Design, Construction, and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Three ...

Report Number CCEER-09-03

Construction and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Three Bridge Bents Used in a Bridge System Test

David Hillis

M. "Saiid" Saiidi

____________________________________________

Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research Department of Civil Engineering/258

University of Nevada Reno, NV 89557

August 2009

ii

Acknowledgements The research presented in this report was sponsored by the National Science Foundation

through NEES award number CMS-0420347 and CMMI-0650935. The authors thank

UNR students Hoon Choi, Carlos Cruz, Sarira Motaref, Ashkan Vosooghi, Arash Esmaili,

Danielle Smith, Amir Reza Shoja-Taheri, and Milad Oliaee for their assistance at various

stages of the project. Thanks are also due Patrick Laplace, Paul Lucas, and Chad Lyttle

for their dedicated help in the UNR structures lab. Dr. M. Sadrossadat Zadeh and Dr.

Won Lee are thanked for their helpful advice with the analytical modeling. Gratitude is

due BarSplice Products Inc. for donating the mechanical connectors and Mike Pagano at

Avar for assistance with post-tensioning. Konrad Eriksen and Tung Ng of Dynamic

Isolation Systems are thanked for fabricating the isolators used in two of the columns.

Special appreciation goes to Don Newman at Scott Meeks and Sons and Ed Little of

Surface Systems for building the piers. Karin Saxon is thanked for her careful editing of

the report. Enduring support of Christina and Kiana Hillis played an important role

enabling the first author to work on this project. This report is based on a special project

report prepared by the first author under the supervision of the second author.

iii

Abstract

During major earthquakes that have occurred in the United States and around the world a

common issue that has been observed in bridges and viaducts is the severe localized

damage often accompanied by significant residual column displacements. The use of

innovative design and materials in individual bridge columns has been shown to improve

seismic performance by reducing the residual displacement. This report presents

information about the design, construction and nonlinear dynamic analysis of three bridge

bents used in a bridge system test. Each individual bent contained one of three different

bent details: the use of Shape Memory Alloy and Engineered Cementitious Composites,

Unbonded Post Tensioned Columns, and Isolator Built in Columns. Analytical evaluation

of individual columns showed significant reduction in the residual displacement.

Extensive pre-test analytical modeling was conducted using OpenSEES prior to finalizing

the column height and bridge model configuration to achieve a comparable lateral drift

ratio. When working with innovative design and materials many differences and logistic

issues associated with construction were identified. However, the construction of the

bents used in the bridge model was successful. These bents were then used in a quarter

scale four span bridge tested at the University of Nevada, Reno.

iv

Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………............ 1 1.2 Previous Work ……………………………………………………………… 2 1.3 Objectives and Scope ………………………………………………………. 3

Chapter 2 – Design of Bents

2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 4 2.2 Design of Bents …………………………………………………………….. 4 2.2.1 Shape Memory Alloy and Engineered Cementitious Composite Bent ….. 5 2.2.2 Post-Tensioned Bent ……………………………………………………… 6 2.2.3 Built in Isolator (ISO) …………………………………………………….. 7 2.3 Material Testing …………………………………………………………… 12

CH 3 - Construction of Bents

3.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………….. 15 3.2 Cast-in-Place Construction …………………………………………..……. 15 3.3 SMA and ECC Bent Construction ………………………………….…...… 16 3.4 PT Bent Construction …………………………………………….….......... 17 3.5 ISO Bent Construction ……………………………………………………. 18

Chapter 4 OpenSEES Modeling and Results

4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………...… 19 4.2 Isolator Bearing Bent (ISO Bent) ………………………………………..... 20 4.3 Post-Tensioned Bent ……………………………………………………..... 20 4.4 SMA/ECC Bent …………………………………………………………… 21 4.5 Cyclic Load Analysis of Single Columns………………………………….. 21 4.6 Location of Bents in Bridge Model ……………………………………….. 22

Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusions

5.1 Summary…………………………………………………………………... 25 5.2 Conclusions……………..………………………………………………….. 26

References …………………………………………………………………………...... 27 Tables …………………………………………………………………………………. 29

Figures ………………………………………………………………………………… 30

v

List of Tables Table 4.1 –Cases of Bent Arrangements to be Analyzed ……………………………... 29 Table 4.2 –Maximum and Minimum Displacement Results ………………………….. 29

vi

List of Figures Figure 2.1 – Cross Section of Built in Isolator Column ………………………………. 30 Figure 2.2 – Displacement and Compression Area in Rubber ………………………… 30 Figure 2.3 – Mechanical Connection Testing Preparation …………………………….. 31 Figure 2.4 – Mechanical Connection Testing Assembled with Labels……………...… 31 Figure 2.5 – Mechanical Connection Testing Setup …………………………………... 32 Figure 2.6 – Bar Rupture During Test of S-1 ………………………………………..... 32 Figure 2.7 – Mechanical Connection Testing Results ………………………………… 33 Figure 2.8 – Transverse Reinforcement Stress vs. Strain ……………………………... 33 Figure 2.9– SMA Stress vs. Strain at a Maximum of 6.8% Strain ………………......... 34 Figure 2.10– SMA Stress vs. Strain at a Maximum of 6.9% Strain…………………… 34 Figure 2.11– Column Longitudinal Bars Stress vs. Strain ……………………………..35 Figure 3.1 – Construction Pad is Cleared to Begin Construction ……………………... 36 Figure 3.2 – Footing Formwork ……………………………………………………….. 36 Figure 3.3 – Bottom Footing Steel is Placed ………………………………………….. 36 Figure 3.4 – Column Cage is Placed Into Footing …………………………………….. 37 Figure 3.5 – Top Footing Steel is Placed ……………………………………………… 37 Figure 3.6 – Concrete Pour for Footings……………………………………….………. 38 Figure 3.7 – Platform Construction …………………………………………………… 38 Figure 3.8 – Sono-Tube Placement and Bent Cap Formwork ………………………… 39 Figure 3.9 – Form Removal After 12 Days …………………………………………… 39 Figure 3.10 – Column and Bent Cap Concrete Pour ………………………………….. 40 Figure 3.11 – Form Removal After 12 Days ………………………………………….. 41 Figure 3.12 – Preparing SMA Bars and Mechanical Connectors ……………………... 41 Figure 3.13 – SMA Bars and Mechanical Connectors in Column Cage ……………… 42 Figure 3.14 – SMA-ECC Column and Recess Formwork …………………………….. 42 Figure 3.15 – Placement of ECC ……………………………………………………… 43 Figure 3.16 – Sono-Tube Placement During ECC Column Pour ……………………... 43 Figure 3.17 – Placement of Bottom Recess in PT Bent ………………………………..44 Figure 3.18 – Placement of PT Duct …………………………………………………... 44 Figure 3.19 – PT Duct During Column and Bent Cap Concrete Pour …..…………….. 45 Figure 3.20 – Duct Exiting Bent Cap Through Recess ………………………………... 45 Figure 3.21 – Recess Formwork Removal…………………….……………………….. 46 Figure 3.22 – Placement of Longitudinal Bars Through Isolator ……………………... 46 Figure 3.23 – Placement of Lower Transverse Steel in ISO Bent …………………….. 47 Figure 3.24 – Placement of Rubber Sleeves …………………….…………………….. 47 Figure 3.25 – Placement of Upper Transverse Steel in ISO Bent …………………….. 48 Figure 3.26 – Placement of Lower Transverse Steel in ISO Bent at Isolator-Concrete Interface……………………………………………………………………. 48 Figure 3.27 – Movement of ISO Bent ……………………………………………..….. 49 Figure 3.28 – Placement of ISO Bent Into Footing …………………………………… 49 Figure 3.29 – Finished Reinforcement Placement in ISO Bent ………………………. 50 Figure 4.1 – Spline Model of 4-Span Bridge ………………………………………….. 51 Figure 4.2 – Single Column Model …………………….…….……………………….. 52

vii

Figure 4.3 – Post Tensioned Column Force vs. Displacement ……….………………... 53 Figure 4.4 – Post Tensioned Column and Conventional Column Force vs. ……………… Displacement Bridge ……………………………………………………… 53 Figure 4.5 – Shape Memory Alloy and ECC Column Force vs. Displacement ………... 54 Figure 4.6 – Shape Memory Alloy and ECC Column and Conventional Column Force vs. Displacement Results …………………………………………... 54 Figure 4.7 – Built in Isolator Column Force vs. Displacement Results ………………. 55 Figure 4.8 – Built in Isolator Column and Conventional Column Force vs. Displacement …………………………………………………………….. 55 Figure 4.9 – Case 1 Displacement Histories ………………….…………………………56 Figure 4.10 – Case 2 Displacement Histories …….……….…….………………………56 Figure 4.11 – Case 3 Displacement Histories …….……….…….………………………57 Figure 4.12 – Case 4 Displacement Histories …….……….…….………………………57 Figure 4.13 – Case 5 Displacement Histories …….……….…….………………………58 Figure 4.14 – Case 6 Displacement Histories ……….…….…….………………………58 Figure 4.15 – Case 1 Delimited Displacement Histories …….…………….……………59 Figure 4.16 – Case 2 Delimited Displacement Histories .………….……………………59 Figure 4.17 – Case 3 Delimited Displacement Histories ….…….………………………60 Figure 4.18 – Case 4 Delimited Displacement Histories ……..…………………………60 Figure 4.19 – Case 5 Delimited Displacement Histories …….….………………………61 Figure 4.20 – Case 6 Delimited Displacement Histories …….….………………………61 Figure 4.21 – Pinching 4 Material Parameters - Image Obtained from the OpenSEES Online Manual ……………………………………………………………. 62

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.1 Introduction

During major earthquakes that have occurred in the United States and around the world a

common issue that has been observed in bridges and viaducts is the severe localized

damage often accompanied by significant residual column displacements. This

displacement is usually caused by yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement in the

columns to dissipate the seismic energy. Many bridges and viaducts could be closed if a

large residual displacement exists. The closure of any infrastructure after a seismic event

will prohibit the flow of emergency response vehicles, impact the regional economy, and

will have a substantial cost to replace or repair the structure. The use of innovative

design and materials in columns may improve seismic performance, so that bridges and

viaducts could remain serviceable. These new concepts have been either dynamically or

cyclically tested at a component level and have shown potential; however, no system

testing has been conducted to evaluate their interaction with one another and other

components of bridges.

An extensive study to determine the effectiveness of innovative materials to drastically

improve the seismic bridge response has been in progress through funding by the

National Science Foundation grant under the Network for Earthquake Engineering

Simulation Research. The project consists of many components some of which involve

shake table testing of a series of 110-ft models of four-span bridges. Analytical models

were developed to simulate a large scale bridge under dynamic loading with and without

the innovative designs and material. The bridge specimen that is the subject of this report

2

consists of three different bent details, one with shape memory alloy (SMA) and

engineered cementitious composites, unbonded post tensioned columns, and columns

incorporating an elastomeric pad (isolator). These details are intended to minimize

residual displacements. The piers incorporating SMA and built-in pad are expected to

have minimal damage in the plastic hinges. The study presented in this report includes

design and construction of the piers and the computer modeling of the bridge model using

program OpenSEES.

1.2 Previous Work

The use of innovative design and materials in columns has been shown to improve the

seismic performance of reinforced concrete bridge columns. The details to be used

consist of shape memory alloy and engineered cementitious composites (ECC), unbonded

post tensioned columns, and isolator built in columns. The placement of superelastic

shape memory alloy (SMA) bars in the plastic hinge region has shown to reduce residual

displacement in reinforced concrete (RC) beams and columns under cyclic loading

(Saiidi, et al., 2007; Saiidi, et al., 2009) and dynamic testing (Saiidi and Wang, 2006).

Engineered cementitious composites used in columns have shown to drastically increase

the ductility when compared to conventional concrete. (Li, 2005) Similar results were

observed by utilizing an unbonded post tensioned column detail (Sakai, 2004), and the

Isolator Built-in Column (Kawashima, 2004). The details previously listed were all tested

on structural components. Previous research reviewed of bridge system testing included a

four span bridge tested at the University of Nevada, Reno (Nelson and Saiidi, 2007), and

a two span bridge (Johnson, et al., 2008). Other relevant work included modeling

3

research preformed on bridge systems (Sadrossadat-Zadeh and Saiidi, 2007) and

component modeling (Lee and Billington, 2007).

1.3 Objectives and Scope

The objective of the research presented in this report was to design, construct and

conduct pretest analysis of a four-span bridge utilizing innovative materials in the lower

column plastic hinges while using conventional reinforced concrete in the upper plastic

hinges. The ultimate objective of this part of the project was to compare the performance

of different innovative details relative to each other and relative to conventional

reinforced concrete construction. The criteria to judge the performance was the residual

displacement and damage. The pretest analytical modeling was carried out using

program OpenSEES (Marzzoni, et al., 2006) and was aimed at finding appropriate

location for different piers so they experience equal transverse displacement demand.

4

Chapter 2 – Design of Bents

2.1 Introduction

The piers discussed in this chapter are to be utilized in a 4-span bridge test conducted at

the Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research at the University of Nevada, Reno.

The template for this testing setup has been used in previous studies [Nelson et al.]. In

the first bridge tested by Nelson et al., the bents height varied to create bridge symmetry

in the structure. This type of construction is very common when bridges span uneven

topography. The bents were constructed to be one-quarter scale using conventional

materials. Scaling was necessary due to the limited capacity of the shake tables. The

bents were constructed to conform to the National Cooperative Highway Research

Program (NCHRP) 12-49 recommendations [NCHRP] when possible. For the second

bridge test the impact of using innovative materials and design is to be studied. Since

these designs are innovative, design codes do not exist for them but the provisions of

NCHRP 12-49 was used to the extent possible. Some deviation from the code was

necessary

2.2 Design of Bents

The columns chosen for this test incorporate shape memory alloy (SMA) and engineered

cementitious composite (ECC) [Obrien], unbonded post-tensioned construction [Sakai],

and built in isolator construction (ISO) [Kawashima]. All of these methods have been

researched on limited basis in structural components. The results have been promising as

they significantly reduce the residual displacement after seismic loading. For the next

phase of this research project, these methods will be tested in a bridge system. The

5

general design of these bents was based on previous research conducted at the University

of Nevada [Nelson].

2.2.1 Shape Memory Alloy and Engineered Cementitious Composite Bent

The selected SMA material in this project was Nitinol (Nickel Titanium Naval Ordnance

Laboratory) for its superelastic properties. The hypothesis was that by using the SMA as

the longitudinal reinforcement the column would have self-centering characteristics.

It was desired to maintain the same flexural capacity and longitudinal steel ratio used in

the previous testing. The previous specimen used 16 - # 3 bars. Each #3 bar has a cross

sectional area of .11 in^2. Therefore the total area of longitudinal steel used in previous

testing was 1.76in^2. To maintain the total area from previous studies 9 - # 4 bars were

chosen to be used in this column. Therefore the total area of longitudinal steel used in

this specimen was 1.80 in^2. Given that the nominal yield stress in the SMA that was

ordered was the same as that of steel reinforcement, placing the same amount of

reinforcement area would lead to comparable moment capacities for the steel and SMA-

reinforced columns. The SMA bars are to be placed in the lower plastic hinge region of

the columns. The longitudinal bars in columns are required to be continuous, however

this is too cost prohibitive when utilizing SMA. For this reason, it was determined to cut

the standard rebar and splice in the SMA using mechanical connectors. In previous

testing the SMA, bars were machined to have threading on the ends and use a mechanical

union. The machining process was found to be very difficult and expensive. For this

specimen a product from Bar Splice Products Inc. was chosen. The Zap Screwlok Type 2

6

connector was chosen for evaluation. The Type 2 connector will force failure into the bar

rather than the connector. A series of tests were completed on different configurations of

size and the number of connecting bolts per bar, Figure 2.5 through Figure 2.7. The final

product chosen was for a #4 bar and had 3 bolts per side. To ensure uniform compression

from the bolts, they are designed to twist the head of the bolt off when proper torque is

achieved, Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4. The transverse reinforcement consisted of W2.9

(0.192 in Wire) spaced at 1.25 in, and it was the same as that used in the conventional

bridge model.

2.2.2 Post-Tensioned Bent

The post tensioned (PT) column design was based on research conducted by Sakai and

Mahin. This column will be constructed similarly to the conventional construction, with

the exception of a post tensioning duct placed through the center of the column. Then a

post tensioning rod will be placed inside the duct and stressed in tension to apply the PT

force. To maintain a similar total amount of longitudinal steel; half of the total

longitudinal steel area made up the column cage and the other half was the total area of

the PT rod. For this bent 8 #3 bars were selected for the column cage reinforcement and a

PT rod size of 1 in diameter was selected. This rod has a minimum yield strength of 150

ksi and a cross sectional area of .85 in^2. The total longitudinal steel area per column for

this bent was 1.73 in^2. From a literature search, various ranges of the PT force were

found. It was decided that an initial value of 60% of the yield force would be used in this

bent, which was a value of 70.8 kips. This topic will be discussed again in Chapter 4.

7

2.2.3 Built in Isolator (ISO)

The initial isolator built in column design was based on work completed by Kawashima.

For this method variations of rubber layers being placed at the column-footing interface

were tested. Some of the variations included different rubber thickness, the addition of

upper and lower steel plates, the addition of post tensioning, presence of steel shims, and

the anchorage of the steel plated into the concrete. This design method gave a good

estimate for the total rubber thickness to be used, however the final design was based on

elastomeric bearing design guidelines. The design method used in previous research by

Kawashima (Figure 2.1-2.2) is outlined below:

)1.1(Eqtd

r=ε

Where: rε = Compressive Strain in Rubber d = Displacement of Rubber t = Thickness of Rubber dr = Displacement in Rubber H = Height θ = Rotation For this specimen w = 12 in. x = The Distance to the Neutral Axis w = The Width of the Rubber Since θ is relatively small compared to the height:

)2.1(EqH

Hd r θθ=

⋅≅

)3.1(Eqwx

=α

8

Where: α = The Compression to Width Ratio Since )4.1(Eqxd θ⋅=

From Eq. 1.2 it can be shown:

)5.1(Eqwx ⋅=α

Therefore: tw

tx

td

rθαθε ⋅⋅

=>⋅

=>=)( )6.1()( Eq

tw

rθαε ⋅⋅

=

Now consider the yield strength of rubber vs concrete:

rσ < < ccσ Eq (1.7) Where: rσ = Stress on Rubber

ccσ = Stress on Concrete

Since the rubber is much more ductile than the concrete, we expect the column deformation to be concentrated in the rubber. To determine the minimum thickness of the rubber Equation 1.6 can be rearranged to

give the following:

)8.1()(min Eqwt

rεθα ⋅⋅

=

Since we do not know the value of the strain in the rubber, we must estimate a value. We do not want the strain to be such that strain hardening becomes significant. So assume that:

2.1. tor ≅ε

If we were to assume:

→> 3.2. torε This would result in significant strain hardening.

Also, an estimate of the α value must be assumed. So assume that:

5.3. to≅α is reasonable.

9

Now minimize and maximize Equation 1.8 to obtain a range of minimum rubber

thicknesses.

Maximum tmin occurs when 5.=α and 1.=rε for a drift of 7%, we get the value

inwtr

⋅≅⋅⋅

=⋅⋅

= 2.41.

07.)125(.)(min ε

θα

Minimum tmin occurs when 3.=α and 2.=rε for a drift of 7% we get the value

inwtr

⋅≅⋅⋅

=⋅⋅

= 3.12.

07.)123(.)(min ε

θα

From the method used above the thickness of the rubber should be between 1.3 to 4.2

inches. It was decided a value of 3.0 inches would be used as the total rubber preliminary

thickness. Further, the equation for Ec described in Mechanics of low shape factor

elastomeric seismic isolation building, Ian D. Aiken, James M. Kelly, Fredrick F.

Tajirian, Report No. UCB/EERC-89/13 November 1989 was also considered. The Final

Design Method is as follows:

We can describe the procedure of Elastomeric bearing design as below:

1. Calculate Potential Shape factor based on geometry assuming layer thickness

2. Determine target drift ratio

3. Calculate EC and Eb

4. Find Kθ =M/θ and determine Tr (Total rubber thickness)

5. Assume maximum moment at rubber level is the column capacity from Extract

Analysis

6. Verify capacity of isolator is greater than column capacity

10

1.) Calculate Potential Shape Factor

Sπ

d2

⎛⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎠

2⋅ 9π

Holed( )2

⎡⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎦

2

⋅− πPipeHoled( )

2

⎡⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎦

2

⋅−

2 π⋅ d⋅ .5⋅ t⋅:= S 13.36= is > 3 ok

2.) Target Drift Ratio

θm .1 rad⋅:= About 10% Drift

Determine Maximum Bending Moment Capacity

Given Parameters

Gr 120lb

in 2⋅:= d 12 in⋅:= t .2 in⋅:= Hole d

58

in⋅:= Tr 3.0 in⋅:=

E 400lb

in 2⋅:= PipeHole d 3.5 in⋅:= I π

d 4

64⋅:= I 1017.88 in 4.00

=

Assumptions: The isolator has Tr of 3.0 inches Column Diameter is 12 in There are 9 - 5/8 in holes for the longitudinal bars to pass through

S = Shape Factor = Plan Area/Area of Perimeter Free to Buldge

I = Moment of Inertia = π*d4/64

θm = maximum design rotation (rad)

Ec = effective modulus of elastomeric bearing in compression = 5.6*G*S 2 **If s>3

G = Shear modulus (ksi)

Tr = Total Elastomer Thickness

t = Layer Elastomer Thickness

d = column diameter

Assumptions: The isolator has Tr of 3.0 inches Column Diameter is 12 in There are 9 - 5/8 in holes for the longituidnal bars to pass through

11

From the calculations above we observe the design parameters to be utilized in the model.

Upon several trial analyses and final review, it was decided the bearing would have the

following properties:

Axial Load Capacity – 150 Kips

Maximum Rotation - .4 Radians

Compression Stiffness – 2200 Kips/in

2 - 1” A36 Plates (Upper and Lower )

18 - .20” Thick Rubber Layers

17 - 12 GA. Steel Shims

Outer Diameter – 12.0”

G = 0.1 ksi

E = 0.4 ksi

Ec = 107 ksi

Eb = 300 ksi

3. Calculate Ec and Eb

5. From Extract Analysis the Maximum Moment Capacity is 801,000 in*lb

6. Verify the Maximum Moment Capacity is Greater than demand

This value is greater than Maximum Moment

4. Calculate

Eb E 123

S2⋅+⎛⎜

⎝⎞⎟⎠

⋅:= Eb 47981.18lb

in2.00=

Kθ EbI

Tr⋅:= Kθ 16279629.98in lb⋅=

M Kθ θm⋅:=M 1627963.00in lb⋅=

Ec 5.6 Gr⋅ S2⋅:= Ec 119904.57

lb

in2.00=

12

The total height of the bearing is 7.378”. Also for anchorage into the concrete 4 – 1”

diameter by 10” long bolts were threaded into the upper and lower plate. Since the

longitudinal bars are to be continuous; holes were required in the bearing were the

longitudinal bars are to pass through. Further, a mandrel was required through the center

of the bearing so the PT duct may pass through the center. The mandrel was a 3” X-

Strong Pipe, A53 GR. B. These requirements increased the complexity of the

manufacturing; however, the final product delivered and installed with no difficulties.

The mandrel, although allowed the PT duct to pass though the center of the column,

provided resistance to shear forces at the column isolator, and column-footing interfaces.

2.3 Material Testing

Prior to the start of construction, and during, the material components were tested to

verify the properties. The materials tested were the SMA Bars, Transverse Column

Reinforcement, Longitudinal Reinforcement, Footing Concrete, Column Concrete, ECC

Concrete, and Bent Cap Reinforcement. From the test the following was determined:

Transverse Column Reinforcement (See Figure 2.8) Average Yield 58.1 ksi Ultimate Average 71.8 ksi Shape Memory Alloy (See Figure 2.9 and 2.10) Average Yield 62.4 ksi Ultimate Average 121.7 ksi Transverse Column Reinforcement (See Figure 2.11) Average Yield 70.1 ksi Ultimate Average 96.9 ksi

13

Bent Cap Reinforcement Average Yield 63.8 ksi Ultimate Average 86.5 ksi Footing Concrete

7 Day lb psi ksi Sample 1 83125 2939.9 2.9 Sample 2 90265 3192.5 3.2 Sample 3 96045 3396.9 3.4 Average 89812 3176.4 3.2


Column Concrete


28 Day lb psi ksi Sample 1 142410 5036.7 5.0 Sample 2 129920 4595.0 4.6 Sample 3 148935 5267.5 5.3 Sample 4 146225 5171.7 5.2 Average 141873 5017.7 5.0

ECC Concrete West Column

7 Day lb psi ksi Sample 1 28345 4010.0 4.0 Sample 2 31230 4418.1 4.4 Average 29788 4214.1 4.2

14



East Column




15

CH 3 - Construction of Bents 3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the construction process and material properties obtained from the

material tests conducted at UNR.

3.2 Cast-in-Place Construction

All bents followed the same general construction procedure of construction. First, the

footing formwork construction was completed. After the form was constructed the

bottom layer of footing bars were placed. Then the column cage was tied, and then

placed on top of the bottom rebar in the footing. Then the upper rebar mat was placed

and tied. At this point, the footing steel and column steel was complete so the first of two

concrete pours was completed. This pour placed concrete to the top of the footing.

Turnbuckles were placed to ensure the column was plum and that the column cage would

not move during construction. To access the top of the column and bent cap a temporary

construction platform was built. When this platform construction was completed, the

turnbuckles were removed and a sono-tube was lowered from the top of the platform

down and around the column. A sono-tube is a cylindrical cardboard form that was

removed when the concrete has cured. Next, a form for each bent cap was constructed on

the platform, but it was not securely fastened. It was not securely fastened because it was

expected to be repositioned during the placement of the bent cap reinforcement. Next,

the bent cap steel was placed; the bent cap formwork was repositioned. Finally, the

second concrete pour was completed. During all concrete pours slump was tested, and

concrete cylinders were made for future testing. Construction photographs taken during

the construction process described above can be seen in Figures 3.1-3.11.

16

The method described is the necessary procedure for conventional construction; however,

there were many differences and logistic issues associated with innovative design and

materials. These individual deviations will be discussed below.

3.3 SMA and ECC Bent Construction

The differences in the construction of the SMA and ECC bents were additional formwork,

one ECC column pour for the bottom portion of the column, one standard concrete pour

for the remaining column and bent cap, and construction complications due to the SMA

bars. Additional formwork at the column – footing interface was placed during this bent

construction. In previous testing, it was observed, at the column-footing interface, the

ECC column would crack and essentially rock on the conventional concrete footing. It

was determined for this specimen a recess would be constructed below the interface and

be filled with ECC during the bottom portion of the column pour. This formwork was

placed prior to the footing pour and removed prior to the ECC pour. The formwork was

14" x 14" x 6" below the column footing interface.

In the region of the mechanical connectors the column cage diameter increased by

approximately 1/2”. This made the column cover concrete much thinner in this region.

Since the cover concrete was reduced placement of the sono-tube was critical in this bent.

The sono-tube also had to be cut into two pieces per bent. This was because the ECC

was made in batches and placed by hand. No vibration was done per the contractors

recommendations. Another unique feature of the SMA bent was the connection of the

17

SMA bars to the longitudinal steel reinforcement. The steel bars first had to be bent by

the fabricator and delivered to the site. The bars were then cut for attachment of the

mechanical connectors and the SMA bars. After the SMA, bars and connectors were

installed, the fabricator returned to the site to tie the column cage. These proved to be

difficult. The difficulties came from the smooth SMA bars and the mechanical

connectors themselves. Since the SMA bars were smooth, they did not provide sufficient

friction with the spirals and the column cage tended to twist. These columns had to be

unassembled and retied to ensure that the longitudinal bars were perpendicular to the

footing. See Figures 3.12-3.16 for additional details.

3.4 PT Bent Construction

The PT bent followed the standard construction procedure outlined above with the

addition of more steps. The steps necessary were the addition of formwork for a recess,

placement of the PT duct, and recess formwork removal. The additional formwork was

needed to create a recess for the post tension rod bearing plates and nuts. This formwork

consisted of 6" x 6" x 6" boxes made of plywood, which were placed in the footing and

bent cap. The boxes were placed in the bottom of the footing and the top of the bent cap

at the center of the column. Furthermore, once the footing and column cages were placed

the post-tension duct was placed. The duct ran from the bottom box to the top box of the

bent cap. Since this duct and formwork must be vertical and located directly in the center

of the column, their placement was critical. Once the concrete was poured and had cured

the recess forms were removed. See Figures 3.17-3.21 for additional details.

18

3.5 ISO Bent Construction

The ISO bent construction started with the formwork and bottom footing steel being

placed. Then the bearing was placed on a construction table and the longitudinal bars

were passed through the holes in the bearing. When the bars were in place, they were

temporarily fixed to a rebar hoop to prevent the legs from twisting out of position. Next,

8" rubber sleeves were slipped over the longitudinal bars and positioned above and below

the bearing. These sleeve provided the longitudinal bars above and below the bearing to

be unbonded, this allowed the bars to develop the necessary strain without rupture. Next,

the transverse steel coil was tied into position. It was necessary to tie the transverse steel

in two separate sections, above and below the bearing since it could not be continuous.

Once the transverse steel was in place, the column cage was lifted with a forklift and

moved into position onto the bottom footing steel. Further, the upper footing steel was

placed and tied into position. Next, the post tension duct was placed through the mandrel

and tied into position on the wooden recesses. For the remaining construction, the

procedure was followed described in Section 3.2. Figures 3.22-3.29 show the details

specific to this bent.

19

Chapter 4 OpenSEES Modeling and Results

4.1 Introduction

The pre-test finite element modeling completed for this project was performed using the

computer program Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OPENSEES)

(Mazzoni, et al., 2006). The general framework for developing this model is similar to

most finite element programs. The main components of the model are nodes, elements,

sections, and materials. Fiber elements were used to model the plastic hinges. The

plastic hinge length was assumed to be 1.5 times the column diameter. All of the

elements and materials were chosen from the standard library of commands. The model

developed for the innovative bridge model was based on the model of a conventional

bridge model used in a previous study [Sadrossadat-Zadeh, 2007]. This previous model

is well documented and provided a base model to expand on. Some of this model's bridge

components including the abutments, bent cap-superstructure connection, etc. were

unchanged. The components of the model that needed to be expanded were the shape

memory alloy (SMA) / engineered cementitious composite (ECC), PT, and Built in

Isolator construction (ISO) bent properties.

Individual models were developed for a single column representing each of the three

different types of bents. This process of developing the individual models, then

combining the individual column models into the full bridge model proved to be

beneficial because it allowed for understanding the modeling process on a simple

20

structure before it was implemented in the entire bridge model. Once completed the final

model consisted of over 100 nodes. A spline model can be seen in Figure 4.1.

4.2 Isolator Bearing Bent (ISO Bent)

The first step in modeling the ISO Bent was to define the node locations at the top and

bottom of the bearing in the model and then to define the materials and section properties.

The locations of the nodes were based on the geometry of the structure, located at the

center of mass of the bearing at the column-footing interface and the bottom of the

bearing. The bearing properties were used in the Pinching 4 Material defined in

OpenSEES. Pinching 4 Material is a hysteretic shape material. The user defines the

slopes of transition to match the material property being modeled (Fig. 4.21). The

elastomeric bearing was modeled as a homogeneous mass with non-isotropic properties.

Uniaxial element testing was conducted on individual elements to ensure the correct

material properties were defined. These individual models contained cantilever type

sections that were uniform in cross section. The elements were then loaded in tension and

compression for specified displacements. Then a correlation between the analytical

model and test results were made, resulting in a element that preformed similar to

documented results.

4.3 Post-Tensioned Bent

The PT Bent model was based on work completed by Dr. Lee ( Lee, 2007). For this

column a hole was modeled at the column center and extruded down the entire length of

the column. This void represented the duct for the post tensioning rod to be passed

21

through. Also, a co-rotational steel element was placed in the center, this was the element

type chosen for the rod itself. A co-rotational element will bend with the column to

ensure the PT rod is always at the center of the duct, and does not come in contact with

the concrete. Initially it was assumed that the strain would be approximately uniform

along the length since the rod was unbounded. This issue will be discussed later in this

chapter.

4.4 SMA/ECC Bent

The SMA Bent also required the Pinching 4 material Type for SMA bars. The ECC was

not modeled any differently from the standard concrete since the compressive strength

specified was uniform. For the SMA the material parameters were modified many times

until the uniaxial modeling test produced similar results to actual SMA material tests, as

seen in chapter 2.

4.5 Cyclic Load Analysis of Single Columns

As previously discussed individual column models were developed and combined into

the full bridge model after reasonable results for each column had been obtained. The

columns were in cantilever form with a diameter of 12 in and a height of 72 in, the same

dimensions as the proposed specimens. These column models were analyzed for cyclic

displacement and where all displacement controlled. They were pushed to a maximum

positive and negative displacements of 7.2 inches, or 10% drift, in 10 equal increments.

The column model is shown in Figure 4.2. The results for each column individual model

can be seen in Figures 4.3, 4.5, and 4.7. Also, results of the individual models are shown

22

in comparison to a conventional reinforced concrete column of the same lateral load

strength in Figures 4.4, 4.6, and 4.8. These force-displacement plots show a significant

reduction in residual drift in the advanced material/details columns compared to the

conventional columns. Once these models were developed the individual model

parameters were implemented into the full bridge model.

4.6 Location of Bents in Bridge Model

One of the objectives of the project was to determine the relative performance of the

three innovative details that were introduced in this project. It was important that the

bents in the bridge model were subjected to comparable seismic demands. Different

performance criteria may be used to define the seismic demand. It was decided to use the

lateral displacement as the deciding criterion. Because the bents were geometrically the

same, by placing similar displacement demands, the demand drift ratios would be

comparable. The drift ratio is considered to be one of the best indicators of the seismic

demand or performance. However, initially since the lower plastic hinges in the columns

used very different materials and details, it was uncertain if the bridge superstructure

would experience significant in-plane rotation. In-plane rotation would lead to different

lateral displacements at different bents and would prevent direct comparison of different

details. The stiffness of each bent was considered to avoid in-plane rotation. Therefore

either the column heights could be changed or possibly arranging the bents in such a way

that this rotation could be avoided, or some combination of both. After the column

elements were implemented in the full bridge model, 18 full bridge models were

developed. The models were in three main categories with column height s of 60 in, 72

23

in, and 84 in. In each of these column height categories six different combinations of

bent locations were evaluated. These cases are shown in Table 4.1.

From these three different column height categories it was determined that column

heights of 72 in would be used to ensure a similar loading would be placed on each. Since

the loading is similar, an evaluation could be performed on each column and in

comparison to each other.

Next each of the six different bent location cases were reviewed to determine if the in-

plane rotation could be minimized. The displacement histories vs. Time results of the six

cases of the 72in columns can be seen in Figures 4.9-4.12. The motion used was the

Century City record of the 1994 Northridge earthquake and was applied in two horizontal

directions. The conventional construction four span bridge also utilized this motion in

the transverse direction only during testing. By using the same motion and similar

dimensions, this bridge's performance can be compared to its conventional counterpart.

From an initial inspection cases 3, 5, and 6 appeared favorable, but needed further review.

Figures 4.13-4.16 present the most critical 10 seconds of results from the responses so the

maximum and minimum displacements could be further reviewed. Table 4.2 lists the

maximum, minimum, lateral displacement, and standard deviation. From review of the

standard deviations it was determined that case 5 would be chosen for the four-span

bridge model because it had the lowest standard deviation in the lateral displacement at

the top of the column for all three bents. Cases 3 and 5 were very close in the observed

model results; this is possibly because the two cases have the inverse of bent positions.

24

However, it is interesting to note the other inverse cases did not have similar model

results. This modeling effort provided sufficient information that the column heights

would be constant while essentially eliminating the possible in-plane rotation.

25

Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusions

5.1 Summary

An extensive study to determine the effectiveness of innovative materials and details to

significantly improve the seismic bridge response has been in progress through funding

by the National Science Foundation grant under the Network for Earthquake Engineering

Simulation Research. The project consists of many components some of which involve

shake table testing of a series of 110-ft models of four-span bridges. One of the bridge

models uses advanced materials. This report presents information about the design and

construction of innovative bents and nonlinear dynamic analysis of the bridge prior to the

test.

The quarter scale bridge components were constructed utilizing three different details at

the plastic hinges: shape memory alloy (SMA) and engineered cementitious composites

(ECC), unbonded post tensioned columns, and isolator built in columns. These details

were used at the bottom column plastic hinges.

Extensive pre-test analytical modeling was conducted using OpenSEES prior to finalizing

the bridge model configuration. These models were developed to simulate the response

of a large scale bridge under dynamic loading. Different bent locations and heights were

attempted and an optimal bridge configuration was identified that placed comparable

lateral displacement demands on the bent.

26

5.2 Conclusions

1. The construction of the bents of the bridge model each utilizing a different advanced

detail and/or material was successful

2. The analytical evaluation of individual columns showed significant reduction in the

residual displacement as intended.

3. Various elements of OpenSEES were successfully implemented in the model of the

full bridge.

4. The OpenSEES model was effectively used to determine an optimal bridge

configuration in which different bents experienced comparable drift ratios.

27

References

1. Fischer, G., Li, V.C., " Deformation behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced

engineered cementitious composite (ECC) flexural members under reversed cyclic loading conditions", ACI Structural Journal, v 100, n 1, p 25-35, January/February 2003

2. Johnson, N., Saiidi, M., and Sanders, D., “Large-Scale Experimental and Analytical Studies of a Two-Span Reinforced Concrete Bridge System,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-06-02, March 2006.

3. Johnson, N., T. Ranf, M. Saiidi, D. Sanders, and M. Eberhard, “Seismic Testing of A Two-Span Reinforced Concrete Bridge,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 13, No. 2, March-April 2008, pp. 173-182.

4. Kawashima, K., and G. Yamagishi, “Development of a Rubber Layer Built-In RC Columns”, Proc. Structural and Earthquake Engineering, JSCE, 752/I-66, 43-62, 2004

5. Lee, W and Billington, S., "Simulation and performance-based earthquake engineering assessment of self-centering post-tensioned concrete bridge systems", Stanford University, June 2007

6. Li, V. C., "Engineered Cementitious Composites", Proceedings of ConMat'05, Vancouver, Canada, Aug. 22-24, 2005.

7. Mander, J. B., M. J. N. Priestley, et al. (1988). "Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete." Journal of Structural Engineering 114(8): 1804-1826.

8. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., et al. (2006). "Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation User Command-Language Manual."

9. Nelson, R. and Saiidi, M, “Experimental Evaluation of Performance of Conventional Bridge Systems,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, CCEER 07-04, October 2007

10. O'Brien, M., M. Saiidi, and M. Sadrossadat-Zadeh, "A Study of Concrete Bridge Columns Using Innovative Materials Subjected to Cyclic Loading," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-1, January 2007.

11. Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. and Saiidi, M., "Analytical Study of NEESR-SG 4-Span Bridge Model Using OpenSees," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-03, January 2007.

28

12. Saiidi, M. S. and H. Wang (2005). "A study of RC Columns with Shape Memory Alloy and Engineered Cementitious Composites." CCEER-05-01.

13. Saiidi, M., and H. Wang, “An Exploratory Study of Seismic Response of Concrete Columns with Shape Memory Alloys Reinforcement,” American Concrete Institute, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 103, No. 3, May-June 2006, pp. 436-443.

14. Saiidi, M., M. Zadeh, C. Ayoub, and A. Itani, “A Pilot Study of Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Shape Memory Alloys,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 19, No. 6, June 2007, pp. 454-461.

15. Saiidi, M., M. O’Brien, and M. Zadeh, “Cyclic Response of Concrete Bridge Columns Using Superelastic Nitinol and Bendable Concrete,” American Concrete Institute, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, No. 1, January-February 2009, pp. 69-77.

16. Sakai, J. and S. Mahin, “Analytical Investigations of New Methods for Reducing Residual Displacements of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns”, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER 2004/02, August 2004.

29

-------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | = = =

Bent Height 72" 72" 72' Case1 PT ISO SMA Case2 SMA ISO PT Case3 SMA PT ISO Case4 ISO SMA PT Case5 ISO PT SMA Case6 PT SMA ISO

South Middle North

Min Max Min Max Min Max Standard Deviation

Case 1 -2.07213 3.94637 -2.43222 4.7393 -3.18002 5.73331 Lateral Displacement 6.0185 7.17152 8.91333 1.46Case 2 -1.33504 5.5961 -2.50362 5.37188 -3.85315 5.2404 Lateral Displacement 6.93114 7.8755 9.09355 1.08Case 3 -2.55302 4.86429 -2.61138 4.93037 -2.89319 5.07817 Lateral Displacement 7.41731 7.54175 7.97136 0.30Case 4 -2.11553 5.05671 -2.66562 4.96334 -3.75893 4.98833 Lateral Displacement 7.17224 7.62896 8.74726 0.81Case 5 -2.89052 5.12251 -2.66404 4.91779 -2.65387 4.78658 Lateral Displacement 8.01303 7.58183 7.44045 0.29Case 6 -3.31732 5.3273 -2.96573 5.05543 -2.79243 4.83085 Lateral Displacement 8.64462 8.02116 7.62328 0.51

Table 4.2 –Maximum and Minimum Displacement Results

Table 4.1 –Cases of Bent Arrangements to be Analyzed

30

W

t

Upper andLower SteelPlatedr

X

dr

W

Figure 2.1 – Cross Section of Built in Isolator Column

Figure 2.2 – Displacement and Compression Area in Rubber

31

Figure 2.3 – Mechanical Connection Testing Preparation

Figure 2.4 – Mechanical Connection Testing Assembled with Labels

32

Figure 2.5 – Mechanical Connection Testing Setup

Figure 2.6 – Bar Rupture During Test of S-1

33

Figure 2.7 – Mechanical Connection Testing Results

Figure 2.8 – Transverse Reinforcement Stress vs. Strain

34

Figure 2.9– SMA Stress vs. Strain at a Maximum of 6.8% Strain

Figure 2.10– SMA Stress vs. Strain at a Maximum of 6.9% Strain

35

Figure 2.11– Column Longitudinal Bars Stress vs. Strain

36

Figure 3.1 – Construction Pad is Cleared to Begin Construction

Figure 3.3 – Bottom Footing Steel is Placed

Figure 3.2 – Footing Formwork

37

Figure 3.4 – Column Cage is Placed Into Footing

Figure 3.3 – Bottom Footing Steel is Placed

38

Figure 3.5 – Top Footing Steel is Placed

Figure 3.6 – Concrete Pour for Footings

39

Figure 3.7 – Platform Construction

Figure 3.8 – Sono-Tube Placement and Bent Cap Formwork

40

Figure 3.9 – Form Removal After 12 Days

Figure 3.10 – Column and Bent Cap Concrete Pour

41

Figure 3.12 – Preparing SMA Bars and Mechanical Connectors

Figure 3.11 – Form Removal After 12 Days

42

Figure 3.16 – Sono-Tube Placement During ECC Column Pour

Figure 3.13 – SMA Bars and Mechanical Connectors in Column Cage

Figure 3.14 – SMA-ECC Column and Recess Formwork

43

Figure 3.15 – Placement of ECC

44

Figure 3.17 – Placement of Bottom Recess in PT Bent

Figure 3.18 – Placement of PT Duct

45

Figure 3.19 – PT Duct During Column and Bent Cap Concrete Pour

Figure 3.20 – Duct Exiting Bent Cap Through Recess

46

Figure 3.21 – Recess Formwork Removal

Figure 3.22 – Placement of Longitudinal Bars Through Isolator

47

Figure 3.23 – Placement of Lower Transverse Steel ISO Bent

Figure 3.24 – Placement of Rubber Sleeves

48

Figure 3.25 – Placement of Upper Transverse Steel in ISO Bent

Figure 3.26 – Placement of Lower Transverse Steel in ISO Bent at Isolator-Concrete Interface

49

Figure 3.27 – Movement of ISO Bent

Figure 3.28 – Placement of ISO Bent Into Footing

50

Figure 3.29 – Finished Reinforcement Placement in ISO Bent

51

Figure 4.1 – Spline Model of 4-Span Bridge

52

Figure 4.2 – Single Column Model

Fixed Boundary

53

Figure 4.4 – Post Tensioned Column and Conventional Column Force vs. Displacement Bridge

Figure 4.3 – Post Tensioned Column Force vs. Displacement Bridge

54

Figure 4.5 – Shape Memory Alloy and ECC Column Force vs. Displacement Results

Figure 4.6 – Shape Memory Alloy and ECC Column and Conventional Column Force vs. Displacement Results

55

Figure 4.7 – Built in Isolator Column Force vs. Displacement Results

Figure 4.8 – Built in Isolator Column and Conventional Column Force vs. Displacement Results

56

Figure 4.9 – Case 1 Displacement Histories Results


57



58

Figure 4.13 – Case 5 Displacement Histories

Figure 4.14 – Case 6 Displacement Histories

59

Figure 4.15 – Case 1 Delimited Displacement Histories

Figure 4.16 – Case 2 Delimited Displacement Histories

60

Figure 4.17 – Case 3 Delimited Displacement Histories Results


61



62

Figure 4.21 – Pinching 4 Material Parameters - Image Obtained from the OpenSEES Online Manual

63

List of CCEER Publications Report No. Publication CCEER-84-1 Saiidi, M., and R. Lawver, "User's Manual for LZAK-C64, A Computer Program to

Implement the Q-Model on Commodore 64," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-84-1, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1984.

CCEER-84-1 Douglas, B., Norris, G., Saiidi, M., Dodd, L., Richardson, J. and Reid, W., "Simple

Bridge Models for Earthquakes and Test Data," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-84-1 Reprint, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1984.

CCEER-84-2 Douglas, B. and T. Iwasaki, "Proceedings of the First USA-Japan Bridge Engineering

Workshop," held at the Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-84-2, University of Nevada, Reno, April 1984.

CCEER-84-3 Saiidi, M., J. Hart, and B. Douglas, "Inelastic Static and Dynamic Analysis of Short R/C

Bridges Subjected to Lateral Loads," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-84-3, University of Nevada, Reno, July 1984.

CCEER-84-4 Douglas, B., "A Proposed Plan for a National Bridge Engineering Laboratory," Civil

Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-84-4, University of Nevada, Reno, December 1984.

CCEER-85-1 Norris, G. and P. Abdollaholiaee, "Laterally Loaded Pile Response: Studies with the

Strain Wedge Model," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-85-1, University of Nevada, Reno, April 1985.

CCEER-86-1 Ghusn, G. and M. Saiidi, "A Simple Hysteretic Element for Biaxial Bending of R/C in

NEABS-86," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-86-1, University of Nevada, Reno, July 1986.

CCEER-86-2 Saiidi, M., R. Lawver, and J. Hart, "User's Manual of ISADAB and SIBA, Computer

Programs for Nonlinear Transverse Analysis of Highway Bridges Subjected to Static and Dynamic Lateral Loads," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-86-2, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1986.

CCEER-87-1 Siddharthan, R., "Dynamic Effective Stress Response of Surface and Embedded Footings

in Sand," Civil engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-86-2, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1987.

CCEER-87-2 Norris, G. and R. Sack, "Lateral and Rotational Stiffness of Pile Groups for Seismic

Analysis of Highway Bridges," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-87-2, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1987.

CCEER-88-1 Orie, J. and M. Saiidi, "A Preliminary Study of One-Way Reinforced Concrete Pier

Hinges Subjected to Shear and Flexure," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-88-1, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1988.

CCEER-88-2 Orie, D., M. Saiidi, and B. Douglas, "A Micro-CAD System for Seismic Design of

Regular Highway Bridges," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-88-2, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1988.

Reprin

64

CCEER-88-3 Orie, D. and M. Saiidi, "User's Manual for Micro-SARB, a Microcomputer Program for Seismic Analysis of Regular Highway Bridges," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-88-3, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1988.

CCEER-89-1 Douglas, B., M. Saiidi, R. Hayes, and G. Holcomb, "A Comprehensive Study of the

Loads and Pressures Exerted on Wall Forms by the Placement of Concrete," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-89-1, University of Nevada, Reno, February 1989.

CCEER-89-2 Richardson, J. and B. Douglas, "Dynamic Response Analysis of the Dominion Road

Bridge Test Data," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-89-2, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1989.

CCEER-89-2 Vrontinos, S., M. Saiidi, and B. Douglas, "A Simple Model to Predict the Ultimate

Response of R/C Beams with Concrete Overlays," Civil Engineering Department, Report NO. CCEER-89-2, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1989.

CCEER-89-3 Ebrahimpour, A. and P. Jagadish, "Statistical Modeling of Bridge Traffic Loads - A Case

Study," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-89-3, University of Nevada, Reno, December 1989.

CCEER-89-4 Shields, J. and M. Saiidi, "Direct Field Measurement of Prestress Losses in Box Girder

Bridges," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-89-4, University of Nevada, Reno, December 1989.

CCEER-90-1 Saiidi, M., E. Maragakis, G. Ghusn, Y. Jiang, and D. Schwartz, "Survey and Evaluation

of Nevada's Transportation Infrastructure, Task 7.2 - Highway Bridges, Final Report," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER 90-1, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1990.

CCEER-90-2 Abdel-Ghaffar, S., E. Maragakis, and M. Saiidi, "Analysis of the Response of Reinforced

Concrete Structures During the Whittier Earthquake 1987," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER 90-2, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1990.

CCEER-91-1 Saiidi, M., E. Hwang, E. Maragakis, and B. Douglas, "Dynamic Testing and the Analysis

of the Flamingo Road Interchange," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-91-1, University of Nevada, Reno, February 1991.

CCEER-91-2 Norris, G., R. Siddharthan, Z. Zafir, S. Abdel-Ghaffar, and P. Gowda, "Soil-Foundation-

Structure Behavior at the Oakland Outer Harbor Wharf," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-91-2, University of Nevada, Reno, July 1991.

CCEER-91-3 Norris, G., "Seismic Lateral and Rotational Pile Foundation Stiffnesses at Cypress," Civil

Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-91-3, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1991.

CCEER-91-4 O'Connor, D. and M. Saiidi, "A Study of Protective Overlays for Highway Bridge Decks

in Nevada, with Emphasis on Polyester-Styrene Polymer Concrete," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-91-4, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1991.

CCEER-91-5 O'Connor, D.N. and M. Saiidi, "Laboratory Studies of Polyester-Styrene Polymer

Concrete Engineering Properties," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-91-5, University of Nevada, Reno, November 1991.

65

CCEER-92-1 Straw, D.L. and M. Saiidi, "Scale Model Testing of One-Way Reinforced Concrete Pier Hinges Subject to Combined Axial Force, Shear and Flexure," edited by D.N. O'Connor, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-1, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1992.

CCEER-92-2 Wehbe, N., M. Saiidi, and F. Gordaninejad, "Basic Behavior of Composite Sections

Made of Concrete Slabs and Graphite Epoxy Beams," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-2, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1992.

CCEER-92-3 Saiidi, M. and E. Hutchens, "A Study of Prestress Changes in A Post-Tensioned Bridge

During the First 30 Months," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-3, University of Nevada, Reno, April 1992.

CCEER-92-4 Saiidi, M., B. Douglas, S. Feng, E. Hwang, and E. Maragakis, "Effects of Axial Force on

Frequency of Prestressed Concrete Bridges," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-4, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1992.

CCEER-92-5 Siddharthan, R., and Z. Zafir, "Response of Layered Deposits to Traveling Surface

Pressure Waves," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-5, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.

CCEER-92-6 Norris, G., and Z. Zafir, "Liquefaction and Residual Strength of Loose Sands from

Drained Triaxial Tests," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-6, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.

CCEER-92-6-A Norris, G., Siddharthan, R., Zafir, Z. and Madhu, R. "Liquefaction and Residual Strength

of Sands from Drained Triaxial Tests," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-6-A, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.

CCEER-92-7 Douglas, B., "Some Thoughts Regarding the Improvement of the University of Nevada,

Reno's National Academic Standing," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-7, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.

CCEER-92-8 Saiidi, M., E. Maragakis, and S. Feng, "An Evaluation of the Current Caltrans Seismic

Restrainer Design Method," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-8, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1992.

CCEER-92-9 O'Connor, D., M. Saiidi, and E. Maragakis, "Effect of Hinge Restrainers on the Response

of the Madrone Drive Undercrossing During the Loma Prieta Earthquake," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-9, University of Nevada, Reno, February 1993.

CCEER-92-10 O'Connor, D., and M. Saiidi, "Laboratory Studies of Polyester Concrete: Compressive

Strength at Elevated Temperatures and Following Temperature Cycling, Bond Strength to Portland Cement Concrete, and Modulus of Elasticity," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-10, University of Nevada, Reno, February 1993.

CCEER-92-11 Wehbe, N., M. Saiidi, and D. O'Connor, "Economic Impact of Passage of Spent Fuel

Traffic on Two Bridges in Northeast Nevada," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-11, University of Nevada, Reno, December 1992.

CCEER-93-1 Jiang, Y., and M. Saiidi, "Behavior, Design, and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete One-

way Bridge Column Hinges," edited by D. O'Connor, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-1, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1993.

66

CCEER-93-2 Abdel-Ghaffar, S., E. Maragakis, and M. Saiidi, "Evaluation of the Response of the Aptos Creek Bridge During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-2, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1993.

CCEER-93-3 Sanders, D.H., B.M. Douglas, and T.L. Martin, "Seismic Retrofit Prioritization of Nevada

Bridges," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-3, University of Nevada, Reno, July 1993.

CCEER-93-4 Abdel-Ghaffar, S., E. Maragakis, and M. Saiidi, "Performance of Hinge Restrainers in the

Huntington Avenue Overhead During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-4, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1993 (in final preparation).

CCEER-93-5 Maragakis, E., M. Saiidi, S. Feng, and L. Flournoy, "Effects of Hinge Restrainers on the

Response of the San Gregorio Bridge during the Loma Prieta Earthquake," (in final preparation) Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-5, University of Nevada, Reno.

CCEER-93-6 Saiidi, M., E. Maragakis, S. Abdel-Ghaffar, S. Feng, and D. O'Connor, "Response of

Bridge Hinge Restrainers during Earthquakes -Field Performance, Analysis, and Design," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-6, University of Nevada, Reno, May 1993.

CCEER-93-7 Wehbe, N., Saiidi, M., Maragakis, E., and Sanders, D., "Adequacy of Three Highway

Structures in Southern Nevada for Spent Fuel Transportation, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-7, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1993.

CCEER-93-8 Roybal, J., Sanders, D.H., and Maragakis, E., "Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry in

the Reno-Carson City Urban Corridor," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-8, University of Nevada, Reno, May 1993.

CCEER-93-9 Zafir, Z. and Siddharthan, R., "MOVLOAD: A Program to Determine the Behavior of

Nonlinear Horizontally Layered Medium Under Moving Load," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-9, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1993.

CCEER-93-10 O'Connor, D.N., Saiidi, M., and Maragakis, E.A., "A Study of Bridge Column Seismic

Damage Susceptibility at the Interstate 80/U.S. 395 Interchange in Reno, Nevada," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-10, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1993.

CCEER-94-1 Maragakis, E., B. Douglas, and E. Abdelwahed, "Preliminary Dynamic Analysis of a

Railroad Bridge," Report CCEER-94-1, January 1994. CCEER-94-2 Douglas, B.M., Maragakis, E.A., and Feng, S., "Stiffness Evaluation of Pile Foundation

of Cazenovia Creek Overpass," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-94-2, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1994.

CCEER-94-3 Douglas, B.M., Maragakis, E.A., and Feng, S., "Summary of Pretest Analysis of

Cazenovia Creek Bridge," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-94-3, University of Nevada, Reno, April 1994.

CCEER-94-4 Norris, G.M., Madhu, R., Valceschini, R., and Ashour, M., "Liquefaction and Residual

Strength of Loose Sands from Drained Triaxial Tests," Report 2, Vol. 1&2, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-94-4, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1994.

67

CCEER-94-5 Saiidi, M., Hutchens, E., and Gardella, D., "Prestress Losses in a Post-Tensioned R/C Box Girder Bridge in Southern Nevada," Civil Engineering Department, CCEER-94-5, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1994.

CCEER-95-1 Siddharthan, R., El-Gamal, M., and Maragakis, E.A., "Nonlinear Bridge Abutment ,

Verification, and Design Curves," Civil Engineering Department, CCEER-95-1, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1995.

CCEER-95-2 Ashour, M. and Norris, G., "Liquefaction and Undrained Response Evaluation of Sands

from Drained Formulation," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-2, University of Nevada, Reno, February 1995.

CCEER-95-3 Wehbe, N., Saiidi, M., Sanders, D. and Douglas, B., “Ductility of Rectangular Reinforced

Concrete Bridge Columns with Moderate Confinement, “Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-3, University of Nevada, Reno, July 1995.

CCEER-95-4 Martin, T.., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., “Seismic Retrofit of Column-Pier Cap

Connections in Bridges in Northern Nevada,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-4, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1995.

CCEER-95-5 Darwish, I., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., “Experimental Study of Seismic

Susceptibility Column-Footing Connections in Bridges in Northern Nevada,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-5, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1995.

CCEER-95-6 Griffin, G., Saiidi, M. and Maragakis, E., “Nonlinear Seismic Response of

Isolated Bridges and Effects of Pier Ductility Demand,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-6, University of Nevada, Reno, November 1995.

CCEER-95-7 Acharya, S.., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., “Seismic Retrofit of Bridge

Footings and Column-Footing Connections,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-7, University of Nevada, Reno, November 1995.

CCEER-95-8 Maragakis, E., Douglas, B., and Sandirasegaram, U., “Full-Scale Field

Resonance Tests of a Railway Bridge,” A Report to the Association of American Railroads, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-8, University of Nevada, Reno, December 1995.

CCEER-95-9 Douglas, B., Maragakis, E. and Feng, S., “System Identification Studies on Cazenovia Creek Overpass,” Report for the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-9, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1995.

CCEER-96-1 El-Gamal, M.E. and Siddharthan, R.V., “Programs to Computer Translational Stiffness of Seat-Type Bridge Abutment,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-96-1, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1996.

CCEER-96-2 Labia, Y., Saiidi, M. and Douglas, B., “Evaluation and Repair of Full-

Scale Prestressed Concrete Box Girders,” A Report to the National Science Foundation, Research Grant CMS-9201908, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-96-2, University of Nevada, Reno, May 1996.

CCEER-96-3 Darwish, I., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., “Seismic Retrofit of R/C Oblong

Tapered Bridge Columns with Inadequate Bar Anchorage in Columns and Footings,” A Report to the Nevada Department of Transportation, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-96-3, University of Nevada, Reno, May 1996.

68

CCEER-96-4 Ashour, M., Pilling, R., Norris, G. and Perez, H., “The Prediction of

Lateral Load Behavior of Single Piles and Pile Groups Using the Strain Wedge Model,” A Report to the California Department of Transportation, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-96-4, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1996.

CCEER-97-1-A Rimal, P. and Itani, A. “Sensitivity Analysis of Fatigue Evaluations of Steel Bridges”, Center for Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada Report No. CCEER-97-1-A, September, 1997.

CCEER-97-1-B Maragakis, E., Douglas, B., and Sandirasegaram, U. “Full-Scale Field Resonance Tests

of a Railway Bridge,” A Report to the Association of American Railroads, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, May, 1996.

CCEER-97-2 Wehbe, N., Saiidi, M., and D. Sanders, "Effect of Confinement and Flares on the Seismic

Performance of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns," Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-97-2, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1997.

CCEER-97-3 Darwish, I., M. Saiidi, G. Norris, and E. Maragakis, “Determination of In-Situ Footing

Stiffness Using Full-Scale Dynamic Field Testing,” A Report to the Nevada Department of Transportation, Structural Design Division, Carson City, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-97-3, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1997.

CCEER-97-4-A Itani, A. “Cyclic Behavior of Richmond-San Rafael Tower Links,”

Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-97-4, August 1997.

CCEER-97-4-B Wehbe, N., and M. Saiidi, “User’s manual for RCMC v. 1.2 : A

Computer Program for Moment-Curvature Analysis of Confined and Unconfined Reinforced Concrete Sections,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-97-4, November, 1997.

CCEER-97-5 Isakovic, T., M. Saiidi, and A. Itani, “Influence of new Bridge Configurations on Seismic Performance,” Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-97-5, September, 1997.

CCEER-98-1 Itani, A., Vesco, T. and Dietrich, A., “Cyclic Behavior of “as Built” Laced Members

With End Gusset Plates on the San Francisco Bay Bridge” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada Report No. CCEER-98-1, March, 1998.

CCEER-98-2 G. Norris and M. Ashour, “Liquefaction and Undrained Response Evaluation of Sands

from Drained Formulation.” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-98-2, May, 1998.

CCEER-98-3 Qingbin, Chen, B. M. Douglas, E. Maragakis, and I. G. Buckle, "Extraction of Nonlinear

Hysteretic Properties of Seismically Isolated Bridges from Quick-Release Field Tests", Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-98-3, June, 1998.

CCEER-98-4 Maragakis, E., B. M. Douglas, and C. Qingbin, "Full-Scale Field Capacity Tests of a

Railway Bridge", Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-98-4, June, 1998.

69

CCEER-98-5 Itani, A., Douglas, B., and Woodgate, J., “Cyclic Behavior of Richmond-San Rafael Retrofitted Tower Leg”. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno. Report No. CCEER-98-5, June 1998

CCEER-98-6 Moore, R., Saiidi, M., and Itani, A., “Seismic Behavior of New Bridges with Skew and

Curvature”. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno. Report No. CCEER-98-6, October, 1998.

CCEER-98-7 Itani, A and Dietrich, A, “Cyclic Behavior of Double Gusset Plate Connections”, Center

for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-98-5, December, 1998.

CCEER-99-1 Caywood, C., M. Saiidi, and D. Sanders, “Seismic Retrofit of Flared Bridge Columns

with Steel Jackets,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-1, February 1999.

CCEER-99-2 Mangoba, N., M. Mayberry, and M. Saiidi, “Prestress Loss in Four Box Girder Bridges in

Northern Nevada,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-2, March 1999.

CCEER-99-3 Abo-Shadi, N., M. Saiidi, and D. Sanders, "Seismic Response of Bridge Pier Walls in

the Weak Direction", Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-3, April 1999.

CCEER-99-4 Buzick, A., and M. Saiidi, "Shear Strength and Shear Fatigue Behavior of Full-Scale

Prestressed Concrete Box Girders", Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-4, April 1999.

CCEER-99-5 Randall, M., M. Saiidi, E. Maragakis and T. Isakovic, "Restrainer Design Procedures For

Multi-Span Simply-Supported Bridges", Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-5, April 1999.

CCEER-99-6 Wehbe, N. and M. Saiidi, "User's Manual for RCMC v. 1.2, A Computer Program for

Moment-Curvature Analysis of Confined and Unconfined Reinforced Concrete Sections", Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-6, May 1999.

CCEER-99-7 Burda, J. and A. Itani, “Studies of Seismic Behavior of Steel Base Plates,” Civil

Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-7, May 1999.

CCEER-99-8 Ashour, M. and G. Norris, “Refinement of the Strain Wedge Model Program,” Civil

Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-8, March 1999.

CCEER-99-9 Dietrich, A., and A. Itani, “Cyclic Behavior of Laced and Perforated Steel Members on

the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge,” Civil Engineering Department, University, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-9, December 1999.

CCEER 99-10 Itani, A., A. Dietrich, “Cyclic Behavior of Built Up Steel Members and their

Connections,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-10, December 1999.

CCEER 99-10-A Itani, A., E. Maragakis and P. He, “Fatigue Behavior of Riveted Open Deck Railroad

Bridge Girders,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-10-A, August 1999.

70

CCEER 99-11 Itani, A., J. Woodgate, “Axial and Rotational Ductility of Built Up Structural Steel

Members,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-11, December 1999.

CCEER-99-12 Sgambelluri, M., Sanders, D.H., and Saiidi, M.S., “Behavior of One-Way Reinforced

Concrete Bridge Column Hinges in the Weak Direction,” Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-12, December 1999.

CCEER-99-13 Laplace, P., Sanders, D.H., Douglas, B, and Saiidi, M, “Shake Table Testing of Flexure

Dominated Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns”, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-13, December 1999.

CCEER-99-14 Ahmad M. Itani, Jose A. Zepeda, and Elizabeth A. Ware "Cyclic Behavior of Steel

Moment Frame Connections for the Moscone Center Expansion,” Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-14, December 1999.

CCEER 00-1 Ashour, M., and Norris, G. “Undrained Lateral Pile and Pile Group Response in

Saturated Sand”, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-1, May 1999. January 2000.

CCEER 00-2 Saiidi, M. and Wehbe, N., “A Comparison of Confinement Requirements in Different

Codes for Rectangular, Circular, and Double-Spiral RC Bridge Columns,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-2, January 2000.

CCEER 00-3 McElhaney, B., M. Saiidi, and D. Sanders, “Shake Table Testing of Flared Bridge

Columns With Steel Jacket Retrofit,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-3, January 2000.

CCEER 00-4 Martinovic, F., M. Saiidi, D. Sanders, and F. Gordaninejad, “Dynamic Testing of Non-

Prismatic Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Retrofitted with FRP Jackets,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-4, January 2000.

CCEER 00-5 Itani, A., and M. Saiidi, “Seismic Evaluation of Steel Joints for UCLA Center for Health

Science Westwood Replacement Hospital,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-5, February 2000.

CCEER 00-6 Will, J. and D. Sanders, “High Performance Concrete Using Nevada Aggregates,” Civil

Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-6, May 2000.

CCEER 00-7 French, C., and M. Saiidi, “A Comparison of Static and Dynamic Performance of Models

of Flared Bridge Columns,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-7, October 2000.

CCEER 00-8 Itani, A., H. Sedarat, “Seismic Analysis of the AISI LRFD Design

Example of Steel Highway Bridges,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 00-08, November 2000.

CCEER 00-9 Moore, J., D. Sanders, and M. Saiidi, “Shake Table Testing of 1960’s Two

Column Bent with Hinges Bases,“ Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 00-09, December 2000.

71

CCEER 00-10 Asthana, M., D. Sanders, and M. Saiidi, “One-Way Reinforced Concrete Bridge Column Hinges in the Weak Direction,“ Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 00-10, April 2001.

CCEER 01-1 Ah Sha, H., D. Sanders, M. Saiidi, “Early Age Shrinkage and Cracking of Nevada

Concrete Bridge Decks, “Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-01, May 2001.

CCEER 01-2 Ashour, M. and G. Norris, “Pile Group program for Full Material Modeling an

Progressive Failure.” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-02, July 2001.

CCEER 01-3 Itani, A., C. Lanaud, and P. Dusicka, “Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Built-Up

Shear Links.” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-03, July 2001.

CCEER 01-4 Saiidi, M., J. Mortensen, and F. Martinovic, “Analysis and Retrofit of Fixed Flared

Columns with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Jacketing,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-4, August 2001

CCEER 01-5 Saiidi, M., A. Itani, I. Buckle, and Z. Cheng,” Performance of A Full-Scale Two-Story

Wood Frame Structure Supported on Ever-Level Isolators,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-5, October 2001

CCEER 01-6 Laplace, P., D. Sanders, and M. Saiidi, “Experimental Study and Analysis

of Retrofitted Flexure and Shear Dominated Circular Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Subjected to Shake Table Excitation, “Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-6, June 2001.

CCEER 01-7 Reppi, F., and D. Sanders, “Removal and Replacement of Cast-in-Place,

Post-tensioned, Box Girder Bridge, “Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-7, December 2001.

CCEER 02-1 Pulido, C., M. Saiidi, D. Sanders, and A. Itani, ”Seismic Performance and Retrofitting of

Reinforced Concrete Bridge Bents,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-1, January 2002.

CCEER 02-2 Yang, Q., M. Saiidi, H. Wang, and A. Itani, ”Influence of Ground Motion Incoherency on

Earthquake Response of Multi-Support Structures,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-2, May 2002.

CCEER 02-3 M. Saiidi, B. Gopalakrishnan, E. Reinhardt, and R. Siddharthan, A Preliminary Study of

Shake Table Response of A Two-Column Bridge Bent on Flexible Footings Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-03, June 2002.

CCEER 02-4 Not Published CCEER 02-5 Banghart, A., Sanders, D., Saiidi, M., “Evaluation of Concrete Mixes for Filling the Steel

Arches in the Galena Creek Bridge,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-05, June 2002.

CCEER 02-6 Dusicka, P., Itani, A., Buckle, I. G., “Cyclic Behavior of Shear Links and Tower Shaft

Assembly of San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge Tower” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-06, July 2002.

72

CCEER 02-7 Mortensen, J., and M. Saiidi, “A Performance-Based Design Method for Confinement in Circular Columns," Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-07, November 2002.

CCEER 03-1 Wehbe, N., and M. Saiidi, “User’s manual for SPMC v. 1.0 : A Computer Program for

Moment-Curvature Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Sections with Interlocking Spirals,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-1, May, 2003.

CCEER 03-2 Wehbe, N., and M. Saiidi, “User’s manual for RCMC v. 2.0 : A Computer Program for

Moment-Curvature Analysis of Confined and Unconfined Reinforced Concrete Sections,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-2, June, 2003.

CCEER 03-3 Nada, H., D. Sanders, and M. Saiidi, “Seismic Performance of RC Bridge Frames with

Architectural-Flared Columns,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 03-3, January 2003.

CCEER 03-4 Reinhardt, E., M. Saiidi, and R. Siddharthan, “Seismic Performance of a

CFRP/ Concrete Bridge Bent on Flexible Footings." Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno. Report No. CCEER 03-4, August 2003.

CCEER 03-5 Johnson, N., M. Saiidi, A. Itani, and S. Ladkany, “Seismic Retrofit of Octagonal

Columns with Pedestal and One-Way Hinge at the Base,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, and Report No. CCEER-03-5, August 2003.

CCEER 03-6 Mortensen, C., M. Saiidi, and S. Ladkany, “Creep and Shrinkage Losses in Highly

Variable Climates,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-6, September 2003.

CCEER 03- 7 Ayoub, C., M. Saiidi, and A. Itani, “A Study of Shape-Memory-Alloy-Reinforced Beams

and Cubes,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-7, October 2003.

CCEER 03-8 Chandane, S., D. Sanders, and M. Saiidi, "Static and Dynamic Performance of RC Bridge

Bents with Architectural-Flared Columns," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-8, November 2003.

CCEER 04-1 Olaegbe, C., and Saiidi, M., "Effect of Loading History on Shake Table Performance of

A Two-Column Bent with Infill Wall," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-1, January 2004.

CCEER 04-2 Johnson, R., Maragakis, E., Saiidi, M., and DesRoches, R., “Experimental Evaluation of

Seismic Performance of SMA Bridge Restrainers,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-2, February 2004.

CCEER 04-3 Moustafa, K., Sanders, D., and Saiidi, M., "Impact of Aspect Ratio on Two-Column Bent

Seismic Performance," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-3, February 2004.

73

CCEER 04-4 Maragakis, E., Saiidi, M., Sanchez-Camargo, F., and Elfass, S., “Seismic Performance of

Bridge Restrainers At In-Span Hinges,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-4, March 2004.

CCEER 04-5 Ashour, M., Norris, G. and Elfass, S., “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Long or

Intermediate Drilled Shafts of Small or Large Diameter in Layered Soil,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-5, June 2004.

CCEER 04-6 Correal, J., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., “Seismic Performance of RC Bridge Columns

Reinforced with Two Interlocking Spirals,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-6, August 2004.

CCEER 04-7 Dusicka, P., Itani, A. and Buckle, I., ”Cyclic Response and Low Cycle Fatigue

Characteristics of Plate Steels,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-7, November 2004.

CCEER 04-8 Dusicka, P., Itani, A. and Buckle, I., ” Built-up Shear Links as Energy Dissipaters for

Seismic Protection of Bridges,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-8, November 2004.

CCEER 04-9 Sureshkumar, K., Saiidi, S., Itani, A. and Ladkany, S., “Seismic Retrofit of Two-Column

Bents with Diamond Shape Columns,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-9, November 2004.

CCEER 05-1 Wang, H. and Saiidi, S., “A Study of RC Columns with Shape Memory Alloy and

Engineered Cementitious Composites,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-1, January 2005.

CCEER 05-2 Johnson, R., Saiidi, S. and Maragakis, E., "A Study of Fiber Reinforced Plastics for

Seismic Bridge Restrainers," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-2, January 2005.

CCEER 05-3 Carden, L.P., Itani, A.M., Buckle, I.G, "Seismic Load Path in Steel Girder Bridge

Superstructures,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-3, January 2005.

CCEER 05-4 Carden, L.P., Itani, A.M., Buckle, I.G, "Seismic Performance of Steel Girder Bridge

Superstructures with Ductile End Cross Frames and Seismic Isolation,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-4, January 2005.

CCEER 05-5 Goodwin, E., Maragakis, M., Itani, A. and Luo, S., "Experimental Evaluation of the

Seismic Performance of Hospital Piping Subassemblies,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-5, February 2005.

74

CCEER 05-6 Zadeh M. S., Saiidi, S, Itani, A. and Ladkany, S., "Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation and Retrofit Design of Las Vegas Downtown Viaduct,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-6, February 2005.

CCEER 05-7 Phan, V., Saiidi, S. and Anderson, J., “Near Fault (Near Field) Ground Motion Effects on

Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-7, August 2005.

CCEER 05-8 Carden, L., Itani, A. and Laplace, P., “Performance of Steel Props at the UNR Fire

Science Academy subjected to Repeated Fire” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-8, August 2005.

CCEER 05-9 Yamashita, R. and Sanders, D., “Shake Table Testing and an Analytical Study of

Unbonded Prestressed Hollow Concrete Column Constructed with Precast Segments” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-9, August 2005.

CCEER 05-10 Not Published CCEER 05-11 Carden, L., Itani., A., and Peckan, G., “Recommendations for the Design of Beams and

Posts in Bridge Falsework,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-11, October 2005.

CCEER 06-01 Cheng, Z., Saiidi, M., and Sanders, D., “Development of a Seismic Design Method for

Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Bridge Column Hinges,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-06-01, February 2006.

CCEER 06-02 Johnson, N., Saiidi, M., and Sanders, D., “Large-Scale Experimental and Analytical

Studies of a Two-Span Reinforced Concrete Bridge System,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-06-02, March 2006.

CCEER 06-03 Saiidi, M., Ghasemi, H. and Tiras, A., “Seismic Design and Retrofit of Highway Bridges,”

Proceedings, Second US-Turkey Workshop, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-06-03, May 2006.

CCEER 07-01 O'Brien, M., Saiidi, M. and Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M., “A Study of Concrete Bridge

Columns Using Innovative Materials Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-01, January 2007.

CCEER 07-02 Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. and Saiidi, M., "Effect of Strain rate on Stress-Strain Properties

and Yield Propagation in Steel Reinforcing Bars," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-02, January 2007.

CCEER 07-03 Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. and Saiidi, M., " Analytical Study of NEESR-SG 4-Span Bridge

Model Using OpenSees," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-03, January 2007.

75

CCEER 07-04 Nelson, R., Saiidi, M. and Zadeh, S., "Experimental Evaluation of Performance of

Conventional Bridge Systems," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-04, October 2007.

CCEER 07-05 Bahen, N. and Sanders, D., "Strut-and-Tie Modeling for Disturbed Regions in Structural

Concrete Members with Emphasis on Deep Beams," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-05, December 2007.

CCEER 07-06 Choi, H., Saiidi, M. and Somerville, P., "Effects of Near-Fault Ground Motion and Fault-

Rupture on the Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Bridges," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-06, December 2007.

CCEER 07-07 Ashour M. and Norris, G., "Report and User Manual on Strain Wedge Model Computer

Program for Files and Large Diameter Shafts with LRFD Procedure," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-07, October 2007.

CCEER 08-01 Doyle, K. and Saiidi, M., "Seismic Response of Telescopic Pipe Pin Connections,"

Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-08-01, February 2008.

CCEER 08-02 Taylor, M. and Sanders, D., "Seismic Time History Analysis and Instrumentation of the

Galena Creek Bridge," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-08-02, April 2008.

CCEER 08-03 Abdel-Mohti, A. and Pekcan, G., "Seismic Response Assessment and Recommendations

for the Design of Skewed Post-Tensioned Concrete Box-Girder Highway Bridges," Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-08-03, September 2008.

CCEER 08-04 Saiidi, M., Ghasemi, H. and Hook, J., “Long Term Bridge Performance

Monitoring, Assessment & Management,” Proceedings, FHWA/NSF Workshop on Future Directions,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-08-04, September 2008.

CCEER 09-01 Brown, A., and Saiidi, M., “Investigation of Near-Fault Ground Motion Effects on

Substandard Bridge Columns and Bents,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-09-01, July 2009.

CCEER 09-02 Linke, C., Pekcan, G., and Itani, A., “Detailing of Seismically Resilient Special Truss

Moment Frames,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-09-02, August 2009.

CCEER 09-03 Hills, D., and Saiidi, M., “Design, Construction, and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of

Three Bridge Bents Used in a Bridge System Test,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-09-03, August 2009.

Design, Construction, and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Three ...

Documents

Transcript of Design, Construction, and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Three ...