otherwise, effective
moment of inertia can be used in the analytical model to derive deflection.
6. Determine effective stiffness and period of free vibration.
7. Calculate the response displacement curve.
8. Determine T, C, H and ∆ and repeat steps 1-7 above until a reasonable
combination of PT, shear force and displacement is found. If necessary, revise
the section size.
9. Consider the effect of substructure deformation when calculating deflection.
The horizontal design force depends on the structural configuration, amount of
strands and the level of prestressing force in addition to ground acceleration and
mass. Design horizontal load Hu is that which meets the desired displacement
needed to achieve safe and satisfactory function in relation to the desired limit
state condition.

There are several possibilities for selecting alternative PT arrangements. The

designer can choose a suitable amount of prestressing steel and effective
prestressing force needed to achieve desired displacement for the pier section.
Seismic Analysis Of Precast Segmental Bridge Piers 141

By introducing additional factor kp in line with the updated AS1170.4-2007, in

Equation 11, incremental design force can be computed for incremental ground
acceleration in order to design bridges for a higher return period. Increased design
force however, means additional cost. This will give a meaningful basis for
classifying bridges to balance the consequence and cost of mitigating seismic risk
for different magnitudes.

Hunter Expressway Viaduct

One of the twin viaducts of the Hunter Expressway project has an elevation as
depicted in Fig. 3. The bridge deck is 257 metres long and has two internal spans
of 75 metres and end spans of 52 metres. There are three piers above ground level
measuring 17 metres, 30 metres and 20 metres respectively. The pile caps of Pier
2 and Pier 3 are located above ground. All bearings are the free sliding type, two
at each of the support locations. To transfer lateral load, there is a fixed shear key
at Pier 1 and a guided shear key at Pier 3. Such articulation is devised to balance
the effects of movements that result from possible mine subsidence and
earthquake.

Fig.3. Elevation of Viaduct 2

The superstructure consists of a 12.4 metre wide single-cell box girder that will be
built using precast segmental balanced cantilever method of construction as shown
in Fig. 4. The depth varies from 4.2 metres at the pier location to 3.0 metres at
mid span with the haunch commencing at quarter span. The average weight of the
deck, including parapet and wearing surface, is 274KN/m. The cross section of
the pier (also in Fig. 4) is 6.4 metres wide and 3 metres deep of hollow uniform
section with 0.350 metre thick walls.

The following design parameters are applicable to the Hunter Expressway site:
• Site factor S = 1.0
142 Hary P.Pokharel

• Ground acceleration a = 0.11g

• Importance factor I = 1.25

Fig.4. Cross Section of Pier and Deck

Longitudinal Analysis

As the deck is fixed at Pier 1, the analytical model can be a standard, free
cantilever pier supported on rigid foundation. The pertinent design data is:
• Section area of Pier Ag = 6.9 m2
• Gross moment of inertia Ig = 9.0 m4
• 28 days concrete strength fc’ = 50 MPa
• Height of pier above pile cap L = 17.0 m
• Weight of superstructure Ms = 70 MN
After some iteration, the selected prestressing arrangement consists of 16 tendons,
each of them consisting of 30 strands of 15.2 millimetre diameter. There are six in
each long wall and two in each short wall. Considering the long term loss
including the effect of superstructure dead weight, effective prestressing force is
about 42MN or 35% of UTS (0.35 * 250 * 30 * 16 KN). Vertical load due to the
weight of structure including superimposed dead load is 23MN. The axial load
ratio (Po/0.85 Ac fc’) is thus 0.22.

The section is analysed for moment curvature curve M-Φ (as shown in Fig. 5)
using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Using this relationship and for a given
horizontal force at the top of the pier, bending moment along the depth and
corresponding curvature of pier section can be determined (see Fig. 6). This
profile corresponds to the pier along the depth showing cracked and uncracked
sections. A plastic hinge is formed at the base of pier under a horizontal force of
8MN (and not formed with a force of 7MN).
Seismic Analysis Of Precast Segmental Bridge Piers 143

Fig.5. Moment Curvature M-Φ Curve for Pier-1 Longitudinal Direction

Fig.6. Curvature Profile of Pier-1 Due to Horizontal Force

A force deflection (H - ∆) curve is then obtained for all possible earthquake load
values indicated by curves A and B (see Fig.7) using Equations 4 and 5. Curve A
is developed using concrete compressive strength fc’, equal to 50 MPa while curve
B refers to 65 MPa. This is 30% over capacity compared to 50 MPa. (The reason
for the comparison using 65 MPa concrete is to see what additional load may be
induced as a result of the over strength capacity of concrete).
144 Hary P.Pokharel

Fig.7. Load Displacement (H-∆) Curves for Longitudinal Direction

Within Fig 7, curve ‘C’ represents the displacement demand for a ground
acceleration relating to the 1:500 year return interval, obtained using Equation 9.
Horizontal design force for Pier is selected as the point that curves C and B
intersect, about 7 MN. For this load, the section has not yet reached the yield
strain in strand—this can be checked from the moment curvature curve—but is
about to reach yield moment My, equal to 122 MNm. At this point, the plastic
hinge has not yet formed. Deflection at the top of the pier is computed as being
around 135 millimetres. We can confirm this by a simple approximate
calculation.

Effective stiffness Ke = H / ∆ = 7/0.135 = 52 MN/m

Period of structure Te = 2 * π * √ (70/52/9.81) = 2.328 sec.
Earthquake coefficient C from equation-2 = 1.25 * 0.11 * 9.81 / 2.32/3
= 0.77 m/s2
Horizontal Force H from Equation-1 = 1.25 * 0.77 * 70 / 9.81
= 6.9 MN ≈ 7 MN

The design horizontal force of 8.5 MN is selected for the shear key and
substructure to ensure that the failure mode is due to excessive deflection
correlating to a limit of 270 millimetres. The pier has been designed to deflect up
to 350 millimetres before the concrete reaches the compressive strain limit of
0.003 with a horizontal force of about 9MN. The design bending moment action
M* (equal to 7*17) is 119 MNm, which is less than the section capacity ΦMu
(0.8*159) of 127 MNm.
Seismic Analysis Of Precast Segmental Bridge Piers 145

The Pier 1 longitudinal design displacement that results from the design level
earthquake is 135 millimetres with the whole deck moving between expansion
joints. Expansion joints and bearings shall have movement capacity derived using
earthquake movement of ±135mm since the 1:500 year design earthquake is the
current ultimate limit state design condition. Should the bridge experience bigger
earthquakes, movement capacities of expansion joints and bearings will exceed
the ultimate limit state condition.

Based on these conditions, the cross section, the amount of post tensioning
strands, initial jacking force and deflection are considered satisfactory.

In the case an earthquake with different return periods occuring or displacement

demand for an earthquake event other than the 1:500 year return interval discussed
here, curves D and E relating to 1:250 year return period and the 1:1000 year
return period respectively has also been represented. If a future situation arises
in which the asset owner needs to classify this bridge differently, and the decision
is made to have design capacity for an event different to the 1:500 year return
interval, the performance can be evaluated via another displacement curve
generated using a different value of kp. We can also determine the relative cost of
incremental design capacity and use this as basis for bridge classification; within it
is a balance between the consequence and the cost to mitigate such higher risks.

Evaluating the effect of vertical acceleration has provided an axial force in the
order of 5MN for each pier; this equates to about 8% of permanent axial force.
Current Australian code [3] permits vertical and horizontal earthquake forces to be
considered independently while other international codes require 30% of vertical
co-existing force to be considered with the horizontal force, which only imparts a
small effect.

There was an opinion within the design team to favour an interpretation of

AS5100.2 where the Rf numerical value of 2 be adopted stemming from the
premise that detailed additional confinement reinforcement in a precast pier is not
practicable. The stiffness parameter could have been based on gross moment of
inertia Ig based on the premise of the section being prestressed. Within this
combined scenario, the resulting design force would have been:

• K = 3 E I / L3 = 209 MN/m
• T = 2 * π * (70/209/9.81)0.5 = 1.16 Sec.
• C = 1.25 * 0.11*9.81 / 1.162/3 = 1.22 m/s2
• H = 1.25 * 1.22 * 70 / 9.81 / 2 = 5.45 MN (Using Rf =2)
• M = H. L = 5.45*17 = 93 MNm.
• ∆ = H/K Rf = 5.45 / 209 * 2 = 52mm
146 Hary P.Pokharel

The overall outcome would have been a smaller design force and lower amount of
PT but consequently, both deflection and capacity would have been
underestimated.

Conclusion

Current Australian bridge design code AS5100.2 does not allocate a structural
response factor Rf for the precast concrete segmental piers. Future amendments of
the bridge design code need to work towards including specifications for such
structures or putting forward their limitations. The method discussed here could
be an additional step towards a general analytical procedure for precast piers of
this type.

A performance-based design method is preferred when it comes to major bridges

of this type and classification of them needs to be based on balancing cost against
the consequences of higher risk in the event of higher return periods.

Acknowledgements

The author feels honoured to be taking part in the opportunity presented by the
Hunter Expressway Alliance, specifically in the design of these viaducts from
concept stage through to detailed design stage. The friendly team, innovative
environment and practical interactions with the construction team during design
development have been greatly appreciated.

Senior peer reviewer from the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales,
Mark Bennett, provided a draft copy of the bridge design guidelines for
earthquake [6] that is currently being prepared as part of a Austroads project. He
has been particularly helpful in helping the author to understand the current state-
of-the-art seismic design practice being used in Australia.

Communication with Prof. Nigel Priestley during the early stages of design
development drew on his past projects and specific publications [8] [10] and also
gave direction to other resources that helped to guide the development of
techniques on this project.

Both Iain Hespe and Craig Mills from Hyder Consulting supported the
development of techniques and the preparation of this paper. Iain is Technical
Director at Hyder, Design Manager on the Alliance and supervisor to this paper’s
Seismic Analysis Of Precast Segmental Bridge Piers 147

author. Both individuals were instrumental in reviewing the working details of

calculations presented in this paper, as well as encouraging its writing in the first
place.

References

[1] AASHTO 2007 - “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 4th Edition,” American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, USA.
[2] ASBI 2008 – “Construction Practice Handbook for Concrete Segmental and Cable
Supported Bridges” – American Segmental Bridge Institute
[3] AS5100.2 - 2004 – “Bridge Design Part 2: Design Loads” Standards Australia
[4] AS1170.4 - 1993 - “Structural Design Actions Part 4 : Earthquake Actions in Australia”
Standards Australia
[5] Caltrans 2006 – “ Engineering Services Manual - Seismic Design Criteria” California
Department of Transportation, USA
[6] Austroad Inc. 2010 – “Bridge Design Guidelines for Earthquakes Final Draft 2010”,
Austroads Incorporated.
[7] HEA 2011 – “Viaduct-2 Design Report” Hunter Expressway Alliance
[8] Hewes J. H and Priestley M. J. N., 2002 - “Seismic Design And Performance Of Precast
Concrete Segmental Bridge Columns” Department of Structural Engineering, School of
Engineering, University of California, USA
[9] Sungjin B., and Oguzhan B. – “Plastic Hinge Length of Reinforced Concrete Columns” –
ACI Structural Journal V.105 No.3 May-June 2008
[10] Priestley M. J. N., Calvi G. M. and Kowalsky, M. J. 2007 – “Direct Displacement Based
Seismic Design Of Structures” – IUSS Press, Pavia