Seismic Resistance of Socket Connection between

Footing and Precast Column

Olafur S. Haraldsson1; Todd M. Janes2; Marc O. Eberhard3; and John F. Stanton4

Abstract: A new concept has been developed for connecting spread footings and precast columns in bridges. The socket connection is con-
structed by precasting the column, erecting it, and casting the reinforced concrete footing around it. This system saves construction time on site
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

because, in little more than the time needed to construct the footing, both the column and footing can be constructed. Site erection is facilitated
by the fact that the field tolerances are essentially unlimited. The longitudinal column bars are straight and are terminated with mechanical
anchors. This arrangement improves constructability, because no bars cross the interface between the column and footing, and it provides better
transfer of forces in the connection region than is possible with conventional bent-out longitudinal bars. The surface of the column is roughened
to improve adhesion to the surrounding cast-in-place concrete. Axial-load tests demonstrated that the connection can resist column axial loads
far above those expected in practice. Cyclic, lateral-load tests demonstrated that the seismic performance of the connection is at least as good as,
if not better than, that of a comparable cast-in-place system. The recent deployment of the new system in a highway overpass provided both field
experience and initial estimates of the potential time savings. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000413. © 2013 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Bridges; Columns; Connections; Precast concrete; Footings; Seismic effects; Cast in place.
Author keywords: Bridges; Accelerated bridge construction; Connection; Column; Spread footing; Precast concrete; Cast-in-place; Seismic.

Introduction
Extensive construction will be needed to replace numerous func-
tionally or structurally obsolete bridges in the United States (FHWA
2008). If such construction is performed following conventional
practices, existing traffic congestion will increase further, because
cast-in-place concrete construction requires time-consuming shor-
ing, form construction, reinforcement placement, and concrete
casting and curing. This congestion leads to extensive traffic delays,
wasted fuel, and corresponding increases in CO2 emissions. New
structural systems and construction methods are needed that disrupt
society less.
One solution for reducing construction-related delays is to pre-
cast structural elements off site and then assemble them rapidly on
site. This approach, which has been used for bridge girders for over
50 years, also improves construction quality (through plant pre-
casting) and worker safety (through reduced time on site). The
precast, prestressed concrete girder bridge has now become the most
common type of bridge in most states.
1
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2700 (corresponding author).
E-mail: olafurh@uw.edu
2
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2700.
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2700.
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2700.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 24, 2012; approved
on July 17, 2012; published online on August 15, 2013. Discussion period
open until February 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineer-
ing, Vol. 18, No. 9, September 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2013/
9-910–919/$25.00.
In contrast, precast concrete has seldom been used for bridge
substructures, and then only in states with low seismicity. For ex-
ample, Matsumoto et al. (2001, 2008) tested four precast column-to-
bent-cap connections suitable for use by the Texas DOT. In regions of
moderate or high seismicity, connections between precast concrete
components must satisfy a number of challenging design criteria. In
addition to being easy to construct rapidly, a column-to-footing
connection must be able to transfer to the footing both the gravity
loads from the bridge weight and traffic, and lateral forces. To fa-
cilitate column fabrication and transportation, connections are typi-
cally located at beam-to-column and column-to-footing interfaces.
But during an earthquake, these are the locations that experience the
largest moments. Therefore, such connections must accommodate
large column inelastic deformations without loss of stiffness and
strength, while simultaneously resisting vertical loads caused by
a combination of gravity and seismic overturning effects. Because
foundations are difficult to inspect and repair, these load transfers
must be accomplished without significant damage to the footing.
Recent research on accelerated bridge construction has focused
on the development of precast concrete bridge substructures for
seismic regions, as discussed by Marsh et al. (2011) and Weinert
(2011). For example, Pang et al. (2008, 2010) tested three variations
of a large-bar, large-duct beam-to-column connection, in which a few
large bars [e.g., D44 or D57 (#14 or #18)] are grouted into large
ducts [e.g., 152 mm (6 in.)] (Steuck et al. 2007, 2009). This connection
is easy to assemble, because it provides generous construction tol-
erances. Matsumoto (2009) describes three tests of column-to-beam
connections, including one connection with grouted ducts and two
with pocket connections. The pocket connection concept is to precast
the cap-beam with a void created by a corrugated pipe, which is then
filled with site-cast concrete to connect the cap-beam and column.
Tobolski (2010) describes tests of a hybrid system that is intended to
minimize residual displacements. The dual-shell system combines
two steel shells, cast-in-place concrete, and posttensioning. Mild
reinforcing bars project from the top of the column and are grouted

910 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:910-919.

 into ducts in the cap-beam. Restrepo et al. (2011) summarize the
results of both sets of tests.
This paper describes the concept, gravity load performance,
seismic performance, and constructability of a new socket column-
to-foundation connection that is suitable to connect precast columns
to spread footings.
Socket Connection Concept
The construction sequence for the new column-to-footing connec-
tion concept is illustrated in Fig. 1. The column is first precast, with
intentional roughening on the surface that is later to be embedded in
the cast-in-place footing. Then the column is set in the excavation,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
plumbed, leveled, and braced. After the footing reinforcement is
placed around the column, the foundation is cast.
The structural details of the proposed connection differ from
those of a conventional, cast-in-place system in two important ways:
(1) no bars cross the column-footing interface, so the resistance to
vertical loads relies on shear friction across the roughened interface,
and (2) the longitudinal column bars are not bent out at the bottom, as
is common in cast-in-place bridges. Instead, these bars are straight
and terminated with headed anchors. This choice simplifies trans-
portation and handling, and reduces the hazards posed by protruding
bars. The configuration also provides a more direct transfer of in-
ternal forces than is possible with bent-out bars, as illustrated by the
strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. 2. With the headed bar detail, the
diagonal strut force within the column is transferred to the column
bars via a CCC node, which connects three compression struts, so the
transfer depends on direct bearing. By contrast, with the conven-
tional bent-out bar detail, the force must be transferred by bond to the
curved part of the bar.
Fig. 1. Construction sequence
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 911
J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:910-919.
Osanai et al. (1996) tested a similar concept for precast columns
for buildings and concluded that, unless special conditions were
satisfied, the socket depth should be at least 1.5 times the column
diameter. For bridges, this requirement could lead to deep footings,
which would be uneconomical and could generate excessive heat of
hydration. Tests were needed to establish a design basis for the
connection.
Experimental Program
Axial-load and lateral-load tests were performed on three column-
footing subassemblies, representing the bottom-half of a bent for
a proposed replacement bridge over Interstate 5. The test matrix is
presented in Table 1. Specimen SF-1 represented a precast equiv-
alent of a typical Washington DOT (WSDOT) cast-in-place column-
to-footing connection, with a socket embedment depth of 1.1 times
the column diameter. Specimen SF-2 had the same overall geometry,
but the reinforcement was reduced and simplified to facilitate con-
struction. These first two tests revealed that the embedment depth
ratio of 1.1 was sufficient to protect the footing by promoting failure
in the column, as is required in bridge design. However, because the
connection region was not damaged, the tests only provided a lower
bound on the capacity of the load transfer mechanism. To better
understand that mechanism, Specimen SF-3 was designed with
a thinner footing to force the connection to fail within the footing.
Design of Test Specimens
The key dimensions and reinforcement of the three test column-
footing subassemblies (SF-1, SF-2, and SF-3) are shown in Fig. 3.
With a few exceptions discussed later, the three specimens were
designed to confirm to the AASHTO Load Resistant Factor Design
Specifications (AASHTO 2009b), the AASHTO Guide Specifications
Fig. 2. Strut-and-tie model
 Table 1. Test Matrix
Footing concrete Column concrete
Specimen hfooting =Dcolumn strength (MPa) strength (MPa)
SF-1 1.1 44.9 34.4
SF-2 1.1 46.6 37.9
SF-3 0.5 54.5 54.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Test specimens
for LRFD Seismic Design (AASHTO 2009a), the WSDOT Bridge
Design Manual (WSDOT 2008), and the California DOT (CalTrans)
Seismic Design Criteria (CalTrans 2006).
All three subassemblies had identical 508-mm (20-in.)-diameter
columns, with a height from top of the footing to the loading point
of 1.524 m (60 in.), resulting in a flexure-critical column with a
cantilever span/depth of 3.0. To facilitate comparison with previous
research tests [i.e., Pang et al. (2008, 2010)], this ratio was in-
tentionally not matched to the expected point of inflection of the
prototype column, which would have resulted in a span/depth of 2.5
at specimen scale. Each column was embedded in a cast-in-place
footing [2.286-m (90-in.) long and 1.727-m (68-in.) wide]. This
geometry represented, at 42% scale, a 1.219-m (48-in.)-diameter
column embedded in a 5:486-m ð18-ftÞ 3 5:486-m ð18-ftÞ cast-in-
place footing. In the tests, the footing width had to be reduced
slightly below the scaled value [to 1.727 m, (68 in.)] to fit in the test
machine.
The column longitudinal reinforcement consisted of eight D19
bars, corresponding to a longitudinal reinforcement ratio, r, of
1.12%. The transverse reinforcement consisted of a smooth wire
spiral of 6.2-mm (0.24-in.) diameter at a pitch of 32 mm (1.25 in.),
resulting in a transverse reinforcement ratio, rs , of 0.88%. The part
of the column that was embedded in the cast-in-place footing was
intentionally roughened using the saw-tooth pattern, scaled down to
42% of the dimensions of the prototype [18-mm (0.71-in.) amplitude
at 36-mm (1.41-in.) spacing], required by the WSDOT Bridge
912 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013
J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:910-919.
Column longitudinal
reinforcement Paxial ðkNÞ Paxial =Ag fc ð%Þ
8-D19 707 10.1
8-D19 707 9.2
8-D19 707 6.4
Design Manual (WSDOT 2008) for the ends of prestressed girders.
This roughness detail satisfied the AASHTO LRFD (AASHTO
2009b) requirement for surface-transferring shear friction in terms of
minimum amplitude. In this test program the roughened region of the
column had an octagonal cross-section (inscribed inside a 508-mm
circle) to facilitate forming the saw-tooth with wood strips, as shown
in Fig. 4. The circular cross-section used in the main body of the
column could be used in the foundation as well, provided that
a simple way of forming the ridges could be developed.
The footing depth of 1.372 m (4.5 ft) in the prototype bridge was
controlled by the design goal of resistingpffiffiffithe
ffi one-waypffiffiffiffi
shear in the
concrete alone, using a stress of 0:166 f 9c ðMPaÞ ½2 f 9c ðpsiÞ. At
scale, this depth corresponded to 0.572 m (22.5 in.) in specimens
SF-1 and SF-2. Top and bottom flexural reinforcement was con-
trolled by the minimum reinforcement requirement. Specimen SF-1
was designed to replicate as closely as possible in precast concrete
the details commonly used in cast-in-place systems. In it, slots were
formed in the bottom of the column in each direction to allow some
of the bottom footing reinforcement to pass through and engage
directly with the tension steel in the column (Fig. 5). In addition,
three sets of four diagonal bars (12-D13) were stacked, in the bottom,
in the horizontal plane around the column to provide the normal
force needed to induce shear friction resistance to the column
pushing through the footing. One set of four diagonal bars was
placed in the top mat for trimming purposes. Footing ties were
included to just satisfy the CalTrans criterion (CalTrans 2006). The
 AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Design are based
closely on the CalTrans recommendations, but the 2009 edition of
the AASHTO Guide Specifications contained no tie requirements
when this research was conducted. These ties are expected to be
included in the next edition.
Specimen SF-2 was a simplified version of Specimen SF-1. In it,
the slots at the base of the columns were eliminated, and the bars
under the column were moved and bundled with existing bars on
either side of the column, as shown in Fig. 5. Most of the diagonal
shear friction steel was removed, leaving only one set of four bars in
each of the bottom and top mats to act as trimming reinforcement
at the corners of the square opening in the footing mat. This
modification was made to evaluate whether the bottom mat could
simultaneously provide both the needed flexural strength and shear-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
friction resistance. Last, the footing ties required by the CalTrans
(2006) criteria were reduced by half, because strut-and-tie modeling
suggested that these ties are necessary only if bent-out column bars
are used (Xiao et al. 1996). The ties were placed in the locations
where they would most effectively engage with 45
compressive
struts.
Fig. 4. Embedded octagonal cross-section
Fig. 5. Base detail comparison of specimens (a) SF-1 and (b) SF-2
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 913
J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:910-919.
Specimen SF-3 was designed with a footing depth of 254 mm
(10 in.) to force failure into the connection region. For this shallower
footing, the footing flexural reinforcement was controlled by strength
rather than by the minimum requirements. This steel was placed in
several layers and consequently the lever arm was a relatively small
proportion of the total footing depth. The potentially critical failure
modes for this thin footing were one-way shear, and the combined
punching shear and moment transfer mechanism addressed by ACI
318-08 (ACI 2008) Section 11.11.7. The latter mechanism is not
considered in the AASHTO LRFD specifications (AASHTO 2009a, b),
but was deemed to be possible. The one-way shear failure was sup-
pressed, without increasing the capacity in the combined mechanism,
by strategic placement of stirrups in the footing. Because the previous
tests had revealed low stresses in the diagonal bars, only one set was
included in SF-3, in the top.
Testing Protocol and Test Setup
All three subassemblies were first loaded with an axial load. SF-2
was subjected to an axial load of 1,068 kN (240 kips), which at
42% scale, represented the factored axial dead and live loads on the
connection (1:25DL 1 1:75LL). Specimens SF-1 and SF-3 were
subjected to higher axial loads (4,083 kN [918 kips] for SF-1, and
1,521 kN [342 kips] for SF-3), which corresponded, respectively, to
3.8 times and 1.4 times the factored gravity axial loads.
The axial load was then reduced to the unfactored dead load value
of 707 kN (159 kips), and the specimen was subjected to displacement-
controlled cyclic lateral loading. The displacement history was a
modification of the loading history for precast structural walls rec-
ommended in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(BSSC 2004). The two specimens that suffered no footing failure
during the lateral-loading sequence were then loaded axially to failure.
The three specimens were tested using a loading rig in which the
vertical load was applied by a 10.7 MN (2,400 kip) Baldwin uni-
versal testing machine, acting through a sliding spherical bearing.
The horizontal load was applied by a servocontrolled ram connected
to a steel reaction frame. The specimens were anchored down to the
base of the test machine, as shown in Fig. 6, but a gap of 1.5 mm
(1/16 in.) was left between the load cell and the nut above it. This
precaution was taken in case the columns proved to be unexpectedly
strong, and the lateral strength of the system was controlled by
overturning rather than column strength. In all specimens, a void was
maintained beneath the column so as not to preclude punching
failure, and a displacement sensor monitored any vertical movement
of the column.
 The instrumentation included load and displacement transducers
on the exterior of the column and the footing to measure column
displacement and rotation, and internal strain gauges. Haraldsson
et al. (2012) describes the test protocol and setup in detail.
Damage Progression
No damage was observed in any of the three columns or footings
during the initial axial-load tests. These tests demonstrated that the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
undamaged vertical-load capacity was adequate for all the con-
nections, including even the shallowest one (SF-3).
The damage progression in the subassemblies during the lateral-
load tests was documented in terms of key damage states, as defined
by Berry and Eberhard (2003, 2004). This standardization facilitated
comparison of damage progression among specimens. As shown in
Fig. 7, the drift ratios at key damage states were similar for all three
subassemblies. In all three specimens, horizontal hairline cracks
were observed on both sides of the column during the first cycle. In

Fig. 6. Experimental test setup

Fig. 7. Comparison of specimens’ drift ratios for the major damage states

914 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:910-919.

 subsequent cycles, the cracks propagated and widened, but they
closed after each cycle. The first significant horizontal crack (crack
width of at least 0.5 mm) occurred between drift ratios of 0.5–0.7%
in all three specimens, and corresponded roughly with first yield of
the longitudinal reinforcement.
The columns spalled significantly (spall height at least 1/4 of
column diameter) at drift ratios ranging from 2.2 to 2.6%. For all
three subassemblies, the longitudinal bars buckled at drift ratios near
7%. The longitudinal bars in SF-1 and SF-2 fractured at a drift ratio
near 10.5%. The longitudinal bars in SF-3 did not fracture, because
the connection failed first.
In the footings of specimens SF-1 and SF-2, cracks were few,
they occurred only on the sides, and remained at a hairline width
throughout the tests. No spalling was observed in the footing during
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
SF-3 because the column had already punched through the spread
footing during cyclic testing. Fig. 8 shows the damage to the three
specimens at the end of the test program.
Measured Response
Haraldsson et al. (2012) report the details of the measured response of
the three test subassemblies. Here, the discussion focuses on the overall
moment-drift response, the column vertical displacement, the effec-
tiveness of the mechanical anchors, and the effectiveness of the footing
diagonal steel and ties.

the lateral-load tests. In contrast, Specimen SF-3 suffered significant
damage in the footing. Cracks in the sides of it were first observed at
a drift ratio of 0.3%. Radial cracks on its surface began to propagate
from the column early in the test, and spalling of the footing started
at 7% drift. During the last large cycle (maximum drift ratio 5 10.7%)
the column punched through the footing as the column was returning
from the peak displacement.
After the cyclic lateral-load tests were completed, SF-1 and SF-2
were loaded axially to failure. In both specimens, failure occurred by
crushing of the concrete in the already damaged column plastic hinge
region, with no sign of damage to the connection region. Specimens
SF-1 and SF-2 sustained maximum axial loads of 3,745 kN (842
kips) and 3,634 kN (819 kips), respectively. These values corre-
sponded to about 3.5 times the factored gravity load (1:25DL 1
1:75LL). This final axial load test was not performed on Specimen
Moment-Drift Response
The measured moment-drift ratio responses of the three sub-
assemblies are plotted in Fig. 9. The responses of SF-1 and SF-2 are
nearly indistinguishable. This similarity is consistent with the ob-
servation that the damage in these tests occurred only in the columns,
which were nominally the same. The responses of these two
specimens were stable to about 6% drift, at which point the lateral-
load resistance dropped rapidly. The resistance of SF-3 began to
decay earlier (starting at about 2.5% drift) but the decay was more
gradual. All specimens maintained a strength of at least 80% of the
peak resistance up to 7% drift.
The maximum measured base moments in both specimens SF-1
and SF-2 were approximately 350 kN×m (3,100 kip-in.). In con-
trast, Specimen SF-3 was approximately 10% stronger (383 kN×m).
Material tests showed that all the column longitudinal bars were

Fig. 8. Test specimens at the end of the test program

Fig. 9. Base moment-drift response for the test specimens

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 915

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:910-919.

 Table 2. Column Response to Various Axial Load Combinations
Specimen Load combination Axial load (kN)
SF-1 1:25 DL 1 1:75 LL 1,075
3:8ð1:25 DL 1 1:75 LLÞ 4,083
1:0 DL 1 1:0 OTa 709
Ultimate load 3,745
SF-2 1:25 DL 1 1:75 LL 1,078
1:0 DL 1 1:0 OTa 708
Ultimate load 3,645
SF-3 1:25 DL 1 1:75 LL 1,071
1:4ð1:25 DL 1 1:75 LLÞ 1,521
1:0 DL 1 1:0 OTa 708
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a
OT 5 overturning.
virtually identical, but the concrete in Specimen SF-3 was about 50%
stronger than that in specimens SF-1 and SF-2. A moment-curvature
analysis of the specimens indicated that the stronger concrete should
be expected to cause only a 3–4% increase in flexural strength. The
source of the remaining 5–6% increase in the column strength is not
known.
Column Vertical Displacement
Because no steel crossed the column-footing interfaces, it was im-
portant to determine whether any damage would develop in this
location. In the tests, no footing damage was observed in SF-1 and
SF-2. Table 2 summarizes the axial load applied to each specimen
and the corresponding column vertical displacement. In all cases ex-
cept Specimen SF-3 at failure, the vertical displacements vanished
when the load was removed. These displacements were attributed to
elastic bending and shear deformations of the footing. Table 2 gives
the average vertical shear stress at the column-footing interface,
normalized by the measured footing concrete strength.
Fig. 10 plots column vertical displacement versus cumulative
drift throughout the cyclic tests. Specimens SF-1 and SF-2 main-
tained a constant small vertical displacement throughout the test.
Lack of space under the column caused the need for a lever
mechanism to deliver the displacement to an instrument outside the
specimen, and slack in the pivots of that mechanism might have
introduced some error into the measurement. Thus the 0.5-mm peak
displacement in specimens SF-1 and SF-2 should be regarded as
indicative rather than precise. By contrast, Specimen SF-3 gradually
punched through the spread footing.
Effectiveness of Mechanical Anchors
The column longitudinal bar strains recorded near the mechanical
anchors were low in specimens SF-1 and SF-2, indicating a maxi-
mum stress of around 83 MPa (12 ksi). This value suggests that the
bars were developed primarily by bond along the bar and that the
mechanical anchors contributed only slightly to the resistance.
However, in Specimen SF-3, large strains (on the order of 0.01) were
recorded near the mechanical anchors, implying that the heads
provided the primary resistance to bar pullout. This result was
expected, because the footing depth was less than the calculated
development length of the bar.
Effectiveness of Footing Diagonal Steel and Ties
In specimens SF-1 and SF-2, the strains in the foundation re-
inforcement were so small that they were affected strongly by
thermal effects when the laboratory lights heated the lead wires of
916 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013
J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:910-919.
Measured deflection Nominal socket
under column (mm) shear stress/f 9c
0.56 0.027
NA 0.102
0.36 0.018
2.10 0.094
0.22 0.026
0.15 0.017
2.01 0.088
1.42 0.050
1.73 0.071
0.78 0.033
Fig. 10. Column vertical displacements versus cumulative drift
the gauges. To determine the mechanical strain during cyclic test-
ing, a correction for thermal strains had to be used, as detailed
in Haraldsson et al. (2012). This behavior was not observed in
Specimen SF-3, because the mechanical strains were larger and the
lights were kept away from the lead wires.
The values of the corrected tensile strains in the bottom diagonal
steel of Specimens SF-1 and SF-2 were all near the concrete cracking
strain of 135mɛ, which corresponds to a stress of 0:06 fy . These low
values suggest that the concrete resisted the tension forces and that
the steel was stressed only as a result of the need to maintain de-
formation compatibility. With one exception, the diagonal bars be-
haved similarly (the exception was in a top bar, where compression
would be expected, and the anomalous reading is believed to be
a result of the thermal strain problem). The low strains in the steel,
and the lack of cracking in the footings of specimens SF-1 and SF-2,
imply that the shear-friction mechanism was never activated. In
Specimen SF-3, the column punched through the footing, but the
failure was caused by punching on a conical surface, and not by
shear friction at the vertical interface. Thus, even there, the diagonal
steel contributed little to the resistance.
The strains in the footing ties in specimens SF-1 and SF-2 were
even smaller than those in the flexural and shear-friction steel. These
strains never exceeded 0:04ɛ y . Strains monitored in similar locations
in Specimen SF-3 showed yielding during cyclic testing. This
difference was expected, because the ties in SF-3 were needed to
resist part of the one-way shear demand.
 These results suggest that neither the shear friction steel nor the
footing ties provided any benefit when the footing depth was 1.1
times the column diameter. It is thus rational to eliminate this steel,
provided that the one-way shear force can be carried by the footing
concrete alone.
Comparison of Design Models and
Experimental Results
The measured performances of the test specimens were compared
with the results of design models (AASHTO 2009a, b; CalTrans
2006) for both the spread footings and columns. Table 3 summarizes
the nominal demand/capacity ratios. Nominal capacity ratios were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
calculated using measured material properties, with resistance
factors (f) taken as 1.0. Three sets of loads were used. In the first four
rows of the table, the measured quantity, such as Mu , is based on
the loads measured during the lateral load testing. In rows 5 and 6,
the punching and push-through shear demands, Vu , are based on the
maximum vertical load ever applied [4,083, 3,645, and 1,521 kN
(918, 820, and 342 kips), respectively]. In rows 7 and 8, the joint
shear is based on moment-curvature analyses using the measured
material properties. That procedure was necessary because all of the
bar forces were needed but strains were measured in only two.
The flexural demands in the footings were computed at the col-
umn face. The cracking moment capacity was calculated using the
whole width, but the nominal moment capacity was calculated using
the effective width, beff , as specified by the AASHTO Guide
Specifications (AASHTO 2009a). The demands were approximately
10% below the calculated cracking capacities for the two thick
footings (SF-1 and SF-2), but they greatly exceeded the nominal
cracking moment for the thin footing (SF-3), as expected. These
findings are consistent with the observed damage patterns. The
moments experienced in all of the footings were below their nominal
flexural strengths. In specimens SF-1 and SF-2 the flexural steel was
controlled by minimum requirements, so the ratio was expected to be
less than 1.0. Specimen SF-3 was controlled by strength require-
ments, but the ratio is still less than 1.0 because of the 1.2 over-
strength factor required by AASHTO (2009b), the f-factor, and the
rounding up of bar sizes.
As required by the AASHTO Guide Specifications (AASHTO
2009a), the one-way shear demand was evaluated at the column face,
and the shear concrete capacity was calculated using the effective
width and included the stirrup contribution. The footing shear
demands were only 43–75% of the nominal capacities.
Table 3. Nominal Demand/Capacity Ratios
Design criterion SF-1 SF-2 SF-3
Footing cracking, Mu =Mcra
0.91 0.89 3.97
Footing flexural strength, Mu =Mn a 0.57 0.57 0.75
Footing one-way shear strength, Vu =Vn a 0.43 0.56 0.75
Punching shear and moment transfer, 0.20 0.25 1.27
Vu =Vn b
Pure punching shear strength, Vu =Vn b 1.19 1.35 1.82
Shear-friction push-through strength, 1.44 1.90 0.74
Vu =Vn b
c =pc
limit c
Joint shear, (compressive) pcalc 0.23 0.21 0.32
Joint shear, (tensile) pt =pt
calc limit c
0.24 0.22 0.44
a concept is to precast the column and to cast the spread footing
Based on loads measured during lateral load testing.
b around it, with no bars crossing the interface between the two. The
Based on maximum load ever applied.
c connection’s performance in the cyclic, lateral loading tests was
Based on moment curvature analysis using the measured material
properties.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 917
J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:910-919.
The combined punching shear and moment transfer was evalu-
ated using the procedure described in ACI 318-08 (ACI 2008)
Section 11.11.7 for design of column-supported slabs. For both
specimens SF-1 and SF-2, the demands were well below the pre-
dicted capacity, but in SF-3 the demand exceeded the capacity by
27%. Specimen SF-3 was expected to, and did, fail in combined
punching shear and moment transfer.
Sliding shear failure at the vertical column-footing interface
(push-through) was checked using the shear-friction criteria proce-
dures in AASHTO LRFD (AASHTO 2009b). The shear capacity
was calculated using both the cohesion and shear friction compo-
nents. The ratios in Table 3 show that demand exceeded the nominal
capacities for both specimens SF-1 and SF-2 (see Table 2 for
maximum axial load applied on each specimen). For Specimen SF-3
the demand exceeded the capacity for punching shear but not for
shear friction. Last, joint shear in the footing was evaluated using the
procedure given in the AASHTO Guide Specifications (AASHTO
2009a). It was not critical in any of the specimens.
Constructability
The socket connection was developed to be used with a precast
column and cast-in-place footing. This connection, together with the
large-bar, large-duct column-to-beam connection (Pang et al. 2008),
were incorporated in the construction of the bridge carrying US 12
over Interstate 5 in Washington State. That demonstration project
provided an opportunity for verifying the constructability of the
precast bent system.
The bridge had two spans, tall abutments at the ends, and a four-
column bent at the center. Although the columns were small enough
to be handled in one piece, they were constructed in segments to
evaluate that technology for use on future projects with larger col-
umns. Fig. 11(a) shows a column base segment plumbed and leveled
in a foundation, with only the bottom flexural reinforcement in place.
The steel framing was used as a guide. Fig. 11(b) shows the
placement of the precast cross beam.
The construction of the socket connections was successful. The
contractor placed the bottom footing steel before installing the
column, but that was out of choice and not necessity. No major
problems were encountered, and the minor ones that did occur were
associated with grouting the column segments, which are not an
essential part of the system. A precast cap beam was placed on the
precast columns, and the large bars and ducts made alignment
straightforward. Even though this was the first time that the socket
concept described here had been used, placing and plumbing the
column base segments took less than an hour per column. Given the
connection’s great strength in resisting vertical loads, it is expected
that the cap beam could be placed very soon after casting the foot-
ings. It is likely that the precast column system described here will
prove most advantageous in multicolumn bents, especially if site
access is limited. In another bridge project, with 14 columns, the
contractor requested a change from cast-in-place to precast socket
columns to accelerate the construction process.
Summary and Conclusions
A new column-to-footing socket connection, suitable for precast
bridge bents in seismic regions, has been developed. The connection
excellent and is believed to be at least as good as, if not better than,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Deployment of precast system over I-5 in Washington State: (a) socket connection; (b) placement of cross-beam
that of a conventional cast-in-place system. The basis for this as-
sertion is that, in the new system, the critical node in the strut and tie
model is a CCC node, at which the forces are transferred by direct
bearing, whereas the force transfer occurs by bond in the traditional
bent-out bar system and implicitly depends on the tension strength of
the concrete. These model results are supported by test evidence that
shows that diagonal joint shear cracking and failure occurs with
bent-out bars [e.g., Saunders et al. (1995)], and that footing ties are
needed to resist it (Xiao et al. 1996), whereas in the new system no
diagonal cracks occurred and essentially no force was recorded in the
ties. Under vertical load, the capacity of the new system capacity was
much greater than the expected demands.
The constructability advantages of the system are that it is quick
and simple to build, and the column is easy to transport, because no
bars project from the bottom or sides of the column. This configu-
ration has several construction advantages over other systems that
use precast columns:
• It avoids any potential problems of fit-up of bars in sleeves or
ducts at the base of the column;
• It allows generous placement tolerances;
• The column detailing can be almost identical to that of a cast in
place column; and
• No grouting is needed.
The socket connection was incorporated successfully into the
construction of a bridge in Washington State.
In the lateral-loading tests, the response of all three specimens
was essentially identical to that of comparable cast-in-place sub-
assemblies. The precast columns can therefore be designed fol-
lowing the same specifications used to design cast-in-place columns.
The longitudinal bar strains directly behind the anchor heads
showed that the stress there reached 20% of yield in the two speci-
mens with the thicker footings (SF-1 and SF-2), and exceeded yield
in Specimen SF-3, with its thinner footing. The heads therefore
provided at least partial anchorage and should be included in future
implementations of the socket connection.
The shear friction strength of the connection under pure axial
load, using the shear key roughness detail of typical WSDOT precast
girder ends (WSDOT 2008), was sufficient to prevent any slip in any
of the three test specimens. In specimens SF-1 and SF-2, in which
the footing was relatively undamaged after the lateral load test pro-
gram, the connection interface withstood a shear stress of 4.21 MPa
(611 psi) with no sign of damage even after the specimens had
been subjected to large lateral deformations. Specimen SF-3 reached
its predicted capacity during the cyclic test, but failed in combined
punching shear and moment transfer at the end of the test. This
mode of failure is not considered in AASHTO (2009a, b).
918 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013
J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:910-919.
When the longitudinal column steel consists of straight, headed
bars rather than the conventional bent-out bars, the prescriptive
vertical footing ties specified by the California DOT Seismic Design
Criteria (CalTrans 2006) perform no useful function and can be
omitted. This conclusion applies only to the prescriptive ties and not
to ties that are needed to resist the computed shear demands.
The bottom diagonal bars, included in the thick footing test
specimens (SF-1 and SF-2) and intended to provide shear friction
resistance, experienced low stresses during the factored axial-load
test and during the cyclic lateral-load tests, during which the foot-
ing remained essentially uncracked and elastic. They therefore
proved unnecessary and can also be eliminated.
Acknowledgments
This project was supported by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) (Grant No. DTFH61-09-G-00005), and by the Valle Foun-
dation of the University of Washington. This work would not have
been possible without valuable assistance of Dr. Bijan Khaleghi,
Mr. Jugesh Kapur, and Mr. Eric Schultz of the WSDOT, Dr. Lee
Marsh of Berger/ABAM Engineers, Mr. Steve Seguirant of Con-
crete Technology Corporation, and the staff of Tri-State Construc-
tion. The support of all of them is gratefully acknowledged.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ag 5 gross area of column cross section;
fc9 5 specified compressive strength of concrete;
Paxial 5 applied axial load;
r 5 longitudinal reinforcement ratio; and
rs 5 volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement.
References
AASHTO. (2009a). AASHTO guide specification for LRFD seismic bridge
design (2009 interim revisions), Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2009b). LRFD bridge design specifications, 4th Ed., Wash-
ington, DC.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008). “Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-08, Farmington Hills,
MI.
Berry, M. P., and Eberhard, M. O. (2003). “Performance models for
flexural damage in reinforced concrete columns.” Rep. 2003/18, Pacific
 Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Ber-
keley, CA.
Berry, M. P., and Eberhard, M. O. (2004). “PEER structural performance
database user’s manual.” Rep. 2004, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA Æwww.ce.washington
.edu/∼peeralæ (Jan. 12, 2011).
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). (2004). NEHRP recommended
provisions for seismic regulations and for new buildings and other
structures (FEMA 450), 2003 Ed., Washington, DC.
California DOT (CalTrans). (2006). “Seismic design criteria, Ver. 1.4,”
Sacramento, CA.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2008). 2008 Condition and
performance report, USDOT, Washington, DC.
Haraldsson, O. S., Janes, T. M., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2012).
Laboratory tests of column-to-footing socket connections, USDOT,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FWHA, Washington, DC.
Marsh, L. M., Wernli, M., Garrett, B. E., Stanton, J. F., Eberhard, M. O., and
Weinert, M. D. (2011). “Application of accelerated bridge construction
connections in moderate-to-high seismic regions.” Rep. 698, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Matsumoto, E. (2009). “Emulative precast bent cap connections for seismic
regions: Grouted duct and cap pocket test results, design and construction
specifications, design examples, and connection details.” ECS Rep. No.
ECS-CSUS-2009-05, California State Univ., Sacramento, CA.
Matsumoto, E., Waggoner, M., Kreger, M., Vogel, J., and Wolf, L. (2008).
“Development of a precast concrete bent-cap system.” PCI J., 53(3),
74–99.
Matsumoto, E., Waggoner, M., Sumen, G., Kreger, M., Wood, S., and
Breen, J. (2001). “Development of a precast bent cap system.” Research
Project 0-1748, Center for Transportation Research, Univ. of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 919
J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:910-919.
Osanai, Y., Watanabe, F., and Okamoto, S. (1996). “Stress transfer mecha-
nism of socket base connections with precast concrete columns.” ACI
Struct. J., 93(May-June), 266–276.
Pang, J. B. K., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2010). “Large-bar
connection for precast bridge bents in seismic regions.” J. Bridge Eng.,
15(3), 231–239.
Pang, J. B. K., Steuck, K., Cohagen, L. S., Stanton, J. F., and Eberhard, M. O.
(2008). “Rapidly constructable large-bar precast bridge-bent seismic
connection.” Rep. No. WA-RD 684.2, Washington State DOT, Wash-
ington State Transportation Research Center, Seattle.
Restrepo, J., Matsumoto, E., and Tobolski, M. (2011). “Development of
precast bent cap systems for seismic regions.” Rep. 681, National Co-
operative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Transportation Re-
search Board, Washington, DC.
Saunders, T. D., Cahill, J. A., McLean, D. I., Marsh, L. M., and Ho, C.
(1995). “Seismic retrofitting of bridge substructures.” Transportation
Research Record No. 1476, Transportation Research Board, Wash-
ington, DC, 37–47.
Steuck, K., Pang, J. B. K., Stanton, J. F., and Eberhard, M. O. (2007).
“Anchorage of large bars in grouted ducts.” Rep. WA-RD 684.1,
Washington State Transportation Research Center, Seattle.
Steuck, K., Stanton, J. F., and Eberhard, M. O. (2009). “Anchorage of large-
diameter reinforcing bars in ducts.” ACI Struct. J., 106(July-August),
506–513.
Tobolski, M. J. (2010). “Improving the design and performance of concrete
bridges in seismic regions.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California, San Diego.
Washington State DOT (WSDOT). (2008). Bridge design manual, ver.
M23-50.02, Olympia, WA.
Weinert, M. D. (2011). “Substructure connections for accelerated bridge con-
struction in seismic regions.” M.S.C.E. thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. (1996). “Seismic assessment and
retrofit of bridge column footings.” ACI Struct. J. 93(1), 79–94.