SSRP - 97 - 11 Pile To Pile Cap Connections in Seismic

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
RESEARCH PROJECT
Report No.
SSRP- 97/11
RESPONSE OF THE CORONADO BAY

BRIDGE PILE-TO-PILE CAP
CONNECTIONS lTNDER SIMULATED
SEISMIC LOADS
by
Pedro Silva
Frieder Seible
Nigel Priestley
Report on a Research Project funded by Caltrans under Contract

No. 59V374
December 1997
Division of Structural Engineering

University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093-0085
Structural Systems Research Project
Report No. SSRP-97/11
RESPONSE OF THE CORONADO BAY BRIDGE

PILE-TO-PILE CAP CONNECTIONS UNDER SIMULATED
SEISMIC LOADS
by
Pedro Silva
Graduate Student Researcher
Frieder Seible
Professor of Structural Engineering
M.J. Nigel Priestley

Professor of Structural Engineering
Report on a Research Project funded by

Caltrans under Contract No. 59V374
December 1997
Technical Report Documentation PaQe

1. ReportNo.
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
SSRP-97/11
4. Tille and Subtitle
5. Report Date
December 1997
RESPONSE OF THE CORONADO BAY BRIDGE PILE-TO-PILE
CAP CONNECTIONS UNDER SIMULATED SEISMIC LOADS
7. Author(s)
6. Perform111g Organization Code
6. Performing Organization Report No.
Pedro F. Silva, Frieder Seible, M. J. Nigel Priestley

9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Division of Structural Engineering

School of Engineering
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093-0085
11. Contract or Grant No.
59V374
Area #2
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
2 of 2
California Department of Transportation

Enaineerina Service Center
1801 30th Street
Sacramento, California 95807
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementaty Notes
16. Abstract
This research project was developed to better predict the complete response and the vulnerability of the
San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge to seismic events. The analytical prediction of the response of this bridge to
seismic loads is influenced significantly by the structural response of the foundation system at the connections
of the piles to the pile cap. Since the mud line profile varies considerably along the length of this bridge it was
decided to test two piles with different lengths to obtain the structural response range of the piles and their
connections to the pile cap. In addition, a third pile was tested with imposed initial damage to model the current
damage state of the piles reported from underwater surveys.
The first test was defined as test unit COR1 and consisted of a long pile with an aspect ratio of 5 and with
expected flexural response characteristics. The test specimen performed in a very ductile manner in both
loading directions.
The second test was similar to the first test and was defined as COR2 and consisted of short pile with an
aspect ratio of approximately 2.5. Unlike test unit COR1, test unit COR2 displayed a more predominant flexuralshear response while achieving the theoretical flexural strength of 'the pile section.
The third test was defined as COR3 and was identical to test unit COR1 with imposed damage of the precast
concrete shell and reinforcement. Test results suggest that the imposed cracks and cutting of the spiral and
prestressing reinforcement did not have great influence in the overall response of the structure. In comparison
with the test results for test unit COR1, test unit COR3 achieved approximately the same flexural strength
under axial compressive loads, and even exceeded the flexural strength of test unit COR1 pile under axial
tensile loads. Test results from the three test units significantly exceeded design assumptions used at the time
for the Coronado Bay Bridge retrofit design.
18. Distribution Statement
17. Key Words
Pile, Pile Connections, Seismic Response

19. Security Class~ication (of this report)
Unclassified
t-orm uu 1 t- 1700./ (I:H2)
20. Security C!ass~ication 10 tms page)
Unclassified
Reproduction of completed page authorized
21. No. of !"ages
-350
22. Price
Disclaimer
Any opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this final
test report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect views of Caltrans or the
Federal Highway Administration.
-i
Acknowledgments
The research project described in this preliminary report was funded by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) under contract No. 59V374.
As in any other experimental project there are several people that made this work
possible. We would like to thank Dr. Charles Sikorsky and Mr. Bob Jones ofCaltrans, Mr.
Joe Tognoli and Mr. Thomas Kompfner of McDaniel Engineering I J. Muller International
Joint Venture for their technical participation during the preliminary design of the test unit.
In addition, we would like to thank Cliff Ohlwiler and all the technicians and
engineers from Utility Vault and Michael Baumann and Andrew Scott from UCSD for their
invaluable help during the construction of the precast prestressed concrete shells while at
Utility Vault.
We would also like to thank Dr. Chris Latham at the UCSD Powell Structural
Research Laboratories for all the recommendations and the extra work that he put in
programming the control loading program for the simulation of the seismic loads. Moreover,
the help of Larry Berman, Charles Steams, Alex Sherman and Andrew Scott during
construction and set up of the test specimen is greatly appreciated.
-11-
Response of the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge

Pile-to-Pile-Cap Connections Under
Simulated Seismic Loading
List of Symbols
Ab
Cross sectional area of a bar.
Ag
Gross section area.
Ag,she/1
Concrete shell section area.
Ag,core
Inner core section area.
Ag,
Effective area.
As/
Total longitudinal steel area.
A psi
Total prestressing steel area.
Aps
Prestressing steel area.
Ash
Transverse steel area.
AXL
Axial Load Ratio.
b1e
Effective joint width assuming a 45 spread in all directions.
Distance between laterally supported longitudinal bars.
Cc
Cs '
Concrete compression force.

Reinforcing steel compression force.
Pile diameter or width.
D*
Nominal pile diameter.
db
Diameter of reinforcement bar.
dbp
Diameter of prestressing strand.
ds
Circular spirals center to center diameter.
Ec
Eci
Young's modulus of concrete or tangent modulus of elasticity of concrete.
Eps
Young's modulus of prestressing strands.

Young's modulus of reinforcing steel.
Secant modulus of elasticity of concrete.
Es
Esec
Young's modulus of concrete at transfer.
Fr
Young's modulus of steel shell.

Prestressing force at transfer.
F1
Prestressing force at jacking.
F DT
Prestressing force at day of test.

Equivalent transformed section stress.
Eshe/1
feq
-iii-
fc
Concrete stress (compressive or tensile).
fc;
fc
Concrete compressive strength at transfer of prestressing strands.

Concrete compressive strength.
fc.she/1
Concrete compressive strength of concrete shell.
fc.core
Concrete compressive strength of inner core.
fco '
Unconfined concrete compressive strength.
fcc '
Confined concrete compression strength.
fcu
ft
Confined concrete compressive strength at ultimate concrete strain.
ft
Lateral confining pressure from transverse reinforcement.
fto
Modulus of rupture of concrete.
J;,
Horizontal axial stress in the joint region.
J;,e
J;,s
Effective prestressing stress after transfer and after losses.

Prestressing stress.
J,
Vertical axial stress in the joint region.
fs
Reinforcement tensile stress.
fse
Initial prestressing stress.
fs '
fs1
Reinforcement compressive stress.
Effective lateral confining pressure.
Reinforcement stress (compressive or tensile).
J;
/y
Reinforcement yield strength at overstrength.
Heap
Depth of pile cap.
Hpile
Length of pile section above pile cap interface.
Heff
Effective length of the pile section for deflection calculations.
H;
Ho
I"
Experimental lateral load at each cyclic response.
Jeff
Effective section moment of inertia.
KBP
Bending stiffness of a single pile.

Axial stiffness of a single pile.
Equivalent spring stiffness.
KAP
Ks
ke
Yield strength of steel reinforcement.
Experimental initial lateral load due to the imposed initial axial load.
Area moment of inertia.
Confinement effectiveness coefficient.
Kg
Section geometry factor.
kh
Coefficient of horizontal sub grade reaction modulus.
hcur
h cur
Height of curvature cell.

Revised height of curvature cell to include strain penetrations at the pile cap interface.
- iv-
LBED
Distance between casting bed strong-end bulkheads.
La
Strain penetration length.
la
Anchorage length.
ld
Development length of reinforcing steel.
ldp
Development length of prestressing steel.
Prestressing flexural bond length.
!P
11
Plastic hinge length.
Me
Column moment.
A(r
Cracking moment.
M UP
Pile ultimate moment.
NA
Section neutral axis.
nP
Number of piles in a pile group.
Prestressing transfer length.
OTMc Column overturning moment.

P
Axialload.
Pc
Column axial load.
P 1c
Axial load computed from loading path equations.
pc
Allowable compression design axial load in piles.
Ph
Pi
Po
Horizontal axial force on the joint.

Initial axial load on a single pile due to gravity loads.
PP
Pile axial load.
pr
Allowable tension design axial load in piles.
Pv
s'
s
Vertical axial force on the joint.
Ts
Reinforcing steel tension force.
Tps
Prestressing steel tension force.
Vc
Vcr
Column shear force.

Lateral load at section cracking moment.
Vp
V~
Pile shear force.

Lateral load at first section yielding.
V~
Lateral load at first section yielding- Compression loading branch.
V~r
Lateral load at first section yielding- Tension loading branch.

Lateral load at ideal flexural strength.
Lateral load at ideal flexural strength - Compression loading branch.
VY
Vye
Experimental axial load at each cyclic response.
Vertical clear distance between spirals.

Sample variance.
-v-
v;,r
Vj.
Lateral.load at ideal flexural strength - Tension loading branch

Vertical joint shear force.
vj
Vertical joint shear stress.
Wcur
Length of curvature cell.
Distance to end of section or member.
Z.r
Elastic section modulus.
Depth soil stratum.
aps
Parameter relating position of segment to end of prestressing steel.
s
av
Ll
Parameter relating position of segment to end of reinforcing steel.

Pile lateral deflection.
Llcap
Prototype pile cap lateral translation.
Ll1
Experimental residual displacements.
Llma.r
Maximwn achieved experimental lateral displacement.
LlN
Displacement measured by a linear potentiometer within a curvature cell.
Ll8
Llshear
Displacement measured by a linear potentiometer within a curvature cell.
Ll.r
Segment length.
First section yield displacement.
Lly'
Llye'
Llyr'
Average bond strength constant.
Shear deformation.
First section yield displacement - Compression loading branch

First section yield displacement - Tension loading branch.
LlY
Llyc
Llyr
Yield displacement.
Ll 2
Spacing of soil springs.
oL
ov
Chuck seating at live end.

Chuck seating at dead end.
Ecc
Section strain.
Concrete compressive strain.
Concrete strain at peak confined compression stress.
Eco
Concrete strain at peak unconfined compression stress.
Ecu
Ultimate concrete compressive strain.

Steel reinforcement compressive strain.
Steel reinforcement tensile strain.
Prestressing reinforcement tensile strain.
Ec
E:
Es
Eps
Yield displacement - Compression loading branch.

Yield displacement - Tension loading branch.
-vi-
1Jpi
Moduli Tatio at time of transfer = EP/Eci
Bcap
Prototype pile cap rotation.
11..1
Displacement ductility.
( p 1_) Confidence interval.
Pt
Pps
Joint principal tensile stress.
Section curvature.
ave
Experimentally determined average curvature.
Pile section curvature a position i.
i_1
Pile section curvature a position i-1.
1/lcap
Rotation of pile cap.
Reinforcement ratio of longitudinal prestressing strands.
-vii-

Table of Contents
Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Acknowledgments ...................................................... ii
List of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Table of Contents ...................................................... viii
. o fF'tgures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xn..
L 1st
List ofTabies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
Abstract ............................................................. xxi
1.
Introduction ..................................................... 1
2.
Geometry and Design of the Test Units ............................... 3

2.1
Prototype Reinforcement Layout ................................ 3
2.2
Overall Test Setup and Geometry .............................. 11
2.2.1 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - General Test Configuration ..... 11.
2.2.2 Test Unit COR2 - General Test Configuration .............. 17
2.3
Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 - Pile Cap Design and Capacity .. 20
2.4
Test Units CORJ and COR3- Pile Design and Capacity ............. 25
2.4.1 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Pre-Test Analysis ............ 28
2.4.2 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Effective Cantilever Length .... 44
2.5
Test Unit COR2 - Pile Design and Capacity ...................... 48
2.5.1 Test Unit COR2- Pre-Test Analysis ................ : . .... 50
2.5.2 Test Unit COR2- Effective Cantilever Length .............. 55
-viii-
\.
3.
Construction, Instrumentation and Testing Procedure ................. 57

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.
Construction of the Test Specimens ............................ 57

3.1.1 Construction of Test Units CORJ and COR3 ............... 57
3.1.2 Construction ofTestUnit COR2 ... ,. ..................... 70
Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3- Material Properties ........... 74
Instrumentation ofthe Test Specimens .......................... 81
3.3.1 Instrumentation of Test Unit CORJ and COR3 .............. 81
3.3.2 Instrumentation of Test Unit COR2 ....................... 95
Testing Procedure ......................................... 105
3.4.1 Test Unit CORJ and COR3Loading Path and Control Program ...................... 113
3.4.2 Test Unit CORJ- Loading History ...................... 118
3.4.3 Test Unit COR3- Loading History ...................... 118
3.4.4 Test Unit COR2- Loading Path and Control Program ....... 121
3.4.5 Test Unit COR2 -Loading History ...................... 126
Development Length of Prestressing Strands ........................

4.1
Fabrication of the Precast Prestressed Concrete Shells .............
4.1.1 Prestressing Losses ..................................
4.1.1.1 Elastic Shortening of Concrete ...................
4.1.1.2 Shrinkage of Concrete ..........................
128
130
130
130
131
4.1.1.3 Relaxation of Strand ........................... 131

4.1.1.4 Chuck Seating ................................ 132
4.2
4.3
4.1.1.5 Bed Shortening ................................ 132

4.1.2 Prestressing Schedule ................................. 134
Transfer Bond Length ...................................... 135
4.2.1 Regression Analysis .................................. 136
Flexural Bond Length ...................................... 143
4.3.1 Evaluation of Code Provisions for the Development Length of
Prestressing Strands .................................. 143
4.3.2 Proposed Code Provisions for the Development Length of
Prestressing Strands .................................. 143
- ix-
5.
6.
Test Unit CORJ Experimental Test Results ........................

5.1
General Test Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2
Load Deformation Characteristics ............................
5.3
Pile Curvature Profiles ....................................
5.4
Pile Inner Core Longitudinal Reinforcement Strain Profiles .........
5.4.1 Pile Longitudinal Reinforcement -Vertical Strain Profiles ....
5.4.2 Pile Longitudinal ReinforcementCircumferential Strain Profiles .........................
5.5
Prestressing Strands Vertical Strain Profiles ....................
5.6
Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles ...................
5.6.1 Pile Transverse Reinforcement- Vertical Strain Profiles
5.6.2 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Circumferential Strain Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7 Pile Cap Reinforcement Strain Profiles ........................
5.8
Pile Cap Rotation ........................................
Test Unit COR2 Experimental Test Results ........................
6.1
General Test Observations ................ .................
6.2
6.3
6.4
Flexural and Shear Components of Deformation .................
6.5
Pile Inner Core Longitudinal Reinforcement Strain Profiles . . . . . . . . .
6.5.1 Pile Longitudinal Reinforcement- Vertical Strain Profiles ....
6.5.2 Pile Longitudinal ReinforcementCircumferential Strain Profiles .........................
6.6
6. 7
Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles ...................
6.7 .1 Pile Transverse Reinforcement- Vertical Strain Profiles .....
6.7.2 Pile Transverse ReinforcementCircumferential Strain Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.8
Pile Cap Reinforcement Strain Profiles ........................
6.9
Pile Cap Rotation ........................................
-X-
146
146
157
164
167
167
172
177
182
182
187
191
193
195
195
208
215
217
220
220
225
230
235
235
240
244
246
7.
Test Unit COR3 Experimental Test Results ........................

7.1
General Test Observations .................................
7.2
7.3
7.4
Vertical Profiles of Artificial Cracks Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5
Pile Inner Core Longitudinal Reinforcement Strain Profiles .........
7.5.1 Pile Longitudinal Reinforcement- Vertical Strain Profiles ....
7 .5.2 Pile Longitudinal ReinforcementCircumferential Strain Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.6
7. 7
Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Pro flies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. 7.1 Pile Transverse Reinforcement - Vertical Strain Profiles . . . . .
Pile Cap Reinforcement Strain Profiles ........................
7.8
7.9
Pile Cap Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
247
247
260
267
269
272
272
277
282
287
287
292
294
8.
Discussion of Experimental Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

8.1
Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 .......................... 295
8.1.1 Test Unit CORJ and COR2Post-Test Analysis Concrete Models ................... 296
8.1.1.1
Mander Model ......................... 297
Modified Bjerkeli Model .........._....... 298
8.1.1.2
8.1.2 Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3- Post-Test Analysis Tensile
Strain Penetration Contribution to Pile Lateral Deflection . . . 302
8.2
Comparison of Test Results ................................ 303
8.2.1 Test Units CORI and COR3 .......................... 303
8.2.2 Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 .................... 313
9.
Conclusions ................. ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Appendix A - Test Unit COR3 - Concrete Core Data ......................... 322
Appendix B . .; Control Program Loading Path .............................. 328
B.l
Test Units CORJ and COR3- Flowchart ...................... 330
B.2
Test Unit COR2 - Flowchart ................................ 335
-xi-

List of Figures
Fig. 2-1
Pier 2 - Pile Cap Prototype Drawings ............................... 5
Fig. 2-2
Fig. 2-3
Fig. 2-4
Fig. 2-5
Fig. 2-6
Fig. 2-7
Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3- General Layout Plan View ........ 14
Fig. 2-8
Test Units CORJ and COR3 - General Layout Front View .............. 15
Fig. 2-9
Fig. 2-10
Fig. 2-11
Fig. 2-12
Fig. 2-13
Fig. 2-14
Test Units CORJ and COR3 - General Layout Side View .............. 16

Pier 5- Pile Cap Prototype Drawings ..... ~ ......................... 8
Pier 2 and Pier 5- Pile Cap Precast Soffit Slab ........................ 9
Pier 2 and Pier 5- Prototype Type I Pile Drawings .................... 10
Test Unit COR2- General Layout Front View ....................... 18

Test Unit COR2 - General Layout Side View ........................ 19
Pile Cap Bending Moment Diagram ............................... 20
Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 - Pile Cap Reinforcement Layout .... 22
Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 -Modeled Precast soffit Slab ........ 23
Fig. 2-15 Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3

Pile Cap Moment and Shear Demands and Capacities ................. 24
Fig. 2-16 Test Unit CORJ and COR3 -Pile Reinforcement Layout ................ 27
Fig. 2-17 Test Unit CORJ and COR3 - Stress Block Design Parameters ........... 29
Fig. 2-18 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Bending Moment Demand and ........... 30
Fig. 2-19 Tension Shift Effect in a Diagonally
Cracked Reinforced Concrete Section .............................. 34
Fig. 2-20
Fig. 2-21
Fig. 2-22
Fig. 2-23
Fig. 2-24
Fig. 2-25
Moment Profiles- Axial Compression Load P = +2793kN ............. 36

Moment Profiles- Axial Tension Load P = -302kN ................... 36
Curvature Distribution .......................................... 37
Test Unit CORJ- Pre-Test Analysis ................................ 41
Test Unit COR3- Pre-Test Analysis ............................... 41
Test Unit CORJ - Predicted Shear Capacity and Flexural Response ....... 42
-xu-
Fig. 2-26 Test Unit COR3 - Predicted Shear Capacity and Flexural Response ....... 42
Fig. 2-27 Test Units CORJ and CORJ Joint Region Principal Tensile Stresses Pre-Test Analysis .............. 43
Fig. 2-28 Test Unit CORJ and CORJ Soil-Structure .......................... 44
Fig. 2-29 Test Units CORJ and CORJ- Pile Bending Moment Profile and
Lateral Deflection for a Fixed Head Single Pile ...................... 4 7
Fig. 2-30 Test Unit COR2- Pile Reinforcement Layout ........................ 49
Fig. 2-31 Moment Profiles- Axial Compression Load P
+2793kN ............. 52
Fig. 2-32 Moment Profile- Axial Tension Load P = -302kN .................... 52

Fig. 2-33 Test Unit COR2- Pre-Test Analysis ............................... 54
Fig. 2-34 Test Unit COR2 Predicted Shear Capacity and Flexural Response ........ 54
Fig. 2-35 Test Unit COR2 Soil-Structure ................................... 55
Fig. 2-36 Test Unit COR2- Pile Bending Moment Profile and
Lateral Deflection for a Fixed Head Single Pile ...................... 56
Fig. 3-1
Self-Reacting Casting Bed Components ............................ 58
Fig. 3-2
Installing Inner Core Form Before Casting of Concrete Shell ............ 60
Fig. 3-3
Installing Inner Core Form Before Casting of Concrete Shell ............ 60
Fig. 3-4
Inner Core Tube Mechanism ..................................... 61
Fig. 3-5
Top Form Aperture ............................................ 61
Fig. 3-6
Casting of the Concrete Shell at Utility Vault ........................ 62
Fig. 3-7
Fully Assembled Self Reacting Casting Bed ....... .................. 62
Fig. 3-8
Pile Cap Reinforcement Cage .................................... 63
Fig. 3-9
Pile Cap Reinforcement Cage Before Installing Precast Concrete Shell .... 63
Fig. 3-10 Installing Concrete Shell Thru Inner Core Reinforcement Cage .......... 64
Fig. 3-11 Installing Concrete Shell Thru Inner Core Reinforcement Cage .......... 64
Fig. 3-12 Concrete Shell in Place Before Casting of Pile Cap ..... .............. 65
Fig. 3-13 Casting ofPile Cap ............................................ 65
Fig. 3-14 Soffit Slab Reinforcement Cage Before Casting ...................... 66
Fig. 3-15 Soffit Slab Reinforcement Cage Before Casting ...................... 66
Fig. 3-16 Test Unit CORJ Longitudinal Saw Cut Lines ........................ 67
Fig. 3-17 Test Unit CORJ Longitudinal Saw Cut Lines ........................ 67
Fig. 3-18 Test Setup Unit CORJ .......................................... 68
Fig. 3-19 Test Setup Unit CORJ .......................................... 69
Fig. 3-20 First Stages of Preparation for Construction of Concrete Shell For COR2 .. 71
- xiii-
Fig. 3-21 Positioning of Strands Through Wooden Piece

Separator Before Prestressing .................................... 71
Fig. 3-22 wedge-chuck VSL S5N Anchorage System ......................... 72
Fig. 3-23 Finished Precast Concrete Shell Before
Separation at Wooden Piece for COR2 ............................. 72
Fig. 3-24 Test Setup Unit COR2 .......................................... 73
Fig. 3-25 Test Setup Unit COR2 .......................................... 73
Fig. 3-26 Stress-Strain Curve of Prestressing Steel ............................ 77
Fig. 3-27 Test Unit CORJ Pile Layout- Concrete Material Properties ............ 78
Fig. 3-28 Test Unit COR2 Pile Layout- Concrete Material Properties ............ 79
Fig. 3-29 Test Unit COR3 Pile Layout- Concrete Material Properties ............ 80
Fig. 3-30 Curvature Measurement ........................................ 81
Fig. 3-31 Test Units CORJ and COR3 -Instrumentation Setup Front View ........ 85
I,
Fig. 3-32 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Instrumentation Setup Side View ......... 86
Fig. 3-33 Test Unit COR3- Instrumentation Setup Front View .................. 87
Fig. 3-34 Test Units CORJ and COR3 Pile Inner Core Reinforcement Strain Gages ......................... 88
Fig. 3-35 Test Units CORJ and COR3Pile Prestressing Reinforcement Strain Gages ........................ 89
Fig. 3-36 Test Units CORJ and COR3Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Gages ........................ 90
Fig. 3-37 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Pile Cap Reinforcement Strain Gages ...... 91
Fig. 3-40 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Concrete Surface Strain Gages
Applied During Manufacturing of Precast Concrete Shells .............. 94
Fig. 3-41 Test Unit COR2 -Instrumentation Setup Front View .................. 97
Fig. 3-42 Test Unit COR2- Instrumentation Setup Side View ................... 98
Fig. 3-43 Test Unit COR2- Shear Panel Deformation Instrumentation Layout ...... 99
Fig. 3-44 Test Unit COR2 - Estimation of Shear Deformation .................. 100
Fig. 3-45 Test Unit COR2- Pile Inner Core Reinforcement Strain Gages ......... 101
Fig. 3-46 Test Unit COR2- Pile Prestressing Reinforcement Strain Gages ........ 102
Fig. 3-47 Test Unit COR2- Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Gages
- xiv-
........ 103
Fig. 3-48 Test Unit COR2- Concrete Surface Strain Gages

Applied During Manufacturing of Precast Concrete Shells . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.
Fig. 3-49 Prototype Structure Deformed Shape ............................. 107
Fig. 3-50 Pier 2 - Prototype Structure Finite Element Model ................... 11 0
. Fig. 3-51 Pier 5 - Prototype Structure Finite Element Model ................... 111
Fig. 3-52 Pier 5 Piles - Loading Path ...................................... 114
Fig. 3-53 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Control Program Loading Path ........... 114
Fig. 3-54 Test Unit CORJ- Loading History ............................... 119
F:ig. 3-55 Test Unit COR3- Loading History ............................... 120
Fig. 3-56 Pier 2 Piles - Loading Path ...................................... 122
Fig. 3-57 Test Unit COR2- Control Program Loading Path .................... 122
Fig. 3-58 Test Unit COR2- Loading History ............................... 127
Fig. 4-1
Strand Jacking and Cut Sequence ................................ 134
Fig. 4-2
Test Unit CORJ- Strand Strain versus Time at

152mm from the Pile Head ..................................... 136
Fig. 4-3

914mm from the Pile Head ..................................... 137
Fig. 4-4

2337mm from the Pile Head .................................... 138
Fig. 4-5
Test Unit COR2 - Strand Strain versus Time at

61 Omm from the Pile Head ..................................... 139
Fig. 4-6
Transfer Bond Length Regression Analysis ......................... 142
Fig. 4-7
Stress Profiles versus Distance to Pile Ends ........................ 145
Fig. 5-1
Bilinear approximation ........................................ 148
Fig. 5-2
Onset of Flexural Cracking at Lateral Deflection + 25 .65mm ........... 151
Fig. 5-3
Cracking Pattern at -20.57mm ................................... 152
Fjg. 5-4
Cracking Pattern at +51.05mm .................................. 152
Fig. 5-5
Onset of Plastic Hinge Relocation at +68.07mm ..................... 153
Fig. 5-6
Cracking Pattern at -109.73mm .................................. 153
Fig. 5-7
Extent ofSpalling at +85.09mm ................................. 154
Fig. 5-8
Unwinding of Prestressing Strands at Lateral Deflection +85.09mm ..... 155
Fig. 5-9
Wide Open Crack Above Inner Core Bar .......................... 155
Fig. 5-10 Plastic Hinge Relocation at -137.16mm ........................... 156
-XV-
Fig. 5-11 Complete Test Setup After Testing ............................... 156

Fig. 5-12 Lateral Load versus Lateral Deflection Characteristics ................ 158
Fig. 5-13 Lateral Load versus Base Curvature Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Fig. 5-14 Axial Load versus Lateral Deflection Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Fig. 5-15 Axial Load versus Lateral Load Characteristics ..................... 163
Fig. 5-16 Curvature Vertical Profiles ..................................... 166
Fig. 5-17 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core Bar A .......................... 168
Fig. 5-18 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core BarB .......................... 169
Fig. 5-19 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core Bar C .......................... 170
Fig. 5-20 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core BarD .......................... 171
Fig. 5-21 Inner Core Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Horizontal Line 1 and 2 . 173
Fig. 5-25 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand A ............................ 178
Fig. 5-26 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand B ............................ 179
Fig. 5-27 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand C ............................ 180
Fig. 5-28 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand D ........................... 181
Fig. 5-29 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Line A .......... 183
Fig. 5-30 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Line B ........... 184
Fig. 5-31 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Line C ........... 185
Fig. 5-32 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along LineD ........... 186
Fig. 5-33 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles
Along Horizontal Line 1 and 2 .................................. 188
Along Horizontal Line 3 and 4 .................................. 189
Along Horizontal Line 5 and 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Fig. 5-36 Lateral Deflection versus Strain
Strain Gage Pile Cap Bottom Reinforcement Bottom 3-B ............. 191
Strain Gage Pile Cap Vertical Reinforcement 3-B ................... 192
Fig. 5-38 Lateral Deflection versus Pile Cap Uplift .......................... 194
- xvi-
Fig. 6-1
Bilinear approximation ....................................... 196
Fig. 6-2
Onset of Flexural and Vertical Splitting Cracking
Fig. 6-3
Cracking Pattern at -8.63mm .................................. 200
Fig. 6-4
Onset oflnclined Shear Cracking at -12.95mm ..................... 201
Fig. 6-5
Onset of Inclined Shear Cracking at -12.95mm ..................... 201
Fig. 6-6
Cracking Pattern at + 17. 78mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Fig. 6-7
Cracking Pattern at -17 .27mm ................................. 202
Fig. 6-8
Cracking Pattern at -21.59mm ................................. 203
Fig. 6-9
Cracking Pattern at +26.67mm ................................. 203
.................. 200
Fig. 6-10 Cracking Pattern at +35.56mm ................................. 204

Fig. 6-11 Cracking Pattern at -43.18mm .................................. 204
Fig. 6-12 Onset of Concrete Crushing at +44.45mm ......................... 205
Fig. 6-13 Post Test Damage State ...................................... 205
Fig. 6-14 Post Test Damage State ...................................... 206
Fig. 6-15 Spiral Fracture Along Inclined Shear Crack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Fig. 6-16 Spiral Fracture at Prestressing Strand ............................ 207
Fig. 6-17 Extent of Spalling of the Cover Concrete at Pile Cap Interface ......... 207
Fig. 6-18 Lateral Load versus Lateral Deflection Characteristics ................ 210
Fig. 6-19 Lateral Load versus Base Curvature Characteristics ................. 211
Fig. 6-20 Axial Load versus Lateral Deflection Characteristics ................. 213
Fig. 6-21 Axial Load versus Lateral Load Characteristics ..................... 214
Fig. 6-22 Curvature Vertical Profiles .................................... 216
Fig. 6-23 Displacement Components versus Pile Lateral Deflection ............. 218
Fig. 6-24 Displacement Components versus Lateral Load ..................... 219
Fig. 6-25 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core Bar A .......................... 221
Fig. 6-26 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core BarB .......................... 222
Fig. 6-27 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core Bar C .......................... 223
Fig. 6-28 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core BarD ......................... 224
Fig. 6-29 Inner Core Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Horizontal Line 1 and 2 .. 226
Fig. 6-33 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand A ....... : ................... 231
Fig. 6-34 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand B ........................... 232
Fig. 6-35 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand C ........................... 233
- xvii-
Fig. 6-36 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Fig. 6-37 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Line A . . . . . . . . . . 236
Fig. 6-40 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Protlles Along Line D . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Along Horizontal Line I and 2 ................................. 241

Along Horizontal Line 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Along Horizontal Line 5 and 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Strain Gage Pile Cap Bottom Reinforcement Bottom 2-B ............. 244
Fig. 6-45 Lateral Det1ection versus Strain

Fig. 6-46 Lateral Deflection versus Pile Cap Uplift .......................... 246
Fig. 7-1
Bilinear approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Fig. 7-2
Onset ofFlexure Cracking at V=+317kN ......................... 252
Fig. 7-3
Fig. 7-4
Fig. 7-5
Fig. 7-6
Fig. 7-7
Cracking Pattern at -11.68mm ................................. 254
Fig. 7-8
Fig. 7-9
Fig. 7-10 Cracking Pattern at -17.53mm ................................. 256

Fig. 7-11 Cracking Pattern at -17.53mm .................................. 256
Fig. 7-12 Cracking Pattern at Lateral Deflection of+78.74mm ................. 257
Fig. 7-13 Cracking Pattern at Lateral Deflection of -52.07mm ...... '........... 257
Fig. 7-14 Cracking Pattern at Lateral Det1ection of -52.07mm ................. 258
Fig. 7-15 Extent of Spalling of Cover Concrete at
Lateral Det1ection of +105.92mm ............................... 258
Fig. 7-16 Plastic Hinge Relocation ...................................... 259

Fig. 7-17 Wide Open Crack ........................................... 259
- xviii -
Fig. 7-18 Lateral Load versus Lateral Deflection Characteristics ............... 262
Fig. 7-19 Lateral Load versus Base Curvature Characteristics ................. 263
Fig. 7-20 Axial Load versus Lateral Deflection Characteristics ................ 265
Fig. 7-21 Axial Load versus Lateral Load Characteristics .................... 266
Fig. 7-22 Curvature Vertical Profiles .................................... 268
Fig. 7-23 Crack Width Opening Vertical Profiles Along LineA ................ 270
Fig. 7-24 Crack Width Opening Along Vertical LineD ...................... 271
Fig. 7-25 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core Bar A ......................... 273
Fig. 7-26 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core BarB ......................... 274
Fig. 7-27 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core Bar C ......................... 275
Fig. 7-33 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand A .......................... 283
Fig. 7-34 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand B .......................... 284
Fig. 7-35 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand C .......................... 285
Fig. 7-36 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand D .......................... 286
Fig. 7-37 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Line A .......... 288
Fig. 7-40 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along LineD ........... 291
Strain Gage Pile Cap Bottom Reinforcement Bottom 3-C ............. 292
Fig. 7-43 Lateral Deflection versus Pile Cap Uplift ......................... 294
Fig. 8-1
Stress-Strain Curve for Confined and Unconfined Concrete Mander Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Fig. 8-2
Stress-Strain Curve for Confined and Unconfined Concrete Modified Bjerkeli Model ..................................... 300
Fig. 8-3
Concrete Models Stress-Strain Characteristics ..................... 301
Fig. 8-4
Curvature Profiles .......................................... 302
- xix-
Fig. 8-5
Test Units CORJ and COR3Lateral Load versus Lateral Deflection Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Fig. 8-6 Onset of Flexural Cracking at J.l.1 1.5x3- Test Unit CORJ ............. 306
Fig. 8-7
Onset of Flexural Cracking at First Section Yielding- Test Unit COR3 .. 306
Fig. 8-8
Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core Bar A ......................... 307
Fig. 8-9
Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core BarB ......................... 308
Fig. 8-10 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core Bar C ......................... 309
Fig. 8-12 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Curvature Vertical Profiles ............ 311
Fig. 8-13 Extent of Spalling of Cover Concrete -Test Unit CORJ .............. 312
Fig. 8-14 Extent of Spalling of Cover Concrete - Test Unit COR3 .............. 312
Fig. 8-15 Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3Moment versus Curvature Envelopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
Fig. A -1 Plan View Pier 19 - Surveyed Pile Cap ........................... 323
Fig. A- 2 Pier 19 - Surveyed Pile Number 4 ............................... 324
Fig. A-3 Pier 19- Surveyed Pile Number 12 .............................. 325
Fig. A-4 Pier 19 -Surveyed Pile Number 16 .............................. 326
Fig. A-5 Pier 19 -Surveyed Pile Number 33 .............................. 327
Fig. B-1 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Flowchart Region 1 ................. 329
Fig. B- 2 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Flowchart Region 2 ................. 330
Fig. B-3 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Flowchart Region 3 ................. 331
Fig. B-4 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Flowchart Region 4 ................. 332
Fig. B-5 Test Unit COR2- Flowchart Region 1 ........................... 334
Fig. B-8 Test Unit COR2 -Flowchart Region 4 ........................... 337
-XX-
Response of Standard Caltrans Pile-to-Pile-Cap

Connections Under Simulated Seismic Loading
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3- Prototype Scaling Parameters ..... 13
Table 3-1 Concrete Material Properties- High Strength Concrete ............... 74
Table 3-2 Concrete Material Properties- Normal Strength Concrete ............. 75
Table 3-3 Test Units CORl, COR2 and COR3 Steel Material Properties .......... 76
Table 3-4 Test Unit CORJ and COR3Casting Operation Summary of Instrumentation ..................... 83
Table 3-5 Test Unit CORJ and COR3Testing Procedure Summary of Instrumentation ..................... 84
Table 3-6 Test Unit COR2 - Summary of Instrumentation ..................... 96

Table 4-1 Summary of Prestress Losses .................................. 133
Table 9-1 Test Unit CORl- Experimental Test Results ...................... 316
Table 9-2 Test Unit COR2 - Experimental Test Results ............ , ......... 317
Table 9-3 Test Unit COR3- Experimental Test Results ...................... 317
- xxi-
---
Abstract
This research project was developed to better predict the complete response and the
vulnerability of the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge to seismic events. The analytical
prediction of the response of this bridge to seismic loads is influenced significantly by the
structural response of the foundation system at the connections of the piles to the pile cap.
Since the mud line profile varies considerably along the length of this bridge, it was decided
to test two piles with different lengths to obtain the structural response range of the piles and
their connections to the pile cap. In addition, a third pile was tested with imposed initial
damage to model the current damage state of the piles reported from underwater surveys.
The first test was defined as test unit CORJ and consisted of a long pile with an
aspect ratio of 5 and with an expected flexural response characteristics. The test specimen
performed in a very ductile manner in both loading directions .
The second test was similar to the first test and was defined as COR2 and consisted
of short pile with an aspect ratio of approximately 2.5. Unlike test unit CORJ, test unit
COR2 displayed a more predominant flexural-shear response, while achieving the theoretical
flexural strength of the pile section.

The third test was defined as test unit COR3 and was identical to Test unit CORJ
with imposed damage of the precast concrete shell and reinforcement. Test results suggests
that the imposed cracks and cutting of the spiral and prestressing reinforcement did not have
great influence in the overall response of the structure. In comparison with the test results
for test unit CORJ, test unit COR3 achieved approximately the same flexural strength under
axial compressive loads and even exceeded the flexural strength of test unit CORJ pile under
axial tensile loads. Test results from the three test units significantly exceeded design
assumptions currently used for the Coronado Bay Bridge retrofit design.
XXll
1.
Introduction
The complete structural response of the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge to seismic
loading was analyzed by the consulting engineering fmn ANATECH of San Diego by
employing a global model time-history analysis to this bridge. In 199 5, ANATECH completed
a single pile cap capacity analysis of a typical Coronado pile at Pier 6 [1] and concluded that
at a displacement ductility 3 a collapse condition is likely, and the design criteria for the piles
should not exceed a displacement ductility of 2. Underwater surveying of the existing piles
indicates cracking of the precast concrete shell and corrosion of the prestressing strands and
spiral reinforcement. Based on this information, the design team proposed a more
conservative criteria than a ductility of 2 criteria.
Engineers from McDaniel Engineering I J. Muller International Joint Venture
established a criteria such that deformation demands be limited to levels that cause a concrete
compressive strain of 0.005. In 1996, ANATECH, from a pile group pushover analyses
developed deformation versus rotation ( i.e.
8cap
vs.
8cap )
capacity envelope curves based on
this 0.005 concrete strain criteria. Pushover analyses results indicate that the controlling case
for design has been the case in which rotation of the pile cap is restrained and the pile cap
lateral translation is the primary mode of deformation. In this case, the concrete compressive
strain of 0.005 was first achieved at the pile head at a displacement ductility between 1 and
2, depending on the height and geometry of the pile group [1]. Thus, the main objective of
this experimental research is to verify these design constraints and to validate the design
criteria recommended by the design team for the seismic retrofit of the Coronado Bay Bridge.
In this research project, three models of the as-built Type I pile of the San Diego
Coronado Bay Bridge were investigated at UCSD. These test units were designed as 2/3 scale
models of the prototype piles and are composed of a precast prestressed concrete shell with
cast-in-place reinforced concrete at the connection region and unreinforced concrete away
from the pile cap. The experimental test setup for each test unit consists of a single
cantilevered pile and part of the scaled prototype pile cap. The pile of test unit CORJ has an
aspect ratio of approximately 5 and was designed to capture the boundary conditions for a
pile embedded in a saturated soil stratum with a deep mud line elevation. Test results indicate
this test unit displayed a ductile flexural response without shear failure.
-1 -
To account for shallower mud line elevations at bents close to the ends of the bridge,
the cantilever length of test unit COR2 was designed with an aspect ratio of approximately
2.5. Unlike test unit CORJ, test results indicate test unit COR2 displayed a more predominant
flexural-shear response, while achieving the theoretical flexural strength of the pile section
due to its considerably lower aspect ratio. Fracture of the transverse reinforcement along
inclined cracks, at later stages of the testing procedure, illustrates flexural-shear response of
test unit COR2.
Finally, test unit COR3 was identical to test unit CORJ and was constructed with
imposed initial cracking of the precast concrete shell in the form of vertical cracks and by
cutting the prestressing strands and spiral reinforcement along the simulated vertical cracks
to model corrosion of this reinforcement, as reported from underwater condition survey of
the Coronado Bay Bridge piles [2]. The experimental test results of test unit COR3 were
compared with test unit CORJ results and showed that both units displayed a ductile flexural
response under the simulated seismic loads. In addition, based on maximum loads and
achieved displacement ductility levels, it can be concluded that cracking and corrosion of the
reinforcement in the precast concrete shell did not considerably affect the response of test unit
COR3, since the section achieved the same maximum lateral deflection and lateral load as in
test unit CORJ.

Based on the experimental test results, ANATECH performed a calibration of the
finite element model used in developing the pile capacity deformation versus rotation
envelope curves. The final retrofit design scheme was then based on the deformation which
leads to 80% of the maximum lateral force in the post-peak lateral force drop-off, and a
displacement ductility of 4 was set as the maximum limiting ductility capacity.
-2 -
2.
Geometry and Design of the Test Units

Test configuration and design of the proposed test units was based on the San Diego
Coronado Bay Bridge piles. Design of the test units was developed in close collaboration with
engineers from Caltrans, McDaniel Engineering Company, Inc., J. Muller International and
researchers from the University of California at San Diego. Design of test unit CORJ and test
unit COR3 was based on the Type I pile at Pier 5 and test unit COR2 to that at Pier 2.
2.1
Prototype Reinforcement Layout

Pier 2 prototype drawings are shown in Fig. 2-1 and Fig. 2-2. The pile cap
longitudinal reinforcement layout consists of 19-#11 bars at 339 mm on centers at bottom and
bundled 22-#11 bars at 345 mm on centers at top, and the pile cap transverse reinforcement
consists of 44-#11 bars at 241 mm on center bottom. For additional reinforcement layout
details (see Fig. 2-2).
Pier 5 prototype drawings are shown in Fig. 2-3 and Fig. 2-4. The pile cap
longitudinal reinforcement layout consists of 29-#11 bars at 305 mm on centers at bottom and
bundled 42-#11 bars at 241 mm on centers at top, and the pile cap transverse reinforcement
consists of 68-#11 bars at 241 mm on center bottom. For additional reinforcement layout
details (see Fig. 2-4).
Precast soffit slabs were used as a working platform for alignment and cleaning of the
pile heads and then used as a form work for construction of the pile cap. Typical design
drawings of the soffit slabs are presented in Fig. 2-5.
Fig. 2-6 shows typical design drawings of Type I piles at pier 2 and pier 5. The piles
are composed of a precast prestressed concrete shell 127 mm thick with cast in place
reinforced concrete at the connection region and unreinforced concrete away from the pile
cap. Prestressing of the concrete shell consists of 34 seven-wire prestressing steel strands 13
mm in diameter of low relaxation type, arranged around the inner circumference of the spiral
steel with a concrete cover of 50.80 mm, resulting in a prestressing reinforcement ratio of
0.23%. The total required design prestressing force after losses for the Type I pile was 3425
kN.
- 3-
For the transverse reinforcement changes along the length of the pile (see Fig. 2- 6).
In the first 1,219 mm length of the pile closest to the pile cap, the transverse reinforcement
consists of deformed #4 bars on a spiral pitch of 102 mm, resulting in a horizontal volumetric
reinforcement ratio of 0.40%. After this level, and for the next 1,524 mm, the transverse
reinforcement ratio consists ofundeformed wire W4 on a spiral pitch of 50.80 mm, resulting
in a horizontal volumetric reinforcement ratio of 0.16%. In the remaining length of the pile,
the transverse reinforcement ratio consists of undeformed wire W4 on a spiral pitch of 102
mm, resulting in a horizontal volumetric reinforcement ratio of 0.08%.
Starter bars into the pile cap consist of 24-#11 bars arranged in an inner circle with
a diameter of940 mm, resulting in a reinforcement ratio of 1.64%. The length of these bars
into the pile cap is 1,219 mm and into the pile is 2,438 mm. This inner cage was tied together
with hoop reinforcement #4 bars at 305 mm on centers (see Fig. 2-6).
-4-
1372mm
Diameter
Pile&
CTotz:~l
Pier Tower
Typlcl!l
15)
10
0"""
!")
Ill
1L
Ill
iC
{3J
10
Cl.
0"""
!")
10
l,)
!")
\.9
......
"""
c:"\1
!")
c:"\1
......
10
......
10
o.....
10
0"""
!")
Note All Dimensions

~:~re In Millimeters
Area
Indicates Modeled
'-'">h>.-1... <'1
1::.71
<0400
Fig. 2-1 Pier 2 - Pile Cap Prototype Drawings
-5-
Region of the
Pile Cl!lp
10400
1271
914
5haded Are'fl
Indicate!> Modeled
Region of the
Pile Cap
102mm
Clear
#'1r-at
305mm D.c.
,-..,"-"'-"' - #!0 r--"1at
305mm D.c
.....
#G..---,at
457mm D.c.
11)4--~"'-=-
0
1')4----
305mm
5offlt 51ab
Pile Inner Core

Long. Relnf.
1372mm
Diameter Pile
-,t<-11--.11<- 254mm
5offlt 5k.lrt
Note ' All Dlmen&lon& are in

---Millimeter!>
Pile Cap Section B-B
Shaded Area
Indicate!> Modeled
Region of the
Pile Cap
1...
II)
a:
<:0
10
1.9
c"}
0..
liJ
l)
10
<:0
<:0
o-
<:0
<:0
iL
t\1
.....
d)
.....
I'-
<:0
A~
3046
Note
AU Dimension!>
Bre In Millimeter!>
1G7G
5162.
1G7G
6534
Fig. 2-3 Pier 5 Pile Cap Prototype Drawings
B5.34
1G7G
51BZ
at
'114
#'IQJ]at
.305mm o.c.
10Zmm
Clear
0
0
1.9
......
00
ll)-'!<---T-----
0
r')-'1<----
.305mm
Soffit Slab
Shaded Area
Indicate!> Modeled
Region of the
Pile Cap
Pile Inner Core

Long. Relnf.
.305mm o.c.
1.372mm
Diameter Pile
254mm
Soffit 5k.lrt
Note All D!men&lon& are In

- - - Millimeter&
Pile Cap Section A -A
Bottom li:elnf.
- :11=3 5he!!lr
Loops.
l - :11=5
I
til
.,
5 - #4
("D
...,
LZI)'BI'"
Top Relnf.
.,
0..
Section A
3 -
10
#5
U'l
1.0
.,
~
(')
.,
Layer
Bottom Relnf.
$:1)
'0
@
(")
' - - - - - 5 - #4
$:1)
t:ll
.....
en
0
3.....
en
.......
~
L!!lyer
Top Reinf.
Top Reinf.
Section B
.....__ _ _ _ _ 203mm x 203mrn

X Z03mm Block
Bottom Rein!. Out& CTotal 12)
1. Vertical holes. around piles.

to have 25.4mm s.loped !>Ides.
5ee 5ed!on B This. Figure
2. All Dlmen~lons. are In
Mllimeter5
4-#4 x 1524mm
Alternate w/
4-#4 x 182'1mm
.34 - 1.3mm Diameter
Pre10tre!>!>ing Steel
Strand&
24 - #11 x .31058mm
#4
at .305mm o.c.
#4 or W4 Splr!!ll!>
Pile Section A-A
.j..l
c:
Cl)
E
lJ
Q)
..c.
E
1.1-1
-t
I
E
.305mm Thick
Precast Soffit
.J::
1,)
0,_
E
E
eN
u- 0
.....
....
N
....
Cast In Plac:.e
Concrete Core
-t
+>
\!:1
-5
.j..l
;:: a:
.34 - 1.3mm Diameter
Prestressing Steel
Strand!> Pf = .3425kN
CT otal f orc:.e
After Losse5)
E
E
E
E
~
......
1.0
'<t
.j..l
~
127mm Prec:.ast - - - +
Wall Thlckne!>s
..c
1,)
+>
0::::
E
E
N
0
.....
.j..l
Ca5t In Place
Concrete Core
Ill
'<t
;::
W.3 spirals
.34
1.3mm 011!1fl!eter
Pre5tre55lng Steel
Strand5
Pile Section B-B
Note AU Dlmen5lon5 are In

- - - MJ1limeter5
Pile Longitudinal Section
Fig. 2-6 Pier 2 and Pier 5 - Prototype Type I Pile Drawings

- 10-
2.2
Overall Test Setup and Geometry

The overall geometry and reinforcement layout for the test units were taken directly
from the prototype drawings described in the previous section and will be.presented in this
section. In this section, a brief description of the complete test setup, geometry and pile
reinforcement layout are presented fortest units CORJ, COR2 and COR3.
2.2.1 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - General Test Configuration

Test units CORJ and COR3 are 2/3 scale models of the as-built Type I pile at Pier
5 of the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge. A summary of the scaling parameters is presented
in Table 2-1.
The pile cap test unit was designed to model the behavior of an interior pile of the
prototype pile cap at the joint region, and the pile oftest units CORJ and COR3 was designed
to capture the boundary conditions for a pile embedded in a saturated soil stratum with a deep
'
mud line elevation. In addition, test unit COR3 specimen was constructed to provide a direct
means of comparison between the structural response of a pile with no initial cracks and a pile
with imposed damage that models the worst current state of damage of the existing in situ
piles of the Coronado Bay Bridge.
Referring to Fig. 2-8 and Fig. 2-9, the test units were built in an inverted position
as they occur in the prototype structure to ease installation and loading of the test specimen.
However, in the next sections, all parts of the test units are referred to as they occur in the
prototype structure.
During a seismic event, the forces transmitted from the bridge superstructure into the
foundation system produces rotation and translation of the pile cap. As the rotation of the pile
cap increases, those piles in front of the axis of rotation experience an increase in the axial
compressive load and, if the rotation of the pile cap is significant, those piles at the back of
the axis of rotation will most likely be subjected to axial tensile loads. On the other hand, for
piles embedded in a saturated soil with a deep mud line elevation, as the in situ conditions at
Pier 5, the soil stiffness is not adequate in preventing lateral translations, and lateral
translation ofthe pile cap imposes resisting moments to develop at the pile heads. Thus, under
a seismic event, the individual piles of a pile group experience reversed cyclic loading in both
axial and lateral load.
- 11 -
Variations in the axial load to the specimen were applied by means of two hydraulic
actuators installed on the sides of the pile cap on support blocks and attached to a steel
loading beam, which was mounted on the load stub, as shown in Fig. 2-8. Variations in the
horizontal lateral load were also applied by means of a hydraulic actuator connected to the
strong wall and the load stub (see Fig. 2- 9). Because of the changes in the axial and lateral
load, it was necessary to label the direction of the applied loads according to their loading
direction. Thus, for testing purposes, when in compression the axial force was designated as
positive and when in tension the axial force was designated as negative. In addition, when in
the compression loading branch, the lateral force was defined as positive and in the tension
loading branch the lateral force was defined as negative. A complete scheme of the applied
loads will be presented in later sections when describing the testing procedure.
Concrete core data from a condition survey of the Coronado Bay Bridge piles [2]
indicates that where cracks of 1.60 mm or wider occur, corroded spirals or prestressing
reinforcement can be encountered. In Appendix A of this report, a brief summary of the
concrete core data is presented. In addition, from all the piles surveyed, no cracks where
reported in the plug region where the inner core reinforcement is present. Outside this plug
region, the inner core cast in place concrete is composed of sandy veins and other low quality
materials that lower the concrete strength of the tremie concrete.
Based on the data provided from the condition survey [2], the imposed damage to test
unit COR3 pile consisted of saw cutting two lines of cracks along lines A and D through the
precast prestressed concrete shell and extending it above the termination of the inner core
reinforcement; for a length of approximately 1,575 mm, as indicated in Fig. 2-7 through Fig.
2-9. Along these artificial cracks, all the spiral reinforcement was cut, and adjacent to these
longitudinal cracks at the top and bottom, 25.4 mm diameter holes where core drilled through
the prestressing strands, as indicated in Fig. 2-8 and Fig. 2-9. In addition, to model the low
quality of concrete in the core region above the longitudinal reinforcement, the inner core was
cast with a low concrete strength, which will be discussed in Chapter 3 when describing the
concrete material properties.
12-
Table 2-1 Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 - Prototype Scaling Parameters
II
Pile Height
PROTOTYPE
7,010 mm- Pier 5
3,353 mm- Pier 2
MODEL*
4,673 mm - CORJ and
COR3
2,235 mm - COR2
Pile Diameter (O.D.)
1,372 mm Outside
Diameter
914 mm Outside Diameter
Precast Wall Thickness
127mm
86mm
Clearance To Prestress
50.8 mm Clearance
35 mm Clearance
Core Dia. To Long. Reinf.
940 mm Diameter Circle
628 mm Diameter Circle
Pile Embedment Length
203mm
137mm
Prestress Reinforcing
34-12.7 mm 0 Strand
PI= 0.00227
27 - 9.53 mm 0 Strand
PI= 0.00225
Prestress Force
3,425 kN
1,521 kN
CIP Section Longitudinal

Reinforcement
24-#11 3,658 mm
p1 = 0.01635
28 - #7 x 2,438 mm
PI= 0.01650
Longitudinal Reinforc.
Embedment Length
1,219 mm
813 mm
Precast Section Long.

Reinforcement
8- #4
p1 = 0.000699
6- #3
PI = 0.000648
Spirals ( Pile Head )

Section A-A, see Fig. 2-16
and Fig. 2-30
#4 @ 102 mm Pitch
Ph= 0.004
L= 1,219 mm
#3 @ 84 mm Pitch
ph= 0.004
L=948 mm
Spirals ( Middle Layer)

Section B-B, see Fig. 2-16
and Fig. 2-30
W4@ 51 mmPitch
Ph= 0.0016
L= 1,524 mm
W3 @ 57 mm Pitch
Ph= 0.0016
L = 1,016 mm
Spirals (Bottom Layer)

Section C-C, see Fig. 2-16
W4 @ 102 mm Pitch
ph= 0.0008
W3 @ 114 mm Pitch
ph= 0.0008
Axial Compression Force
+6,761 kN [3]
+3,007 kN
Axial Tension Force
-681 kN [3]
-302 kN
* scale factor f = 213

-13
Strong Wall
---~1
- Hydraulic Actuator
Lateral Load
r-~
"""
203mm x 203mm x
203mm Block Outs
for Tie DoWn5 (12 TotllD
'114mm Diameter Pile
w/ 8G:imm Thick
Precast Prestressed
Concrete Shell
25.4mm Dlllmeter Core

Drilled Hole Thru &trand
Adjacent to Longltudlnlll
Saw Cut
Te5t Unit COR3 only
'
Load Tram;fer Block.
152Jm X 12.1'1mm
Lolld &tub
2 - Longitudinal &~w
Cut& Along Llne5 A and
Te5t Unit COR3 only
Direction of Compression
1
Loadng Br~ch
'
I
'
I
228G:i
Square 1footing
182'1
182'1
Hote AD Dlrnenolon& ac" In

t'llllm8tsro
Fig. 2-7 Test Units CORI, COR2 and COR3- General Layout Plan View
- 14-
1270
G10
1270
G10
1524mmx1219mm
x G10mm
Load Stub
Center Of . Load Stub

Elevation 5740mm ---l'iiL
305mm
Spacer
Block
-------------v-
I_J.---- 4G73mm High

Pile Te&t Unit
Wide X
1575mm
Long Saw
Cut Through
Preca&t Shell
E
(Including
Spiral& - Typ. tfi
2 Location&)
lO
Te&t Unit
..-.
COR3 only
2 - Hydraulic
Actuator&
Axial Load
Mounting
Plate
2 - 1C!81mm
High Load
Tran&fer Block
10G7mm
High F ootlng
w/ 203mm Thick
Soffit Slab
Note All Dlmen&lon& are In

- - - Millimeter&
Fig. 2-8 Test Units CORJ and COR3- General Layout Front View
- 15-
J.
VW
42G7
-------'\f.--..-----
Section Cros-s. Beam

And Lolld Trlln&fer Assembly
11
II
II
II
II
r--U---:1-~i:Hft::_11
II
II
II
'if
'if
_ _ _
~-CtJ_rnt
I (o
[ _,
,___...
::::lta-
1 - Hydraulic
:::::::::::: lJ3-
Actut.~tor
GlO
1.5Gmm---..._
Wide x
~
1575mm
""'Long Saw
Cut Through
Precllst Shell
Cinc..ludlng
Spirals - Typ.
2. Locations)
Test Unit
-'
""/
Limit of----tInner Core

Log. Relf.
!t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:!
I
:
I
I
I
LA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~Pile Test Unit
--- v : : 5 o f f l t 51t.~b
I-'..--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.5.4mm Diameter
Hole to Cut Strand
CTyp. Top +- Bottom
at 2. Strands.)
Test Unit COR:3 only
r-" "
COR:3 only
.l
Lllterlll Lolld
/
/
/~ 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_!
II
II
:: v--rne
II
II
r-..
\.9
0
/!!
II
II
II
Ct~p
JJ----
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
mm
7~;~tcoctlo"
"d
....
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
'
.T
Note All Dimensions ere In

Millimeters
Fig. 2-9 Test Units CORJ and COR3- General Layout Side View
- 16-
2.2.2 Test Unit COR2 - General Test Configuration

Fig. 2-10 and Fig. 2-11 depict the general layout oftest unit COR2. Test unit COR2
is a 2/3 scale model of the as-built Type I pile of Pier 2 of the San Diego Coronado Bay
Bridge. A summary of the scaling parameters for this test unit was presented in Table 2-1.
Similar to test units CORJ and COR3, the pile cap test unit was also designed to
model the behavior of an interior pile of the prototype pile cap at the joint region and, unlike
test unit CORJ and COR3, the pile oftest unit COR2 was designed to capture the boundary
conditions for a pile embedded in a saturated soil stratum with a shallow mud line elevation.
Application of the simulated seismic loading in test unit COR2 was similar to that
procedure described for test units CORJ and COR3. The axial load was applied by means of
two vertical actuators positioned on the sides of the test specimen, as illustrated in Fig. 2-10
and the lateral load by a single actuator connected to the load stub, as illustrated in Fig. 2-11.
- 17-
1270
G10
G10
1270
1524mmx121Clmm
x G10mm
Lolld Stub
W Section
Cro!:>!:> Eleam
Center Of Lolld Stub

_ -~levZI~Ion _.3.30_2mm _
--0-
-l--+---- 22.35mm
High
F'lle Te!:>t Unit
2 - Hydrllullc
Actuator!:>
Axial Load
10G7mm High
F'lle Cap w/ 20.3mm
Soffit Slab
Mounting
Plate
Note All Dlmen!:>lon!:> are In

Millimeter!:>
Fig. 2-10 Test Unit COR2 - General Layout Front View

- 18-
42.G7
W 5ectlon Cross Beam

And Loz:~d Trz:~nsfer Assembly
1 - Actur~tor
(Lateral Lolld)
2.5.4mm
Gap Joint
f'lle Test Unrt
5trong Floor
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
Note All Dimensions are In

---Millimeters
Fig. 2-11 Test Unit COR2 - General Layout Side View

- 19-
2.3
Test Units CORl, COR2 and COR3 -Pile Cap Design and Capacity
The pile cap dimensions and reinforcement layout were chosen to match that of the
prototype pile cap as closely as possible and were identical for all the test units CORJ, COR2
and COR3. Preliminary analysis reveals that the pile cap of the prototype structure has reserve
capacity to transmit loads into the piles. Since no damage was expected in the pile cap, and
to reduce weight of the test specimen, the pile cap depth of the test specimen was based on
the shortest prototype depth of 1,600 mm and not the overall depth of 2,895 mm, as
illustrated in Fig. 2-2 and Fig. 2-4. Thus, employing the 2/3 scale factor the scaled depth
of the test specimen was 1,067 mrn, as shown in Fig. 2-8 and Fig. 2-10. To account for this
decrease in the pile cap depth, the vertical stirrup reinforcement ratio was increased to obtain
equivalent shear capacity and to avoid large deterioration of the pile cap at the joint region.
The vertical stirrup reinforcement in the models consisted of #6 bars at 178 mm on centers.
Design of the pile cap modeled as closely as possible the behavior of the prototype pile
cap in the vicinity of an interior pile at the joint region. Thus, to model the continuity of the
transverse reinforcement across the piles in the prototype pile cap, the transverse
reinforcement in the specimen pile cap was hooked at the ends, as illustrated in Fig. 2-13.
The amount of reinforcement provided in the pile cap region was identical to the prototype
section design. As previously discussed, the
pile cap for the test units was setup in an
inverted position. However, in this section, all
parts of the test units are named as they occur
in the prototype structure. A total of 13-#7
bars top and bottom with a reinforcement ratio

of 0.24% were provided in the longitudinal
and transverse directions (see Fig. 2-13).
The modeled precast soffit slab
dimensions and reinforcement layout are
presented in Fig. 2-14. During construction of
the soffit slab, block-outs were positioned at
12 locations over the finished surface of the
pile cap, as illustrated in Fig. 2-13 and Fig.
2-14. The block outs were provided to tie-
Fig. 2-12 Pile Cap Bending

Moment Diagram
-20-
down the specimen to the strong floor only at the pile cap level and to allow for any relative
motion between the soffit slab and the pile cap as it might occur in the prototype structure.
Based on the pile cap section properties, moment and shear demand and capacity
diagrams were prepared for the pile cap of these test units. Approximated bending moment
and shear demand diagrams were constructed for the test units, based on the applied loads
presented in Fig. 2-12, for a direct comparison with the capacity diagrams to determine the
expected damage state of the pile caps. Referring to Fig. 2-15(a), the moment demand
imposed on the test unit pile caps was always considerably lower than the first section
yielding, and Fig. 2-15(b) indicates the shear capacity of the pile cap section was significantly
higher than the shear demand.
Two shear capacity curves are presented in Fig. 2-15(b). The shear capacity curve
indicated as
Heap
=1,067 mm was obtained for a pile cap with a depth of 1,067 mm and the
vertical reinforcement described previously, which is the test specimen pile cap. On the other
hand, the curve indicated as
Heap= 1,931
mm relates to the scaled prototype structure at its
maximum depth, and the vertical reinforcement matches the scaled prototype reinforcement,
which is #6 bars at 178 mm on centers. Referring to this figure, it is clear that
~he
capacity
obtained for these two cases is approximately the same as previously stipulated, and reduction
of the pile cap depth should not considerably affect the strength of the pile cap.
The pile cap moment curvature and shear capacity analysis presented in Fig. 2-15(a)
and Fig. 2-15(b) were performed using average material properties obtained from test unit
CORJ material properties. Concrete material properties used for the pile cap pre-.test analysis
were obtained from three concrete cylinder tests at 28 days, and the steel material properties
from three reinforcement tensile tests. Concrete compression strength at 28 days wasf'c=32
.rvt:Pa, as indicated in Table 3-2, for batch No. 1 of test unit CORJ, the pile cap top and
bottom reinforcement yield strength wasfy=465 .rvt:Pa, and the pile cap vertical reinforcement
yield strength was/y=472 MPa (see Table 3-3).
- 21-
....
~
'tCI
N
I
2286
1-'
~
>-3
~
r.n
.......
e::l
.....
.......
r.n
8::::0
BlockOuts--(12 Total)
Thick
Soffit
ne-Downs
w/ 57mm
P.V.C. Pipe
(Total 12)
.......
('J
a::::0
N
N
N
178 mm a.c.
c.
('J
a::::0
1..1.,)
""0
......
#7 (Total 13)
Each Way
25.4mm
Clear
~
......
::l
0'
8
~
#7 (Total 13)
Each Way
Nate : All Dimensions are in
- - - Millimeters
::l
.......
t"'
~
0
1:::
.......
Pile Cap Cross Section
...
~
......
""
- #~ Shear
Loops
Bottom Reinf.
....j
(ll
1 - #'5
""......
c:::
t:::l
........
""
8
>,
.._
5 -
Leyer
Top Relnf.
Section A
('J
I
VJ
#'4
10
- #5
- #5
5Q.
8
>,
Layer
Bottom Relnf.
v..
a:0
5-
" . - - - 5 - #4
( ll
Q.
~
0
II)
t:l>
......
""0
....::+1......
en
~
Layer
Top Rein!.
Top Relnf.
Section B
t
1
ZO~mm x ZO~mm
ZO~mm Block.
Bottom ~einf. o,to
Note& 1. Vertical holes -eround pHes

to have Z5.4mm !>loped sides
See 5ectlon B This. F19ure
CTotl 12)
3000
2500
2000
-e-
Pile Cap Moment Curvature Analysis- Heap= 1067mm
--8--
BilinearElasto-Plastic Approximation
Test Units CORl, COR2 and COR3

Moment Demand Imposed on Pile Cap
1500
i:i:
Compression Loading Branch
1000
500
Tension Loading Branch
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Pile Cap Curvature ( lfmm e-5 )
(a) Pile Cap Test Units CORl, COR2 and COR3 Moment Curvature Analysis Diagram
21000
18000
15000
II>
0
~
...
ctl
12000
II>
.J:;;
~
p..
ctl
-e-
Shear Capacity- Heap= 1067mm
--fr--
Shear Capacity- Heap= 193lmm
9000
i:i:

Moment Demand Imposed on Pile Cap
6000

3000
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
I 0.00
12.00
Pile Cap Curvature ( lfmm e-5)
(a) Pile Cap Test Units CORl, COR2 and COR3 Pile Cap Shear Force Diagram
Fig. 2-15 Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3

Pile Cap Moment and Shear Demands and Capacities
-24-
2.4
Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Pile Design and Capacity

Test units CORJ and COR3 pile geometry and reinforcement layout were scaled from
the prototype structure based on a 2/3 scaling factor and were designed in order to obtain
similar reinforcement ratios as in the prototype piles indicated in Table 2-1. The scaled model
test specimen for test units CORJ and COR3 is presented in Fig. 2-16.
Scaling of the prototype pile resulted in a shell 86 mm thick. Prestressing of the
concrete shell consists of27 seven-wire strand low relaxation type prestressing steel9.53 mm
in diameter placed around the circumference with a concrete cover of 35 mm, resulting in a
reinforcement ratio of 0.23%.The total required prestressing force after losses for each test
unit was 1522 kN.
As in the prototype, the transverse reinforcement was also changed along the length
of the pile. Referring to Fig. 2-16, closest to the pile cap and up to a length of 948 mm, the
transverse reinforcement consists of deformed #3 bars on a spiral pitch of 84 mm, resulting
in a horizontal volumetric reinforcement ratio of approximately 0.40%. After this level, and
for the next 1,016 mm, the transverse reinforcement ratio was changed to undeformed
reinforcement W3 wires on a spiral pitch of 57 mm, resulting in a horizontal volumetric
reinforcement ratio of0.16%. In the remaining length ofthe pile, the transverse reinforcement
ratio consists also of undeformed W3 wire, but with a spiral pitch of 114 mm, resulting in a
horizontal volumetric reinforcement ratio of 0.08%.
The inner cage starter bars to the pile cap consist of 28 - #7 bars arranged in an inner
circle with a diameter of 628 mm. The length of these bars is 2,438 mm with an anchorage
length into the pile cap of 813 mm. This inner cage was tied together with hoop reinforcement
#3 bars at 254 mm on centers.
As previously described, test unit COR3 was constructed to provide a direct means
of comparison between the structural response of a pile with no initial cracks and a pile with
imposed damage that models the worst current state of damage of the existing in situ piles of
the Coronado Bay Bridge. Based on the data provided from the condition survey [2], the
imposed damage to test unit COR3 pile consisted of saw cutting two lines of longitudinal cuts
through the precast prestressed concrete shell and extending it above the termination of the
inner core reinforcement for a length of approximately 1,575 mm, as depicted in Fig. 2-16.
Along these lines, all of the spiral reinforcement was cut, and adjacent to these longitudinal
- 25-
cuts at the top and bottom, 25 .4 mm diameter holes were core drilled through the prestressing
strands. To model the low quality of concrete in the core region above the longitudinal
reinforcement, the inner core was cast with a low concrete strength of 16 MPa.
-26-
~-#:3 X 101Gmm
Alternate w/
121'mm
~-#3
2.7 - '1.5~mm
Dla. Fre!.tress.lng
Steel 5trand&
~5mm
27 - #7 X
2438mm
#~
#~
Cal> t In F!ac;e
Concrete Core
w~
1.5Gmm
5~w Cut
CTyp. 2.
'i>plral!.
2.5.4mm Diameter
llled Hole
ru 5trand
CTyp. 4 Plac;es.)
Te'i>t Unit
CO!<:~ Only
Loc~tlom;)
Te!>t Unit
COR~ Only
2.54mm o.c.
27 - '1.53mm
Diameter
Frel>tres.s.lng
5teel 5trmd&
or w~ !>plral!.
Pile Section A -A
Pile Section B-B
#4 x 1219mm
r1
~ ~ _Q
I
fL +'
E
Longitudinal 5aw Cut :fl .!f

Fir&t 5plral Turn ~ ::: ]
Pa&&lng Limit& of
e~ ..n
Longitudinal Relnf.
Tee.t Unit COR~
jB
2.7 - '1.53mm Dla.
Pre;tre!.slng 5teel 5tn:mds
Pf
1522.k:N CT otal
Force After Lo!>e.e&)
8Gmm Precz:~&t 5ectlon

Wall Thlck.ne.&::>
jA
Aj
20~mm ThicK
Precas-t 5offlt
2.8-#7 x
2.4~8mm
Pile Longitudinal Section
Note: All dimensions

- - are lm millimeters
Fig. 2-16 Test Unit CORJ and COR3 - Pile Reinforcement Layout
-27-
2.4.1
Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Pre-Test Analysis

Because of the changes in the pile longitudinal and transverse reinforcement layout,
it is expected that the pile flexural capacity will not be constant along the length of the pile,
as illustrated in Fig. 2-18(e). Thus, it was necessary to perform a detailed analysis of the
flexural capacity along the pile length to investigate regions where section flexural capacity
might be lower than demand, which would result in plastic hinge formation to occur at this
level and not at the pile cap interface.
Referring to Fig. 2-18, a few key issues had to be addressed to perform the flexural
capacity analysis along the length of the pile. First, the termination of the longitudinal
reinforcement, 1,489 mm away from the pile cap interface indicated in Fig. 2-lS(c), which
corresponds approximately to 32% of the pile overall length, causes drastic changes in the
moment capacity for which the moment demand gradient might intersect the moment capacity
curve. Secondly, at the pile cap interface, the prestressing strands do not provide moment
resistance capacity to the section, and the required development length of the prestressing
strands is crucial in determining the correct moment capacity profile, as illustrated in Fig.
2-IS(e).
Detailed analysis of the pile section revealed the development length of the
prestressing strands considerably influences the pile flexural capacity profile along the pile
height, in particular at the location where the inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates.
Thus, during construction of the precast prestressed concrete shell, data was recorded from
strain gage devices applied along the length of the prestressing strands to estimate transfer
length of the prestressing strands. In addition, 24 hours after casting of the concrete shell,
strain gages were applied on the exterior surface of the concrete shell to obtain data about the
strain change in the concrete due to the transfer of the prestressing steel forces into the
concrete. In Chapter 4, a detailed discussion of strain gage data recorded during precasting
of the concrete shells is presented.
Development length for the deformed longitudinal reinforcement was based on an
average bond strength of 0.66 f;,[MPa], which based on the expression:
l
d
dbfy
1:
J;l
2.64 y
(2.1)
results in a development length for a #7 of 415 mm. Where db is the pile inner core main bar
diameter, /y is the Grade40 yield strength and f c is the concrete strength of the inner core
-28-
tested at 28 days. The stresses in the longitudinal reinforcement were linearly interpolated in
this region from zero to its maximum value at the end of the development region.
Prestressing strand transfer length for these test units was obtained from a regression
analysis taking into account strains in the steel and in the concrete, as illustrated in Chapter
4. Based on transfer lengths obtained from the regression analysis, three different runs were
performed with transfer lengths that varied between 1,219 mm and 1, 727 mm, corresponding
approximately to 128db and 181db, which imply a bond strength of 2. 7 :MPa and 1.9 :MPa for
an effective prestressing stress of 1,370 :MPa. The ACI code equation [4] implies a bond
strength of 5.2 :MPa to obtain the effective prestress in the strand. The forces in the
prestressing strands in this region were then interpolated linearly from the free end of the
strand to the effective prestressing stress, fpe at the end of the transfer length, 11
In addition, in order to develop prestressing stresses, fps above /pe as required by
flexural analysis, a flexural bond length was added to the transfer length according to the
expression [4]:
(2.2)
where the second term estimates the development length required to develop fps above /pe
based on an average bond strength of 1.7 :MPa [5].
Unconfined
High-Strength
Concrete
~cp
Section
Assumed
Pre:;tressing
Strain
D1agram
Confined
High-Strength
Concrete
Confined
Normal-Strength
Concrete
Assumed
Strain
Diagram
(Ecp =0)
Assumed
Total
Strain
Diagram
Assumed
Total
Stress
Diagr1:lm
Fig. 2-17 Test Unit CORJ and COR3- Stress Block Design Parameters
-29-
Capacity
Demand
W3
!t
2.7 -
Termination
of Inner Gore
Longitudinal
5tnmd!>
Reinforcement
#3
Location& for
Po&&ible flexural
Failure
(a) Pile Longitudinal

Section
(b) Bending
Moment
Demand
(c) Inner Core

(d) Prestressing
Longi tudinaJ
Strand
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
(e) Bending
Moment
Capacity
Fig. 2-18 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Bending Moment Demand and
Capacity Profiles Along Pile Longitudinal Section
Referring to Fig. 2-18(e), six regions were defined according to the development
length of the inner core longitudinal reinforcement and prestressing strands. In region d),
along length, La, the effective prestressing strain,
E:cp
is assumed equal to zero, and the force
equilibrium equations were written by equating only the total compressive forces present in
the concrete and reinforcing steel to the total tensile forces present in the reinforcing steel and
applied axial load according to the expression :
Ec
E cn~ = E
Tn. + pp
(2.3)
where due to the applied curvature, r.p, depicted in Fig. 2-17, lie is the compression force
present in the concrete,
li~i is the compression force present in the reinforcing steel, Ersi
is the tension force present in the reinforcing steel and PP is the applied axial load on the pile
section. Length, La, corresponds to the tensile strain penetration, obtained from the
expressiOn:
(2.4)
where fs is the steel strain at the current curvature. In this region, the prestressing strands are
assumed to provide no moment capacity because when the cover concrete begins to spall,
bond strength is assumed negligible and slippage of the prestressing strands occurs along an
assumed length La.
In region @, along length ldp and up to length ld, the prestressing strands make an
increasingly higher contribution to the flexural capacity of the pile section, and the force
equilibrium equation may be written by equating the total compressive forces present in the
concrete and reinforcing steel to the total tensile forces
pr~sent
in the reinforcing and
prestressing steel. Thus:

(2.5)
where due to the applied curvature, r.p (see Fig. 2-17) lie is the compression force in the
'si is the compression forc~resent in the reinforcing steel,Ers is the tension

concrete,
force present in the reinforcing steel, aps Lrpsi is the resultant tension force in the prestressing
steel, and apsis a parameter described by a function which relates the position of the segment
given by equation (2.5) to the transfer length of the prestressing strands. Thus, apsis equal to
one in regions outside the prestressing transfer length and varies linearly along ldp according
to X lldp where X is the distance from the free end of the prestressing strand to the section
where the moment curvature is being analyzed, and ldp is the development length for the
prestressing steel.
li
- 31-
In region @, along length, ld, the force present in the reinforcing steel begins to
decrease according to the development length, ld, and the force equilibrium equations were
written by equating the total compressive forces present in the concrete and reinforcing steel
to the total tensile forces present in the reinforcing and prestressing steel. Thus:
(2.6)
where similar to aP' a. is a parameter described by a function which relates the position of the
segment given by equation (2.6) to the development length of the inner core reinforcing steel.
Thus, a. is equal to one in regions X is the distance from the free end of the reinforcing steel
to the section where the moment curvature is being analyzed, and ld is the development length
of the reinforcing steel.
Region @ corresponds to the remaining length ldp This region no longer carries
reinforcing steel, and the moment capacity is only developed in terms of forces present in the
concrete and prestreessing strands according to the expression:
L{""""Cc = aps L{"""" Tpn. + Pp
(2.7)
Region is very similar to region@, but the prestressing strands are fully developed
and the force equilibrium equation is described in terms of the expression:
(2.8)
Finally, region@ is identical to region@, but the prestressing force decreases in this
region rather than increasing as the height increases. Subregions were also defined along these
six regions to model different levels of confinement provided by the different types of
transverse reinforcement along the pile height, as indicated in Fig. 2-18(a) .
In all of these six regions, different concrete material properties were used to model
the concrete shell and the inner core. High-strength and normal-strength concrete material
properties used for the pile section pre-test analysis were obtained from three concrete
cylinder tests at 28 days for each batch. For test unit CORJ, the pile concrete shell
compression strength at 28 days was f'c=69 MPa, as indicated in Table 3-1, and the inner core
concrete compression strength at 28 days wasf'c=33 MPa, as indicated in Table 3-2.
For test unit COR3, the pile concrete shell compression strength at 28 days wasf'c=68
MPa, and the inner core concrete compression strength wasf'c=36 MPa, up to the level where
the inner core longitudinal terminates. A different concrete strength was used for the analysis
-32-
in the region above the termination of the inner core longitudinal reinforcement, as illustrated
in Fig. 3-29. The concrete compression strength in this region was f'c=18 NIPa, which is
considerably lower then the concrete compression strength in the lower region.
Per ASTM current standards [5], the prestressing strands yield strength was
determined at a total strain of one percent based on stress-strain curves obtained from three
sample tensile tests. At one percent of strain, the stress was
/py=1 ,830 MPa, which
corresponds to 90% of the maximum stress fpu=2,008 MPa, as illustrated in Table 3-3.
Steel material properties were obtained from three reinforcement tensile tests. The
inner core longitudinal reinforcement yield strength was .[y=283 MPa, and the transverse
reinforcement yield strength was .[y=448 MPa for the #3 bars and .[y=599 MPa for the wire W3
(see Table 3-3). All ofthe test units were built with reinforcing steel from the same batch and
the same steel properties were used in the analysis of the three test units.
A moment curvature analysis was then developed with curvatures obtained along the
height of the pile according to the equilibrium equations previously described. Fig. 2-20 and
Fig. 2-21 present results for different levels of axial load. The prestressing transfer length
used to develop the moment capacity curve for Runs A and D was 1 ,219 mm, for Runs B and
E the prestressing transfer length was 1,473 mm, and for Runs C and F the prestressing
transfer length was 1,727 mm. These transfer length values were obtained from a regression
analysis of strain measurements recorded from the prestressing strands during manufacturing
of the precast concrete shell, and this regression analysis is presented in Chapter 4.
An axial compression load of +2,793 kN was used in developing the capacity curves
for Runs A, Band C, and demand curves at peak response are presented in Fig. 2-20. In this
figure, Run A results indicate that regions of inelastic deformation are likely to develop at the
pile cap interface and potentially where the inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates.
However, at later stages of the testing procedure the moment capacity at the region where
the inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates is considerably lower than the moment
demand and inelastic deformations will most likely be concentrated in this region. Run B
moment capacity curve barely intersects the moment demand curve where the longitudinal
reinforcement terminates, which shows that if inelastic deformations develop in this location,
they are likely to be concentrated over a very small region, as illustrated in Fig. 2-20. Finally,
based on Run C results, the moment capacity is always higher than the moment demand at any
- 33-
~---~---------~
position along the height of the pile section and inelastic deformations will only occur at the
pile cap interface.
The capacity curves for Runs D, E and F, and demand curves at peak response are
presented in Fig. 2-21 and were developed with an axial tension load of -302 kN. Runs D,
E and F results indicate that in all cases a second region of inelastic deformation is likely to
occur where the longitudinal reinforcement terminates. Run D results indicate that a larger
region of inelastic deformation is likely to occur than for Runs E and F, where the
longitudinal terminates because the moment capacity curve intersects the moment demand
over a larger region. Smaller regions of inelastic deformation are likely to form for Runs E
and F. Analytical results indicate that flexural response of the pile section is directly
dependent on the transfer length. Employing different transfer length values results show that
the extent of potential inelastic deformation at the location where the longitudinal
reinforcement terminates is rather large for larger transfer lengths and for axial tension loads.
Test results presented in Chapter 5 through Chapter 7 indicate that extensive spalling of the
cover concrete was observed in the region near the termination of the inner core longitudinal
reinforcement and two regions of plastic deformations occurred, which corroborate pre-test
analysis results.
0
Amplification of the moment

demand along the pile length, due to
inclined cracks according to tension
shift
effects
[6],
were
also
considered in the analysis and are

presented in Fig. 2-20 as a dashed
line entitled Tension Shift Effect at
Peak Response. Fig. 2-19 indicates Tp s
that the longitudinal tension force at

level 1 is not proportional to the
moment demand at this level but is
proportional to a moment below
this level, as a result of the inclined
NA
Bending 1"1oment
Profile
cracks that form along the pile.

Increase in the longitudinal tension
force may be readily computed by
Fig. 2-19 Tension Shift Effect in a

Diagonally Cracked Reinforced Concrete Section
-34-
considering the internal forces that develop, as a result of the applied forces in conjunction
with the geometry of a diagonally crack section as illustrated in Fig. 2-19.
The moment demand at level 2 may be computed according to the following
expressions:
(2.9)
and
(2.10)
where L 1 is the position of the resultant internal tension forces, which include both the
reinforcing steel forces,
Ers, and the prestressing forces, Erps and Leis the position of
the resultant internal compression forces which includes both the compression forces that are
present in the concrete,
Lee, and in the reinforcing steel, LC 's
Position of the resultant
forces L1 and Le were computed based on the moment curvature analysis using the equilibrium
equations previously described. The internal forces
Ers and Erps represent the exact
internal forces present in the reinforcement that is :

(2.11)
where L1T is the increase in the longitudinal tension forces due to tension shift effects, and
ETs and ETps are internal forces determined solely based on a moment curvature analysis.
Moment curvature analysis at Ievell gives:
(2.12)
Based on the expressions (2.9), (2.10) and (2.12), increase in the moment demand at
levell may then be computed according to the expression:
A M 1 = (VP
VJ2 )Z12
(2.13)
where Vs is the tension force generated in the stirrups given by equation (2.16), and 2 12 is the
vertical distance between levels 1 and 2, determined based on the inclination of the diagonal
crack e given by Z 12 = (D-NA) cot B.
Thus, amplification of the moment demand along the pile length due to inclined cracks
tends to magnify the possibility for plastic deformations to develop where the longitudinal
reinforcement terminates.
-35-
4572
4064
3556
3048
Tenninationof Inner
Core Longitudinal
Reinforcement
1524
Moment Capacity Run B ( 11 = 1473mm)
Moment Capacity-Run C ( 11 1727mm)
1016
Moment Demand at Pe11k Response
508
Tension Shift Effect at Peak Response
___..__
Reduced Bending Moment- Plastic Hinge Relocation
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Moment (kN - m)
Fig. 2-20 Moment Profiles- Axial Compression Load P = +2793kN
4572
~ Moment Capacity-Run D ( 11= 1219mm)
-8-
4064
-f:r-
=
=
Moment Capodty. RunE ( 11 1473mm)

Moment Capocity Run F ( 11 1727mm)
Moment Demand at Peak Response
3556
Tension ShifLEffcct at Peak Response
___..__
Reduced Bending Momenl- PbsLic Hinge Relocation
3048
2540
0::::
2032
i:;;
ll.)
!";:1
Q..
1524
Tennination of Inner
Core L<mgirudinal
Reinforcement
.1016
508
0
0
500
I 000
I 500
2000
2500
' Moment (kN - m)
Fig. 2-21 Moment Profiles- Axial Tension Load P = -302kN

-36-
Lateral deflections due to flexural effects were then computed with the second
moment area theorem according to the expression:
(2.14)
in which tpi and
fPi-I
are the curvatures in the
pile section within the segment L(,, and X is

the distance from the center of the
respective segment to the center of the
applied lateral load, as indicated in Fig.
2-22. Up to peak lateral load, the vertical

curvature profiles were obtained based on
the moment curvature analysis and are
presented in Fig. 2- 22(a), corresponding
to peak lateral load. However, when the
(a) Peak Load (b) Ultimate
Curvature
Curvature
lateral load decreases as curvature
Profile
Profile
increases, theoretical plastic hinge length
Fig. 2-22 Curvature Distribution
must be introduced in order to compute
ftxed base deflections with curvature profiles, depicted in Fig. 2- 22(b).
Test unit CORJ pre-test analysis lateral load versus lateral deflection response is
presented in Fig. 2-23. The loading curve described in terms of axial load versus lateral load
used to construct the pre-test analysis is presented in Chapter 3.
Test unit COR3 pre-test analysis was similar to test unit CORJ, but a few
modifications to the analytical models were performed after testing of test units CORJ and
COR2. Tensile strain penetrationand a different concrete model were used to develop the
pre-test analysis for test unit COR3. Discussion of these modifications in the analysis are
presented in Chapter 8. Lateral load versus lateral deflection response is presented in Fig.
2-24 for test unit COR3. The loading curve described in terms of axial load versus lateral
load used to construct the pre-test analysis was identical to test unit CORJ and is presented
in Chapter 3.
-37-
The shear strength of test units CORI and COR3 was computed according to the
predictive shear strength model developed at UCSD by Priestley et al. [7], which consists of
three components described as follows :
( 1) Concrete component :
{.f:
Vc = 0.8 Ag K
(2.15)
where K depends on the curvature ductility, p."', as presented in reference [8].

(2) Steel truss component for circular columns:
NA)
cot 0
(2.16)
where NA is the section neutral axis, D 1 is the confined core diameter, Asp is the cross
sectional area of the spiral transverse reinforcement, and 8 is the crack angle taken as 30
degrees.
(3) Axial load component :
vp
P a:rial
D/2 -NA/2
------
(2.17)
Hpile
The shear strength of the test units was computed according to the expression [7]:
vc
vs
vp
(2.18)
Fig. 2-25 indicates that according to UCSD predictive shear strength model, shear
capacity of the section exceeds approximately 100% the shear demand at ultimate response
in both loading directions. In addition, test unit CORI displays a well defined ductile flexural
response without indication of a shear failure.
Test unit COR3 transverse reinforcement above the inner core longitudinal
reinforcement was cut according to Fig. 2-16 and, in computing the shear strength for this
test unit, the steel truss component was not used. Thus, according to Fig. 2-26, shear failure
of test unit COR3 may be expected by extensive opening of the imposed longitudinal cracks,
as indicated in Fig. 2-16, at a displacement of approximately+76.20 mm in the compression
loading branch and -101.60 mm in the tension loading branch, while no shear failure was
expected in test unit CORI.
- 38-
Based on an average bond stress of approximately 1.17

reinforcement overstrength of
f/
J/? [MPa], and with a
= 1.4 !y, a required anchorage length for the longitudinal
pile section of approximately 324 mm was calculated from the following expression [8]:
ld = 0.3 db !Y
(mm) [MPa]
{i!
(2.19)
Referring to Fig. 2-16, the development length of the pile longitudinal reinforcement
is 813 mm and thus, no bond failure of the pile inner core longitudinal reinforcement was
expected.
Diagonal cracking in the joint region can be- expected when the principal tensile
J/? [MPa], and failure of the joint region is likely to occur when the
principal tensile stresses exceed 0.42 J/? [MPa], [8]. A simple Mohr's circle analysis for
stresses exceed 0.29
stress shows principal tensile stresses are given by:
p,
(' ;') -
(\')'
+v}.
(2.20)
where .t; is the principal tension stress, .fxis the axial stress on the joint in the x-direction, J;, is
the axial stress on the joint in the y-direction and
v_;..
is the joint shear stress. Joint axial
stresses and joint shear stress are calculated according to the following relations:
(1) Joint Axial Stress:
ph
fx - -b-l
fy
( D + 0.5 H cap ) b.1e
je a
(2.21)
(2) Vertical Joint Shear Stress :

(2.22)
where Ph is the axial force in the horizontal direction, bie is the effective joint width assuming
a 45 spread in all directions [8], [dis the depth of the longitudinal reinforcement, Dis the pile
section width and Heap is the pile cap section depth. V_;.. is the vertical joint shear force
computed according to the following expression [9]:
l-Jv =
Mu
O.
0.4 D Pc
D
7
(2.23)
where M u is the pile section ultimate moment capacity and PP is the pile section axial force.
-39-
Vjv may be computed at load levels below ultimate response using the resultant tension force
extracted from the moment curvature analysis. Based on these expressions, maximum
principal
tensile
stress
0.16JI: <0.29JI: [MPa]and,
the
compression
in
the
loading
tensile
branch
loading
was
branch
0.27 J I: < 0.29 J I: [MPa], which are below cracking levels. Principal tensile stresses
presented in Fig. 2-27 indicate that cracking in the joint region wi11 not occur at any stage
of the loading procedure.
-40-
500
j
Test Unit Corl -Pre-Test Analysis
400
300
List of Events :
200
V'y=+302kN(Compression) -173kN(Tension)
Vy =+403kN(Compression) -204kN(Tension)
100
0~----------------------------------~------~--------~----~
-100
-200
-300
-152.40 -127.00 -101.60
-76.20
-50.80
-25.40
0.00
25.40
50.80
76.20
101.60
Lateral Deflection (mm)
Fig. 2-23 Test Unit CORJ- Pre-Test Analysis
500
Test Unit Cor3 -Pre-Test Analysis

Vy
400
v y
300
List of Events :
200
Yy =+427kN(Compression) -187kN(Tension)
'-"
~
0
..J
100
(d
~
..J

0
-100
--
-200
-300~
J
-177.80-152.40-127.00-101.60 -76.20 -50.80 -25.40
0.00
25.40
50.80
Lateral Deflection (IIliil)
Fig. 2-24 Test Unit COR3 - Pre-Test Analysis

-41-
76.20
101.60 127.00
1200
900
---+--
Concrete Component
-~
Steel Component
-0---
Axial Component
-+-
600
300
Test Unit COR! -Pre Test Analysis
----- ....' '
Shear Capacity
''
-A---Compression Design Loads
0
-300 ~I
Tension Design Loads

~---
'
---e-e--------'""\-...---'
-600
UCSD Shear Model
J'
\.
\.
"-----+--900
-1200 -l-.-,---,--,-.-,..-,---,--,-.,..--,----,___;::_:;:::;:::;::~:;::::;:::..j_-,--,--,--,----,-,-,.--,---,--,--,.--,-----r~
-127.00
-101.60
-76.20
-50.80
-25.40
25.40
0.00
50.80
76.20
Fig. 2-25 Test Unit CORJ - Predicted Shear Capacity and Flexural Response
. .j
1200 -=1
900
600
UCSD Shear Model
-e-+- +-
- 0---
Test Unit COR3 Pre Test Analysis

Shear Capacity
Concrete Component
Axial Component
'
300
]
~
....J
k-----~--o(>
<Y
--
Compression
Design Loads
Tension Design Loads
-300
-600
-900
-1200
-177.8 -152.4 -127.0 -101.6 -76.2
-50.8
-25.4
0.0
25.4
50.8
76.2
101.6 127.0
Lateral Deflection (mrn)
Fig. 2-26 Test Unit COR3 -Predicted Shear Capacity and Flexural Response
-42-
- Joint Region Principal

Tensile Stresses
Pre-Test Analysis
,-.
450
0.29~
300
vy
----~------~----
Vy
/
I
--7-
-------l---
0.42 {f7"c
150
'Cd
~
'id
~
------+--
z
6
-g
I
I
I
I
I
I
Compression
I
Loading Branch
./
0~---------+-----------------------+--------------~~-----r--------~
1
Tension
Loading Branch
I
-150
./
,.,.;' /
-1-------/---I
- - ,~l/--
-300
I
I
./
-0.29~~
Vy
Vy
-0.42 -{f"c ----.1----
-0.42
-0.35
-0.28
-o.21
-0.14
-0.07
o.oo
om
0.14
Joint Region Principal Tensile Stresses (
Pr
0.21
0.28
0.35
fc)
Fig. 2-27 Test Units CORI and COR3- Joint Region Principal Tensile Stresses Pre-Test Analysis
0.42
2.4.2 Test Units CORl and COR3 - Effective Cantilever Length

Preliminary analysis indicated that in the prototype structure, damage is most likely
to occur in regions adjacent to the pile cap and/or at the termination of the longitudinal
reinforcement for a single pile. Thus, the design team opted to test the piles in single bending
to model the region of the pile connection to the pile cap, as in the as-built structure
neglecting other regions of maximum moment demand below the mud line elevation. The
cantilever length of the test specimen was designed to produce shear force demands similar
to the prototype pile in the connection region, neglecting reduction of shear forces below the
mud line elevation as a result of pressures that develop in the surrounding soil due to lateral
deformations of the pile.
Selection of the cantilever
Pp =+G7G1kN
length of the pile specimen was

obtained from a detailed 2-D finite
element analysis of a single prototype
pile embedded in a soil stratum. The
finite element model includes the
E
E
Linear Elastic
Soil Spring Ks
0)
(J
0)
effects of soil-structure interaction, as
Mud Line
Elevation
shown in the model presented in Fig.
2-28. The finite element package

used to carry out the soil-structure
interaction analysis was a finite
element developed at UCSD by
==:J~z. = 305mm
Seible et al. [10] entitled CALSD.

Design of test units CORJ
and COR3 was established to study
the response of a pile section with
predominant flexural characteristics.
As a result, the axial load used in the
D Diameter
of Pile
analysis of a single pile had to reflect

a section with the highest possible
cantilever length. For test units CORJ
and COR3, the finite element model
depicted in Fig. 2-28 was analyzed
{a) FEM Model
(b) Soil Spring Stiffness
Fig. 2-28 Test Unit CORJ and COR3

Soil-Structure Interaction FEM
-44-
with an axial compression load of +6761 leN. This axial load level corresponds to the
maximum compressive axial load presented in reference [3], and it was used in the analysis
of a single pile because it represents the load case which lead to the highest cantilever length
than compared with lower levels of axial load.
Multiple runs were performed to obtain an average cantilever length for a pile
embedded in different soil stiffness that approximately match the properties of in situ
geotechnical test results [11]. The coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction modulus used
in the analysis varied between 785 kN/m3 and 3200 kN/m3 These numbers reflect estimated
soil properties presented in reference [11]. The idealized cantilever length of the test units was
found from the top of the pile to the frrst point of contra-flexure obtained from the finite
element analysis.
In the finite element model, the soil was modeled as an array of uncoupled linear
elastic springs, according to the Winkler soil idealization [12], and positioned along the length
of the pile, as shown in Fig. 2-28. Springs were only positioned beyond the first 6,096 mm
of the pile length, which corresponds to the measured mud line elevation from data obtained
in 1995 [13]. Calculations of the linear elastic springs were performed according to the
expression:
(2.24)
where K 5 is the equivalent spring stiffness, kh is the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction
modulus and L1z is the spacing between springs at the depth of the soil stratum z. Assuming
the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction modulus can be normalized in terms of a
nominal pile diameter of 1,829 mm, as presented in [12] and [14], then kh may be expressed
in terms of the nominal pile diameter, D*, and the pile section diameter, D, thus:
kh
kh ( __!!_)
(2.25)
where kh is the nominal coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction.

To provide a closer spacing for the soil springs in the regions of maximum bending
moment, the distance between the soil springs varied along the length of the pile according
to a quadratic progression from 305 mm (D/4.5) at the mud line elevation to 610 mm
(D/2.25) at the pile lower end. The piles were modeled with beam elements positioned
between the soil springs nodes, and the pile head was assumed constrained against rotation,
as illustrated in Fig. 2-28.
-45-
To calculate the stiffness of each beam element, a linear iterating analysis was
performed where at each iteration, element stiffness were updated based on the tangent
stiffness approach, according to the relation; Eie.u=Mj({J, obtained from moment curvature
analysis. For this test unit, a moment curvature program using Mander's model for confined
concrete [15] was developed to study the correct behavior of each pile and implemented in
the previously described finite eleme:p.t model. When analyzing test units CORJ and COR3,
it was necessary to allow for the changes in the longitudinal reinforcement according to the
six regions previously described and presented in Fig. 2-18. The axial load used to compute
the element stiffness properties corresponds to the maximum compression design load +6761
kN presented in Table 2-1.
In the first iteration all of the elements stiffness were based on the uncracked section
properties, and the initial imposed lateral load was calculated such that the section was below
the cracking limit state. Then, the element properties were updated based on the previous
iteration and the applied lateral load was slightly increased. At each iteration, while
maintaining the imposed lateral load constant, intermediate steps were performed and
equilibrium was achieved when the element properties remained constant along the length of
the pile. This procedure was carried out until the maximum bending moment was achieved.
The effective cantilever length of test units CORJ and COR3 was 7,010 mm,
computed from the average of the obtained results. Employing the 2/3 scale factor, the scaled
effective cantilever length for test units CORJ and COR3 was 4,673 mm. Fig. 2-29 presents
the moment profile along the pile length and the selected pile height for test units CORJ and
COR3.
-46-
-3048
__.._
13
-6096
c..
o::l
u
2
-Average Effective
Cantilever Length
-9144
i:i::
~
13
~
.....
.r::
bJl
'ii)
-12192
-15240 ,_j
-j
::I:
Subgrade Modulus
-18288
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
. 2.00
......
785kN/m 3
--9-
3200kN/m'
4.00
6.00
Moment (kN-m x 1000)

(a) Bending Moment Profile - Test Units CORl and COR3
-3048
-6096
-9144
l:i:
~
..9u -12192
~
.....
.r::
-~ -15240
::I:
Subgrade Modulus
-18288
-100
-50
50
......
785kNim
-B-
32001:N/m 3
100
150
200
Displacement (mm)
(b) Deflected Pile Shape- Test Units CORland COR3
Fig. 2-29 Test Units CORJ and COR3 Pile Bending Moment Profile and
Lateral Deflection for a Fixed Head Single Pile
-47-
2.5
Test Unit COR2- Pile Design and Capacity

Similar to test units CORJ and COR3, test unit COR2 pile geometry and
reinforcement layout were scaled from the prototype structure based on a 2/3 scaling factor
and were designed in order to obtain similar reinforcement ratios as computed for the
prototype piles indicated in Table 2-1. The scaled model test specimen is presented in Fig.
2-30.
As in test units CORJ and COR3, scaling of the prototype pile resulted in a shell86
mm thick. Prestressing of the concrete shell consists of 27 seven-wire strands of low

relaxation type. The strands are 9.53 mm in diameter and were placed around the
circumference of the concrete shell with a concrete cover of 35 mm, resulting in a
reinforcement ratio of0.23%. The total required prestressing force after losses was 1522 kN,
which is the same for test units CORJ and COR3. The prestressing strands were anchored
with wedge-chuck VSL SSN at the end opposite to the pile head for clamping to the concrete
shell in order to reduce prestressing losses from this pile end. Chapter 3 presents the
construction sequence for this pile section.
The transverse reinforcement was also changed along the length of the pile. However,
because test unit COR2 was designed based on a shallower mud line elevation, the effective
cantilever length for this test unit led to a height in which only two zones of transverse
reinforcement were considered. Referring to Fig. 2-30, closest to the pile cap up to a length
of948 mm, the transverse reinforcement consists of deformed #3 bars on a spiral pitch of 84
mm, resulting in a horizontal volumetric reinforcement ratio of approximately 0.40%. In the

remaining length of the pile, the transverse reinforcement ratio consists of W3 wires on a
spiral pitch of 57 mm, resulting in a horizontal volumetric reinforcement ratio of 0.16%.
The inner cage starter bars to the pile cap consists of 28 - #7 arranged in an inner
circle with a diameter of 628 mm. The length of these bars is 2,438 mm with an anchorage
length into the pile cap of 813 mm. This inner cage was tied together with hoop reinforcement
#3 at 254 mm on centers.
48-
3-#3 x 101Gmm
Alternate w/ 3-#3
1219mm
Cae.t In Place
Concrete Core
W3 spirBi&
27 - 9.53mm
Dia. Prestressing
Steel Strand&
27 - #7
2438mm
#3
0 "'
27 - 9.5.3mm
254mm o.c.
Dlrer,tlon
01-~:~meter
Prestressing
Steel 5trflnds
Com~ression
#3 or W3 spiral&
Loaaing
Branr,h
Pile Section A -A
Pile Section B-B
'U4mm O.D.
Cl - #4 x 121Clmm
10 .c
::r;
Ji'
Oe
27 - 9.53mm Diemeter
Pre&tre&slng Steel Strands
Pf = 15221;1'1
CTotal force After
8Gmm Precflst
Wall Thick.ness
....
1.)
0:
1.)
!I)
U)
E
.....:~ I'-
....Ill
0 "'
.....
\1::1
lfl lfl
Cflst In Place
Concrete Core
&A
<=
0
:j3
1.)
!I)
D....
10
A&
Precl'lst
.c
1.)
D....
E
E
dJ
-t
vr;r
E
E
lfl
10
N
N
1
E
E
. E
E
dJ
10
N
28-#7 x 2438mm
CI..M
lt!
#3Qo.254mm o.c.
10
I{)
~evatlon _9.00
i-1
L..J
E
!"-
0
,....;
Note All dimensions

- - t~re lm millimeters
Fig. 2-30 Test Unit COR2- Pile Reinforcement Layout

-49-
--JdJ
,....N
o:qw
. Pile Longitudinal Section
1..9
2.5.1
Test Unit COR2 - Pre-Test Analysis

Similar to test units CORJ and COR3, a detailed analysis of the pile capacity along
the pile length was performed in order to investigate regions where flexural capacity might
be lower than the moment demand, which could result in a secondary plastic hinge forming
at this level.
In test unit COR2, the inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates at 1,489 mm
away from the pile cap interface, as indicated in Fig. 2-30, which corresponds approximately
to 67% of the pile overall length. As before, at the pile cap interface the prestressing strands
do not provide moment resistance capacity to the section, and the required development
length of the prestressing strands is crucial in determining the correct moment capacity
profile, as illustrated in Fig. 2-18(e), and presented earlier while describing test units CORJ
and COR3 pre-test analysis. The same equilibrium equations used to develop the analysis for
'
test units CORJ and COR3 were also used in developing the analysis for test unit COR2.
High-strength and normal-strength concrete material properties used for the pile
section pre-test analysis were obtained from three concrete cylinder tests at 28 days for each
batch. For test unit COR2, the pile concrete shell compression strength at 28 days wasf'c=58
MPa, as indicated in Table 3-1, and the inner core concrete compression strength at 28 days
wasf~=32
MPa, as indicated in Table 3-2.
As before, a moment curvature analysis was performed for different levels of axial
load and transfer length for the prestressing strands, and a study was conducted to determine
regions where inelastic deformation are most likely to originate along the length of the pile.
In Fig. 2-31 and Fig. 2-32, the moment capacity curve obtained for Runs G and J was
developed based on a transfer length of 1,219 mm, in Runs Hand K the transfer length was
I ,473 mm, and for Runs I and L the transfer length was 1,727 mm, which are identical values
to those used in the analysis of test units CORJ and COR3.
Analytical results presented in Fig. 2-31 were developed with an axial compression
load of+ 2793 leN and indicate that for Runs G, Hand I, inelastic deformations will only form
at the pile cap interface, and amplification of the moment demand due to tension shift effects
is also below the presented moment capacity analysis.
-50-
Results based on an axial load tension of -302 kN are presented in Fig. 2-32. Run J
results presented in this figure indicate that a second region of inelastic deformations is likely
to occur where the longitudinal reinforcement terminates. Run K moment capacity curve
indicate that only minor inelastic deformations are likely to develop in this region as a result
of tension shift effects [8]. Finally, Run L results indicate that plastic deformations will only
occur at the pile cap interface. Thus, similar to test units CORI and COR3, results employing
different values for transfer length of the prestressing strands and different levels of applied
axial load indicate that location of potential inelastic activity are likely to form where the
longitudinal reinforcement terminates.
-51-
4572
4064
3556
3048
:c
2540
-~
.,
::Il
.,
re
2032
1524
Moment Capw:ity- RunG ( 1,; 1219mm)
=1473mm)
=l727mm)
Moment Copucily- Run H ( Lt
1016
Moment Capacity- Run I ( L1
Moment Demand at Peak Response
508
Tension Shift Eff~t nt Peak Response

Reducetl Bending Moment~ Pl11stic Hinge Reloco.tion
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Moment (kN - m)
Fig. 2-31 Moment Profiles- Axial Compression Load P =+2793 kN

II
4572
4064
Moment Capacity -Run I ( lt; 1219mm )
-8-
Moment Capacity- Run K ( L,; 1473mm)
---f:r--
Moment Cnpacity- Run L ( L1 ; 1727mm)

Moment Demand at:Pe.uk Rellpoh.se
T~:nsioo
3556
Shift Effect at Peak Rc.spcmse
3048
:;.,
;I:
2.
2540
2032
p:;
1524
1016
508
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Moment (kN - m)
Fig. 2-32 Moment Profile - Axial Tension Load P = -302 kN
52-
II
The lateral deflections due to flexural effects for test unit COR2 were computed
according to the second moment area theorem given by equation (2.14) and curvature
profiles, described in Fig. 2-22. However, for test unit COR2, shear deformations were also
considered because of the small aspect ratio according to the expression:
shear -
Hpae (
!;
0.9 Ag 0.4 Ec
(2.26)
In equation (2.26) Ec may now be replaced by the relation VPHpue 1(/x rp) to evaluate
the shear deformations according to the following expression:
shear
LH~ (
X=O
AX.,.,
ta. I X
0.9 Ag 0.4 Hpile
(2.27)
Test unit COR2 pre-test analysis total lateral deflection consists of flexural and shear
components of deformations, as presented in Fig. 2-33. The loading curve described in terms
of axial load versus lateral load used to construct the pre-test analysis is presented in Chapter
3. At ultimate response in the compression and tension loading branch, the shear deformation
component is approximately 16% of the total lateral deflection.
Shear strength analysis of test unit COR2 was developed similar to the analysis
presented for test units CORJ and COR3. Referring to Fig. 2-34, predictive shear analysis
may be conducted by comparing the lateral load versus lateral deformation envelope with the
shear strength envelope obtained from the UCSD three component model previously
described. In Fig. 2-34, the UCSD three component shear strength envelopes, shear capacity
and demand are presented. A rapid study of this plot suggests that in the compression loading
branch, the shear capacity of the pile section is considerably higher than the shear demand.
However, in the tension loading branch, analysis suggests that the section may be susceptible
to a ductile flexural-shear failure at a lateral displacement of -25.40 mm, because the shear
capacity curve approaches and parallels the shear demand curve indicated by test unit COR2
pre-test analysis curve.
Test unit COR2 maximum principal tensile stress in the compression loading branch
and in the tension loading branch are identical to those computed for test units CORJ and
COR3, which were 0.16
.Ji! < 0.29 .Ji! [MPa]
and 0.27
.Ji! < 0.29 .Ji! [MPa],
respectively, and are below cracking levels. Principal tensile stresses presented in Fig. 2-27
indicate that cracking in the joint region will not occur at any stage in the loading procedure.
-53-
1000
Test Unit COR2 - Pre-test Analysis

Total Lateral Deflection
Test Unit COR2- Pre-test Analysis
Flexural DefonnationComponent
800
Test Unit COR2- Pre-test Analysis

Shear Deformation Component
600
400
200
List of Events :
Yy =+890kN(Compression) -498kN(Tension)
o,r------------------------------.r--------~------~--~
-200
Vy
-400
~=':=~~""'""~"""'*~"""~~ V'y
-600
-38.10
-25.40
-12.70
0.00
12.70
25.40

(
Fig. 2-33 Test Unit COR2- Pre-Test Analysis

2000
1500
--.----
UCSD Shear Model

Test Unit COR2 Pre-Test Analysis
Shear Capacity
--(>--- Concrete Component
1000
--6..--
Steel Component
-B--
Axial Component
......
-:;:._
, _
..........
-...
_..e----a-.::.:::::.....,..
500
13- _
......
-t:J- _ _ _ _ _
.,..g:::-~---
..... - - - -
.a-__
04---~~~~~~------~~~~~~~--------~--------~--~

+-
-----o-......_
""""6--~,--~--
-38.10
-25.40
-12.70
0.00
12.70
25.40
Fig. 2-34 Test Unit COR2 Predicted Shear Capacity and Flexural Response
-54-
2.5.2
Test Unit COR2 - Effective Cantilever Length

As in test units CORJ and COR3, in test unit COR2 the cantilever length of the pile
was obtained according to the cantilever idealization of a single pile to produce shear force
demands similar to the prototype pile at the connection region, neglecting reduction of shear
forces down the pile as a result of soil confinement.
Selection of the cantilever length of the pile specimen was obtained from a detailed
2-D finite element analysis of a single prototype pile embedded in a soil stratum, depicting the
effects of soil-structure interaction with a shallow mud line elevation of 1,676 mm, as shown
in Fig. 2-35. As in test units CORJ and
COR3, the finite element model was
FP
-4-1_......,_
analyzed with an axial compression load ~
Linear Elastic
Soil Spring Ks
l.9
of +6,761 kN [3], with multiple runs
=+G;7G:.lkN
t9
Mud Line
[levation
rl
depicting different soil properties. The
=~=::::J6z.==305mm
idealized cantilever length of this test unit

was computed from the top of the pile to
the frrst point of contra-flexure obtained
from
the
Development
finite
of
element
the
analysis.
soil-structure
interaction analysis was identical to test

Ks
unit CORJ and COR3 analysis.

Similar to test unit CORJ and
COR3, the finite element model was
analyzed for each pile with different

coefficients
of horizontal
D Diameter
of Pile
subgrade
reaction, which varied between 785

3
"z=GlOmm
Ks = kh 6-z..
kN/m and 3,200 kN/m [11]. The

effective cantilever length of test unit (a)
FEM Model
(b) Soil Spring Stiffness
Fig. 2-35 Test Unit COR2
COR2 was 3,353 mm, computed from
Soil-Structure Interaction FEM
the average of the obtained results.
Employing the 2/3 scale factor, the scaled effective cantilever length for test unit COR2 was
2,235 mm. Fig. 2-36 presents the moment proftle along the pile length and the selected pile
height for test unit COR2.
-55-
Mud Line Elevation

-3048
- Average Effective
Cantilever Length
-6096
l:l:
~
-9144
~
~
~
....
-12192
Subgrade Modulus
3
-15240
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
9412kN/m
-B-
32000 kN/m 3
4.00
6.00
Moment (kN-m x 1000)
(a) Bending Moment Profile- Test Unit 2
-3048
~ -6096
l:l:
-9144
Q)
~
~
'Q) -12192
::I:
Subgrade Modulus
-15240
-20
-10
10
9412kN/m
-B-
32000 kN/m 3
20
30
40
50
Displacement (mm)
(b) Deflected Pile Shape - Test Unit 2
Fig. 2-36 Test Unit COR2- Pile Bending Moment Profile and
Lateral Deflection for a Fixed Head Single Pile
-56-
3.
Construction, Instrumentation and Testing Procedure

In this chapter, a detailed description of the construction, instrumentation, and
reinforcement material properties of the different bar sizes used for the construction of the
test specimens, as well as concrete material properties and testing procedure for the three test
specimens are presented.
3.1
Construction of the Test Specimens

Construction of the test specimens was conducted in phases to produce a similar
construction sequence as that during the construction of the prototype structure. As

previously indicated, the test specimens were constructed in an inverted position for ease of
installation and loading. As a result, the construction sequence was adjusted as necessary in
order to facilitate construction without considerably affecting the response of the test units
under the simulated seismic loading. In this section, a brief description of the construction
sequence are presented for the three test units.
3.1.1 Construction of Test Units CORl and COR3

The first step in the construction phase consisted of manufacturing the precast
concrete shells in the construction facilities of Utililty Vault in Fontana, California.
Manufacturing of the precast concrete shells involved two stages. First, the fabrication of the
spiral cages and instrumentation of the prestressing strands with electric resistance strain
gages was conducted in the laboratory facilities of UCSD. Detailed description of the
instrumentation setup is presented in this chapter.
The next stage was conducted at Utility Vault and involved assembling the self
reacting casting bed, followed by stressing the strands and casting of the concrete shells. The
precast prestressed concrete shells were cast in a self reacting casting bed with the different
assembly components illustrated in Fig. 3-1. Because the casting bed was self reacting,the
casting bed components were assembled before stressing and disassembled for removal of
the concrete shells. First, the spiral cages were positioned in the bottom form without the top
form in place. Next, he top form was placed over the bottom form and the strong-end
bulkheads were aligned with the continuous reaction rods. The prestressing strands were then
passed through the strong-end bulkheads, and wedges were placed on the outside face of the
bulkheads.
-57-
Contlnuou!;
Reaction
Rod!:>
4G7.3mm Preca!:>t Concrete Pile 5ectlon
Removable
Top Form
5trong-fnd
Bulkheads
Mec;;htmlcal Collap!:>ing
Inner Core
Top of Bottom form

Laboratory Concrete Floor
Top Form
Lifting Poinb
Bottom Form
Front View
Side View
Fig. 3-1 Self-Reacting Casting Bed Components

After aU of the strands were in place, the strands were initially stressed to 14% of the
total jacking force to remove slack in the strands. The spirals were realigned to the desired
pitch and the strands were then stressed to the final jacking force. In both of these stressing
stages, the electric cables from the strain gages were connected to a rapid data acquisition
system to record strain gage readings during the precasting phase. Strain gage readings
obtained during precasting of the concrete shells are presented in Chapter 4.
Next, the concrete shell inner diameter was obtained by inserting a mechanical
collapsing inner core tube through the inside of the casting bed, as illustrated in Fig. 3-2 and
Fig. 3-3, before casting. Fig. 3-4 shows turnbuckles positioned along the inside of the inner
core tube for expansion or contraction of the inner core tube. The top form was constructed
with an aperture over the top for casting of the concrete shells, as i1Justrated in Fig. 3-5. After
the inner core tube was placed, casting of the concrete shells was accomplished as depicted
in Fig. 3-6. The fully assembled casting bed is shown in Fig. 3-7
After casting, the prestressing bed was covered by a plastic sheet and curing was
obtained at 70F by steam tubes placed inside the inner core form. Concrete cylinders of 76
mm and 152 mm in diameter were obtained for each unit to obtain concrete compressive
strength at different time intervals, and they were placed inside the inner core during curing.
Strain gages were then insta1Jed 24 hours after casting on the concrete shell top surface
through the aperture in the top form to monitor transfer of forces after the strands are cut in
order to predict the transfer length of the prestressing strands.
-58-
In all units, prestressing transfer was performed by flame cutting the strands when the
concrete compressive strength was approximately28lVIPa, which was determined by concrete
compression tests of 76 mm in diameter cylinders performed at Utility Vault, and 152 mm
cylinders tested at UCSD.
Completion of the test units was then carried out at UCSD in three phases. In the first
phase, the pile cap reinforcement cage was assembled followed by placement of the concrete
shell through the inner core longitudinal reinforcement, and casting of the pile cap was
accomplished. Fig. 3-8 through Fig. 3-13 illustrate steps described in the frrst construction
phase.
During the second phase, the soffit slab reinforcement cage was assembled and casting
of the soffit slab and pile, up to the termination of the inner longitudinal reinforcement, was
accomplished. Fig. 3-14 and Fig. 3-15 show soffit slab reinforcement cage with block outs
for tie downs to pile cap before casting. Finally, the load stub reinforcement cage was
assembled, and casting of the remainder of the inner core of the pile and load stub was
accomplished.
In addition, for test unit COR3 two lines of cracks were imposed on the sides of the
concrete shell, as previously discussed and illustrated in Fig. 3-16 and Fig. 3-17. Completed
test units CORJ and COR3 are presented in Fig. 3-18 and Fig. 3-19, respectively.
-59-
Fig. 3-2 Installing Inner Core Form Before Casting of Concrete Shell
Fig. 3-3 Installing Inner Core Form Before Casting of Concrete Shell
-60-
Fig. 3-4 Inner Core Tube Mechanism
Fig. 3-5 Top Form Aperture
- 61-
Fig. 3-6 Casting of the Concrete Shell at Utility Vault
Fig. 3-7 Fully Assembled Self Reacting Casting Bed
-62-
Fig. 3-8 Pile Cap Reinforcement Cage
Fig. 3-9 Pile Cap Reinforcement Cage Before Installing Precast Concrete Shell
-63-
Fig. 3-10 Installing Concrete Shell Thru Inner Core Reinforcement Cage
Fig. 3-11 Installing Concrete Shell Thru Inner Core Reinforcement Cage
-64-
Fig. 3-12 Concrete Shell in Place Before Casting of Pile Cap
Fig. 3-13 Casting of Pile Cap
-65-
Fig. 3-14 Soffit Slab Reinforcement Cage Before Casting
Fig. 3-15 Soffit Slab Reinforcement Cage Before Casting
-66-
Fig. 3-17 Test Unit COR3 Longitudinal Saw Cut Lines
Fig. 3-16 Test Unit COR3 Longitudinal Saw Cut Lines
Fig. 3-18 Test Setup Unit CORJ
-68-
Fig. 3-19 Test Setup Unit COR3
-69-
3.1.2
Construction of Test Unit COR2

A few extra steps were attained while manufacturing test unit COR2 concrete shell
because of its shorter length. Test unit COR2 concrete shell was manufactured in the same
casting bed as test units CORJ and COR3 concrete shell. As illustrated in Fig. 3-20, the spiral
cage reinforcement was positioned only on one side of the casting bed with the desired length
of the concrete shell, and the remaining part of the casting bed was cast without spiral
reinforcement. A circular wooden piece was placed in the casting bed for easier separation
of the two casting parts. Fig. 3-21 illustrates positioning of the prestressing strands through
this circular wooden piece.
After the strands were stressed to the jacking force, this wooden piece was moved
into the desired position and the inner core tube was installed in place as previously described
in Fig. 3-2. In addition, to reduce the effects of prestress losses in the pile end near the load
stub, the prestressing strands were anchored with wedge-chuck VSL S5N Anchorage System,
as illustrated in Fig. 3-22. Fig. 3-23 shows the concrete shell before separation at wooden
piece. A chain saw was then used to cut the section in two parts at the wooden piece. During
separation of the concrete shell, the strain gages cables were maintained connected to the data
acquisition system to monitor strand strain losses at the anchorage system.
By casting the full bed, two objectives were achieved; (1) reduced length of exposed
strands minimized wave propagation of the strands during cutting of the strands away from
the region where the wedges were positioned, thus reducing mechanical bond losses in this
region. (2) strain gage readings were also used after transfer of the prestressing strands to
calculate transfer length in the pile head region.
Completion of test unit COR2 was then carried out at UCSD with similar construction
phases as in test units CORJ and COR3. Completed test unit COR2 before testing is
presented in Fig. 3-24 and Fig. 3-25.
-70-
Fig. 3-20 First Stages of Preparation for Construction of Concrete Shell For COR2'
Fig. 3-21 Positioning of Strands Through Wooden Piece Separator Before Prestressing
- 71-
Fig. 3-22 wedge-chuck VSL SSN Anchorage System
Fig. 3-23 Finished Precast Concrete Shell Before Separation at Wooden Piece for COR2
-72-
-73-
3.2
Test Units CORl, COR2 and COR3 - Material Properties

Casting of the three test units concrete shells was performed with high strength
concrete, designed to reach a concrete compressive strength of 28 .M.Pa at 24 hours for

transfer and 62 .M.Pa at 28 days with a mix design number UV-161, designed by Utility Vault
engineers. The mix design used contained 10 bags of Type V - LA portland cement per cubic
yard with 1/2 in. rock and special admixtures such as WRDA-79, WRDA-19A, DCI and
Force 1000. Concrete cylinder test results for the high strength concrete utilized in casting
of the concrete shells are presented in Table 3-1.
A higher water content was used in the concrete mix design of test unit COR2 to
ensure that the concrete mix filled all the tight spaces in the vicinity of the anchorage system
which is illustrated in Fig. 3-22. This accounts for the lower compression strength oftest unit
COR2 concrete, as shown in Table 3-1. Thus, prestressing transfer for test unit COR2 was
accomplished approximately 4 days after casting, while prestressing transfer for test units
CORJ and COR3 was executed approximately 24 hours after casting. This ensures that
estimation of transfer length for the three test units was carried out at approximately the same
concrete compression strength.
Table 3-1 Concrete Material Properties- High Strength Concrete
Cylinder Test Date
Days
Unit CORJ
[.M.Pa]
Unit COR2
[.M.Pa]
Unit.COR3
[MPa]
26 1
15
26 1
43
25 1
44
14
63
54
64
28
69
58
68
Day ofJ:est
77 2
68 3
75 4
Prestress transfer.
Test unit CORI day oftest 110 days after casting of concrete shell.
3
Test unit COR2 day of test 126 days after casting of concrete shell.
4
Test unit COR3 day oftest 151 days after casting of concrete shell.
-74'
Casting of the test units was pedormed according to the pour sequence described in
Fig. 3-27 and Fig. 3 29. Concrete cylinders 152 mm in diameter for normal strength concrete
utilized in the casting of the three test units were tested in Satec materials testing machine
at UCSD in time intervals indicated in Table 3-2
Table 3-2 Concrete Material Properties - Normal Strength Concrete
Unit COR1 1
[MPa]
Unit COR2 2
[MPa]
Unit COR3 3
[MPa]
Cylinder Test
Date
28 Days
Test Day
110 Days
28 Days
Test Day
126 Days
28 Days
Test Day
151 Days
Batch No. 14 5
32
35
35
38
39
40
Batch No. 246
33
34
32
34
36
39
Batch No. 3 4
32 7
34
18 8
20
Batch No. 4 49
36
39
For concrete material properties layout see Fig. 3-27.

3
4
Maximum aggregate is specified as 25.40 mm
5
Concrete strength was specified at fc = 35 MPa.
6
7
8
Concrete strength was specified at fc= 16 MPa.
9
Concrete strength was specified at fc 35 MPa.
2
-75-
Three samples of each reinforcement type were tested to determine the stress-strain
curve characteristics for each bar size. The different types of reinforcement are shown in
Table 3-3 with their properties. These properties were obtained by testing three 914 mm long
reinforcement test samples on the Satecmaterials testing machine at UCSD.
Table 3-3 Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 Steel Material Properties
Bar Size
Reinforcement 1
(Grade40)
Location
Yield Strength
fv (Mpa)
Ultimate Strength
fu (Mpa)
283
414
Pile Section Inner

#7
Core Longitudinal
Reinforcement
Pile Cap Top and
Reinforcemene
#7
Bottom Layer
Reinforcement
465
757
#6
Pile Cap J-Hooks
472
745
Pile Section
448
689
599
717
1723
1998
(Grade 60)
#3
Transverse
Reinforcement
Smooth Wire
Reinforcement 1
W3
Pile Transverse
Reinforcement
Prestressing
9.53
Concrete
mm0
Prestressing
123

Strands
(Grade 270)
2
3
Strands
Average yield stress determined from 3 bar test specimens.
9.53 mm 0 7-Wire Strand
Grade 270 is specified at 1860 MPa ultimate strength
-76-
Yielding of high-strength steel used in the manufacturing of prestressing strands can

not be readily determined, as in the case of normal strength, and the yield strength of the
prestressing strands was determined based on a strain criterion according to ASTM current
standards [5]. The prestressing strands yield strength was determined at a total strain of one
percent based on stress-strain curves obtained from three sample tensile tests. At one percent
of strain, the stress was /py=l ,830 MPa, which corresponds to 90% of the maximum stess
/pu=2,008 MPa, as illustrated in Table 3-3 and presented in Fig. 3-26.
2100
1800
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
":, 1500
..._p..
-.......'
"'"'
Q)
l:i
1200
blJ
Vl
Vl
900
Q)
AS1)M Yield Strength : cpy= 1%

I
I
I
I
I
Three Test Specimens Stress-Strain Curve
I
I
Fitting Curve Thr~mgh Test Data
I
bVl
Q)
fpy= 1830MPa
I
I
(I)
.6
fpu= 2008MPa
600
300
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Strain J-LE
Fig. 3-26 Stress-Strain Curve of Prestressing Steel
-77-
40000
- - - - - - - - - -----'1<-
~Third Pour
C2B4Dmm Length Inner Core
Ca5t + Lo~d Stub)
f'c.
<::
0
35 MPa
'<t
d)
43
\.)
Q)
lf)
"ii
..c.
lf)
Ill
.j.J
Ill
t<}
I"-
'<t
<::
Sec.ond Pour
C1524mm Length Inner Core
Ca5t + Soffit Slab)
35MPll
f'G
L)
\.9
.j.J
.n
to
\.)
Ill
!L
I
E
E
Batch No. 2
D f'
Concrete Shell
c "' GZMPll
10
,....
I"-
10
'<t
107)1 Flr5t Pour

~f'c
= 35MPa
r-\.51
Fig. 3-27 Test Unit CORJ Pile Layout- Concrete Material Properties
-78-
~----~--------~---------~----------~-~~~~~~~~~~-
~ Second Four
LiJ CZ1.::34mm
Length Inner Core

Ca!Ot ..,f- Soffit SlabJ
f'c = 35MFZ~
E
E
LC)
Batch No. Z
Concrete Shell
f'c
G;ZMP~:~
PJ7)<I Flr!Ot Four
1:::2;21 f' c
= 35MFll
Fig. 3-28 Test Unit COR2 Pile Layout- Concrete Material Properties
-79-
1'1
t'\1
t'\1
-----
-~
~Fourth Four
Cl270mm Length Inner
Ca!:>t + Lolld Stub)
f'c = 35 MFa
[7;7/1 Third Four

~ C1575mm Length Inner
Core Ccst) f'c = 1G
<=
0
.:;:;
u
Q)
MF~:~
..n
Qi
..c
..n
.3
Q)
L
PB Second Four
L:iJ Cl524mm Length Inner
Cast + Soffit Slab)
f'c
<=
l)
Core
+'
Ill
10
35MFa
IL
Concrete Shell
f'c "' GZMFa
ll')
......
RY)<l First Four

~f'c
= 35MFa
"0
1.9
.......
Fig. 3-29 Test Unit COR3 Pile Layout - Concrete Material Properties
- 80-
3.3
Instrumentation of the Test Specimens

In this research project each test unit was instrumented with different types of
measuring devices. All instruments were connected to a high-speed data acquisition system
controlled by software developed at UCSD. The data acquisition system was used to record
data triggered by a predetermined force or displacement interval, whichever occurred first.
Instrumentation of the test specimens consisted of linear potentiometers, rotation devices and
electric resistance strain gages. In this section, a brief description of the instrumentation
provided in the test specimens is provided.
3.3.1
Instrumentation of Test Unit CORJ and COR3

In test Unit CORJ and COR3, a total of 9 channels of electronically monitored
instrumentation devices were installed in the specimen to measure deflection of the pile
section and rotation of the pile cap, according to the summary presented in Table 3-S. The
lateral deflection at the level of application of the laten11 force, which corresponds to the
center of the load stub, was recorded by a linear potentiometer, as shown in Fig. 3-31 and
Fig. 3-32. This linear potentiometer had a stroke of 152.40 mm and was used to control the
testing procedure according to a control program which will be discussed in later sections for
each test unit.
Other instrumentation consisted of two linear potentiometers installed on the side of
the load stub, according to Fig. 3-32. These linear potentiometers were used to monitor
twisting and out-of-plane deformation of the pile section. During the testing procedure, these
linear potentiometers were connected to the controller, which is the computer system used
to control the application of loading into the specimen. When the recorded displacement
difference between these two devices exceeded
25.40 mm, or the out-of-plane deflection of the

load stub exceeded 25.40 mm, the controller
would shut-off the hydraulic service manifold
6. N
6.s
Aluminum Angle
All- Thread Rods
which feeds high-pressure hydraulic fluid to the

actuators.
Curvatures along the pile height were
experimentally
determined
from
linear
potentiometers positioned on both sides of the

- 81-
Fig. 3-30 Curvature Measurement
pile section, as shown in Fig. 3-31 and Fig. 3-32. Pairs of 9.53 mm all-thread rods were cast
in the pile concrete shells during precasting at Utility Vault to support aluminum angles to
which the linear potentiometers were attached. The linear potentiometers were placed on the
extreme faces of the pile and were estimated according to the following expression:
fPave
AN -As
W h
cur
where
f!Jave
(3.1)
cur
represent average computed curvature, L1N and L1s, are the relative vertical
displacements between adjacent curvature rods in the extreme faces on opposite sides of the
pile section, wcur is the length of the curvature cell or horizontal distance between the pair of
linear potentiometers and hcur is the height of the curvature cell or vertical distance between
the adjacent linear potentiometers.
One rotational device or inclinometer was installed on the load stub face opposite to
the two linear potentiometers used to measure load stub deformations, as illustrated in Fig.
3-31. In addition, two rotational devices were installed on the pile cap faces, as shown in Fig.
3-31.
A total of three load cells were used during each test to measure application of vertical
and lateral forces to the test specimen. Each of the three actuators, previously defmed in
Chapter 2, used to apply loading to the test specimen contained a calibrated load-cell.
In addition, in test unit COR3, 8 linear potentiometers were positioned along the saw
cuts, as illustrated in Fig. 3-33, to measure the width opening of these cuts during the testing
procedure. Moreover, at the base of the pile section of test unit COR3, 16 electric resistance
strain gages, produced by Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co., Ltd, were installed over the concrete
surface as illustrated in Fig. 3-33. These strain gages had a gage length of 5 mm and a gage
resistance of 1200.3!1 with a scale factor of 2.13.
A summary of the instrumentation applied on the reinforcement of test units CORJ
and COR3 is presented in Table 3-5. Instrumentation of the reinforcement consisted of
electric resistance strain gages produced by Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co., Ltd. These strain
gages had a gage length of 5 mm and a gage resistance of 1200.3!1 with a scale factor of
2.13. A total of 32 strain gages were applied on the pile inner core longitudinal reinforcement
according to Fig. 3-34. The prestressing strands were instrumented with 32 strain gages,
according to the layout presented in Fig. 3-35. In addition, the concrete shells spiral cages
- 82-
were instrumented also with 32 strain gages, as illustrated in Fig. 3-36. Moreover, 26 strain
gages were applied on the top and bottom pile cap reinforcement, according to Fig. 3-37 and
Fig. 3-38, and 8 strain gages were applied on the pile cap vertical reinforcement, according
to Fig. 3-39.
During the precasting operation while at Utility Vault, 16 strain gages were applied
on the exposed surface of the concrete shells while inside the casting bed, as illustrated in Fig.
3-40 to record transfer of forces from the prestressing strands to the concrete section after
transfer during a time interval of approximately 48 hours.
A total of 64 data channels were used in the instrumentation of test units CORJ and
COR3 during manufacturing of the precast concrete shells, according to Table 3-4. During
the testing procedure, 163 data channels were used in the instrumentation of test unit CORJ,
and 187 data channels were used in the instrumentation of test unit COR3, as indicated in
Table 3-5.
Table 3-4 Test Unit CORJ and COR3- Casting Operation Summary of Instrumentation
Strain Gages
Concrete Shell Prestressing Strands
24
Concrete Shell Transverse Reinforcement
24
Concrete Surface'Gages- Precasting Only
16
Total
TOTAL INSTRUMENTATION
-83-
64
64
Table 3-5 Test Unit CORJ and COR3- Testing Procedure Summary of Instrumentation
Displacement Gages
Pile Lateral Deflection

Pile Cap Uplift
Soffit Slab
Load Stub - Control Program
Saw Cuts - Test Unit COR3 only
1
4
2
2
8
Test Unit CORJ - Total

Test Unit COR3 - Total
Curvature Gages
Pile
Rotation Gages
Load Stub
Pile Cap
17
18
1
2
3
Total
Strain Gages
Pile Inner Core Longitudinal Reinforcement

Pile Cap Longitudinal Reinforcement
Pile Cap Transverse Reinforcement
Pile Cap Vertical Reinforcement
Base pile section Concrete Surface GagesTest Unit COR3 only
32
32
32
18
8
8
16
Test Unit CORJ - Total

Test Unit COR3 - Total
Load Cells
130
146
3
Actuators
Total
TEST UNIT CORJ- TOTAL INSTRUMENTATION
TEST UNIT COR3- TOTAL INSTRUMENTATION
- 84-
163
187
Reference
Column
To lns.tall
Linear
Potentiometer&
1 - Rotational Device
at Lor~d Stub Side
2. - Llne!lr
Potentiometer&
For Lor~d Stub
Twi&ting +
Out-of -plane
Translatlon
Mellsurement
1 - Linear
Potentlomenter
For Lateral
Deflection
Mea&urement
304.50mm Spacing
152.40mm Spacing
E
E
lB - Linear
Potentiometers
for Curvature
Meas.urement
....
0
"<t
r--
....
....
IO
...
Region of
Inner Core
Longitudinal
Relnf orcement
5~~------------
2. - Linear
Potentiometers
for Soffit
SlaP Sliding
Mea&urement
Note&
1 - All dimen5lon& are In millimeters
2. - Actuators not shown for drHwing clarity
3 - Reference column to instr~l linear potentiometer
for pile lateral deflection measurement
not shown for drawing cll!lrlty
4 - Linear
Potentiometers
for Pile Gap
Robttlon
Mea&urement
Fig. 3-31 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Instrumentation Setup Front View
-85-
1 - Llnel!lr Potentlomenter For Pile

LeterrJI Deflection Mel!lsurement
1 - Rotational Device
rJt LorJd Stub Side
2 - Linear Potentiometers
at LoZld 5tub Side
Reference
Column To
lnstrJII Llnei!lr
Potentlome ter
For LaterZll
Deflection
Mei!lsurement
18 - Linear
Potentiometers
For Curvature
Mel!lsurement
304.80mm SprJclng
15Z.40mm Spacing
_rm
Region of
Inner Core
LongltudlnrJI
Relnf or cement
U<J
.....,
...
...
* r~
"""
6
..*.
*
2 - Linear
Potentiometers
For Soffit SlrJb
511dlng Measurement
2 - Rotational
Devices at Pile
Ctlp Sides
Notes'
4 - Linear
Potentiometers
For Pile Cap
RotrJtlon
Mei!lsurement
1 - All dimensions are In millimeters

2 - Actuators not shown for drawing clarity
3 - Reference column to Instal linear
potentiometer for lOad stub displacement
measurement not shown for drawing clarity
Fig. 3-32 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Instrumentation Setup Side View
- 86-
Reference
Column
To lnstcU
LlneZJr
Potentiometer&
2 - Linear
F'otentiometer&
for Loi!!d Stub
Twisting +
1.5Gmm Wide x
Shell Thick Depth x
1575mm Long 5aw Cut
CTyp. 2 Location&
Along Line& A tmd 0)
Out-of-piZ~ne
Tran!i>latlon
Measurement
8 - Linear
Potentiometer&
Along 5-aw Cub
for Crack
Width Opening
Meli&Urement
E
E
In
lG - E:iectrlc Resistance
Strain Gage& Over Concrete
Surface C8 Applied HorlzonhUy
!lnd 8 Applied Verticlllly)~ IG
\9
.----...:...>i.-fBI
Note&
1 - AU dimen&ions t~re In mflllmeter&
Z - Actul.ltors not !:>hown for drt~wlng clarity
.::3 - Pi!eference column to ln!i>tal linear potentiometer
for pile lateral deflection mea&urement
not shown for drawing clllrity
4 - Llne!:!lr potentiometer& for curvature mea&urement
lind other device& not &hown for drZ~wing clllrlty
Fig. 3-33 Test Unit COR3 - Instrumentation Setup Front View
-87-
LEGEND
Inner Gore Reinforcement

5trl!lln Gl!lge& - Tot1:1l :.32.
Fig. 3-34 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Pile Inner Core Reinforcement Strain Gages
- 88-
LEGEND
Prestressing Reinforcement
5traln Gage!>-Total .32
Fig. 3-35 Test Units CORJ and COR3 -Pile Prestressing Reinforcement Strain Gages
-89-
LEGEND
5pirZll Relnf orc;ement

Strain GZlge!\ - Total 32.
Fig. 3-36 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Gages
-90-
Pile Cap Plan View

LEGEND
w 457
686
2
~~ , -
Pile Ca p Reinforcement
Strain Gages - Total 18
I
I
I
r==r
'
:v
I
I
I
~~
I
I
I
: li
''
:' li
I
I
I
I
I
liliI!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'II
17
11
<7
'
\J
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
'''
'
'-- I ~
I
I
I
IL-
I
I
I
~ FFi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
Pile
Cross Section
Fig. 3-37 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Pile Cap Reinforcement Strain Gages
-91-
Pile
Plan View
LEGEND
Pile Cap Reinforcement
Fig. 3-38 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Pile Cap Reinforcement Strain Gages
-92-
--------<[9
Pile Cap Plan View

LEGEND
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
'
I
I
L--
(/"
(/"
I
I
I
t/1I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
' '
~:t:-t
I
I
I
I
I
'I
l ~)
I
I
I
'
I
I
11
'
~
''
c ''I
I
''
'
---w' ~
I
I
I
I
'
'' '
'I 'I
I
p11e Ca p Stirrups
'v
I~
A,_-
I
I
I
''
''
I
_._
'
Fig. 3-39 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Pile Cap Reinforcement Strain Gages
-93-
LEGEND
110 - Elec trlc Resls.hmce

5trt~ln Gages. Over Concrete
Surface Applied Vertically
r-~~---------------------rr-,
I I
~-~~---------------------~~-~
!L-~~---------------------LL-J
I I
I i
I
I
I I
I I
I
-t--i-t----ti--+1 I I
I I
I
r-,,---------------------rr-1
~-4~---------------------~~-1
I l
I I
L..-..1...1.-
-l....L-...1
5trt~ln Gt~ges. ~:~t 152mm on centers
r----------1-----------1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
l-----------------------------------------1
Fig. 3-40 Test Units CORJ and COR3 - Concrete Surface Strain Gages Applied During
Manufacturing of Precast Concrete Shells
-94-
3.3.2
Instrumentation of Test Unit COR2

Similar to test units CORJ and COR3, in test unit COR2 the same amount of linear
potentiometers were installed in the test specimen according to the summary presented in
Table 3-6. In test unit COR2, a total of 9 channels of electronically monitored
instrumentation were installed in the specimen to measure the horizontal displacement of the
pile section and uplift of the pile cap, as shown in Fig. 3-41 and Fig. 3-42. As before, one of
these linear potentiometers was used to measure the pile section lateral deflection. Other
instrumentation consisted of four linear potentiometers to measure uplift of the pile cap as a
result of the imposed overturning moment. Moreover, two linear potentiometers were
installed on the sides of the load stub to monitored twisting and out of plane deformation of
the pile section, as illustrated in Fig. 3-41 and Fig. 3-42. During the testing procedure, these
two linear potentiometers were connected to the controller to monitor twisting and out of
plane deformation of the pile section. In case the relative difference between these two
devices exceeded 25.40 mm, or the total out of plane deflection exceeded also 25.40 mm, the
controller would cause dumping of the hydraulic fluid to the actuators, as established earlier,
while discussing test unit CORJ and COR3 instrumentation layout.
In addition, 14 linear potentiometers were installed on the sides of the pile section
according to Fig. 3-43, to estimate the shear component of deformation according to the
equations presented in Fig. 3-44.
A summary of strain gages applied on the reinforcement of test unit COR2 is
presented in Table 3-6. A total of 32 strain gages were applied to test unit CORJ pile inner
core longitudinal reinforcement, according to the setup illustrated in Fig. 3-45. In addition,
32 gages were applied on the concrete shell prestressing strands, shown in Fig. 3-46, and the
concrete shell spiral cage was instrumented with 32 gages, according to Fig. 3-47. Moreover,
16 strain gages were applied on the concrete shell, as indicated in Fig. 3-48, to monitor
transfer of forces from the prestressing strands to the concrete shell during cutting of the
strands.
Similar to test unit CORJ and COR3, in test unit COR2 the top and bottom pile cap
longitudinal and vertical reinforcement was instrumented with 34 strain gages with the layout
shown in Fig. 3-37 through Fig. 3-39.
-95-
As before, a total of 64 data channels were used in the instrumentation of test unit
COR2 during manufacturing of the precast concrete shells, according to Table 3-4. During
the testing procedure 175 data channels were used in the instrumentation of test unit COR2
as indicated in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6 Test Unit COR2 - Summary of Instrumentation

Displacement Gages
Pile Lateral Deflection

Pile Cap Uplift
Soffit Slab
Load Stub - Control Program
1
4
2
2
Total
Shear Panel
Deformation
Vertical
Horizontal
Diagonal
9
8
2
4
To~
Curvature Gages
Pile
Rotation Gages
Load Stub
Pile Cap
14
16
1
2
3
Total
Strain Gages
Pile Inner Longitudinal Reinforcement

Pile Cap Longitudinal Reinforcement
Pile Cap Transverse Reinforcement
Pile Cap Vertical Reinforcement
32
32
32
18
8
8
Total
Load Cells
130
Actuators
Total
TOTAL INSTRUMENTATION
-96-
175
Reference
Column
To ln5tl:lll
Linear
Potenttometer5
304.80mm Spacing
152.40mm Spacing
1 - Linear Potentlomenter
For Lateral Deflection
Mea5urement
2 - Llnellr
Potentlometer5
For Load Stub
TWI5tlng +
Out-of-ph:me
1 - Rotatlon1:1l Device
1:1t Load Stub Side
Tn:m5h:~tlon
Me~:~5urement
.
....
non
~
liD-
"'"'
lG - Linear
Potentiometer5
For Curv1:1ture
Mea5urement
E
E
C'\1
"'
..."'
I')
I')
2 - Rotational
Devlce5 at Pile
Cap Slde5
2 - Linear
Potentlometer5
For Soffit
Slab Sliding
Mell5urement
4 - Linear
Potentiometer!>
For Pile Cap
Note5
1 - All dlmen5lon5 are In mtlltmeter5
2 - Actuator5 not 5hown for drawing c.larlty
3 - Reference column to ln5tal linear potentiometer
for pile lateral deflection mea5Urement
not 5hown for drawing clarity
Rot~:~tlon
Mea5urement
Fig. 3-41 Test Unit COR2 - Instrumentation Setup Front View
-97-
-~- ---~~-~-
-.-----~_____,..,.--,
Referen(;e Column To
Linel!lr Potentiometer
For Lateral Defle(;tlon
Measurement
ln~tall
1 - Linear Potentlomenter For Pile

Lateral Defle(;tlon Measurement
'"'" :304.80mm 5pa(;lng
152..40mm 5pa(;lng
1 - Rotational Devi(;e
at Load Stub Side
1(0 - Linear
Potentiometer&
For Curvature
Measurement
E
N
!"}
!"}
2. - Linear
Potentiometer&
For Soffit 5lllb
Sliding Mea~urement
2 - Rotational
Note~:
Devi(;es at Pile
Cap Sides
4 - Linear
Potentiometer~
For Pile Cap

Rotation
Measurement
1 - All dlmen~lon~ are In millimeter~

2. - Actuaton; not ~hown for drawing ciHrlty
:3 - Referen(;e (;Oiumn to ln~tl'll linetlr
potentiometer for load ~tub dispiHcement
mel'lsurement not shown for drtlwtng (;Jarity
Fig. 3-42 Test Unit COR2 - Instrumentation Setup Side View
-98-
II
II
II
II
It
II
14 - Linear Potentiometers
For Shear Panel Deformation
Mea!>urement
Zone of Termination of
LongltudlrTEJ! Relnf or cement
I I
''
''
''
I I
''
''
''
I I
I I
I I
''
: :~
..''''
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
''''
I I
I I
I I
'.''''
I I
I I
I I
''
''
'''
''
'
''
I I
I I
''
''
''
''
'.''
I I
''
''
t~
''
''
''
''
''
''
''
''
Notes
1 - All dimensions llre In m!Uimeter!>
2. - Actuators not &hown for drewlng cll3rlty

::l - Reference column to instt~! linear potentiometer
for pile lateral deflection mea!>urement
not !>hown for drawing clarity
4 - Line~:~r potentiometer!> for c.urvl!:lture me~:~!>urement
end other device!> not !>hown for drllWing clarity
Fig. 3-43 Test Unit COR2 - Shear Panel Deformation Instrumentation Layout
-99-
f3t C-hange in length
{3, change
sin length
f3nc.hange
in length
f3 b change in length
(a) Overall Deformation
(b) Measured Deformations
(c) Flexural Deformation
{b) Horizontal Deformation

Due to Cracks
(ish= fJd
{if
(3h
and hence : 6sh = fJshj cos R

where
{if = /((3n+ Ps)/2/sin R
and :
Ph = /( Pt
(e) Shear Deformation
Fig. 3-44 Test Unit COR2 - Estimation of Shear Deformation

- 100-
+ fJb) I 2 cos R
LEGEND
Inner Core Reinforcement

5traln Gages
Totel 32
~I
I')
t'l
Fig. 3-45 Test Unit COR2 -Pile Inner Core Reinforcement Strain Gages
- 101-
LEGEND
Prestressing Reinforcement
StrZJin GZJges-TotZJI .32
Fig. 3-46 Test Unit COR2- Pile Prestressing Reinforcement Strain Gages
- 102-
LEGEND
Spiral Reinforcement
5train Gage!> - Total .32
Fig. 3~47 Test Unit COR2 -Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Gages
- 103-
LEGEND
lG; - Electric ~eslstence

Strain Ga9es Over Com:.rete
Surface. Applied Vertically
Str1:1ln Geges at 152mm on centers
File Saw Gut At
2!1mm Wh:h1 Y/QQd Strip
Fig. 3-48 Test Unit COR2- Concrete Surface Strain Gages

Applied During Manufacturing of Precast Concrete Shells
- 104-
3.4
Testing Procedure
Analysis of the prototype foundation system to seismic loading was conducted to
develop the loading scheme to be implemented in the testing procedure. During a seismic
event, individual piles of a pile group experience reversed cyclic loading in both axial and
lateral loads as a result of deformations of the pile cap. The cyclic axial and lateral loads
imposed on the pile section depend on the loads transferred from the bridge superstructure
and column into the pile cap and, subsequently, into the pile group. Thus, a correlation
between the axial and the lateral loads imposed on an extreme pile of a pile group, as shown
in Fig. 2-1 and Fig. 2-3, under seismic loading, was obtained from a 3-D nonlinear finite
element analysis of the prototype structure.
Correlation between the axial and lateral load depends directly on soil properties such
as soil stiffness and mud line elevation, number of piles in the pile group, spacing of piles in
the direction of seismic loading, pile material properties and transferred column shear and
axial loads. The response of pile groups to seismic loading is directly related to the soil
properties. Under the imposed lateral and axial loads transferred from the bridge
superstructure, the pile cap translates and/or rotates in the direction of the applied lateral load
according to the stiffness of the underlying soil stratum. In the presence of a considerably
dense soil, the pile cap is inhibited from translating and to provide the necessary resisting
moment to the imposed overturning moment (see Fig. 3-49) the pile cap tries to rotate in
order to develop resisting forces at the pile heads. As the pile cap rotates, piles at the edges
of the pile group will be loaded in tension or compression depending on their position relative
to the axis of rotation. On the other hand, in the presence of a considerably soft soil, lateral
translation is the pile cap primary mode of deformation and minimum resistive axial forces are
developed in the piles and the resisting moment is primarily in terms of moments developed
at the pile heads.
Lateral loads imposed on the piles may be expressed in terms of the following
expression:
Vc -
Jcap
=-------"---nP
E (f ( KBP );
+f
( K);)
(3.2)
i=l
Where Vfr is the force which develops due to the pile cap overcoming the passive pressure
along the side of the pile cap and/or friction along the bottom of the cap in contact with the
soil
- 105-
Development of equation (3.2) assumes that the lateral translation,
!leap
is the same
in all the piles and the summation of stiffness is c mputed for all the piles in the pile group
where nPis the number of piles in a pile group. Functionsf(KBpue) andf(Ksh) identify the pile
section bending stiffness and soil stiffness, respectively, recognizing that pile and soil stiffness
change along the pile length. Based on this expression, it can be recognized that as the soil
stiffness decreases, an increase in the pile cap lateral translation occurs, and in the presence
of a soil stratum with zero stiffness in the proximity of the pile cap, expression (3.2) converts
to that of a section with an applied point load and no support from the soil stratum.
An expression to determine the pile cap rotation may be expressed in terms of the
overall column overturning forces and resisting moments developed at the pile heads given
by the expression:
(3.3)
Development of equation (3.3) assumes the pile cap rotates as a rigid body and
rotation of the pile cap, {)cap produces equal rotations in all pile heads. The contribution of
the bending moment present in the pile heads to the overall resisting moment is approximately
given by the summation for all piles of the respective shear force, VP, times the pile effective
cantilever length, leff' which is related to a function inversely proportional to the soil stiffness,
1/f(Ks). This expression also describes that the pile cap rotation is inversely proportional to
the axial stiffness of the pile section given by the functionf(KAP) and the distance square L;
of the pile section to the center of the pile cap. Based on this expression, it can be recognized
that as the soil stiffness decreases or the mud line elevation increases, the effective cantilever
length increases and, as a result, a decrease in the pile cap rotation is expected, as previously
noted. On the other hand, as the soil stiffness increases, the effective cantilever length
decreases and an increase in the pile cap rotation is expected. This analysis of the pile cap
indicates that the loading path which correlates the axial load and moment on the corner piles
is closely related to the stiffness of the soil stratum and mud line elevation.
- 106-
Assumed
Direction of
Seismic Forces
Vc
- - - Pier Tower
Undeformed Shape
Pier Tower
Deformed Shape
Under Simulated
Seismic Loads
Shape
Pile Cap
Deformed Sh-ape
Under Simulated
Seismic Loads
Pile Group
Undeformed Shape
Pile Group
Deformed Shape
Under Simulated
Sel!>mic Load!>
Deformed Soil
Profile At Mud Line
Elevation
Pile!> In Tenslon
Fig. 3-49 Prototype Structure Deformed Shape
- 107-
The finite element analysis program COSMOS/M [16] was used to implement the
prototype structure finite element model to study the behavior of a pile group under lateral
and axial load. Fig. 3-50 and Fig. 3-51 presents the finite element model that was used to
analyze the prototype structure at Pier 2 and Pier 5, respectively, and were based on the
prototype structure dimensions presented in Fig. 2-1 through Fig. 2-6.
The finite element model used to study the response of the prototype structure under
simulated seismic loading was set up by using approximate transformed section nonlinear
piecewise elastic material model properties for modeling the column, the pile cap, and the
piles of the prototype structure. Four-node quadrilateral thick shell elements with membrane
and bending capabilities were used to model the pile cap and bridge column. This element
type is defined with the element name SHELL4Tin the users guide for COSMOS/M. The piles
were modeled using two-node uniaxial element for three dimensional structural models with
axial and bending capabilities. This element type is defined with the element name BEAM3D
in the users guide for COSMOS/M. Fina1ly, the soil was modeled with linear elastic springs
elements in the form of a Winkler idealization of soil properties; described previously in
Chapter 2. Modeling of the soil elements was performed by employing a two-node uniaxial
element with only axial capabilities. This element type is defined with the element name
SPRING in the users guide for COSMOS/M.
The nonlinear material properties of concrete for the pile cap, bridge column and piles
were set up using the equations based on Mander [15] model for confined concrete. The steel
properties were added to those of concrete based on a transformed area approach.
The nonlinear material properties necessary to model each bridge component were
approximated by imposing axial compressive and tensile strains on a given section. Next, by
equating the computed axial forces in a section composed of a homogeneous material and in
the composite reinforced concrete section, the stress-strain curve for the .different components
was obtained. In the compression zone, along the path of the confined concrete stress-strain
diagram, the new transformed section material property was set up such that the strength of
this new section equaled that of the two materials, concrete and steel, behaving independently.
On the tension side, up to cracking, the concrete tensile strength was used in conjunction with
the steel strength, according to the approach described previously, and after cracking, only
the steel material properties were used.
To i1lustrate this procedure, consider a section with area A8 , concrete stress-strain
- 108-
curve,Jl~).
steel area, A.1, and steel stres,s-strain curve,Ji~). Then, the stress-strain curve of
the equivalent transformed section,
fel~J.
may be defined according to the following
expression:
= (Ag-Ast)fc(e) +Astfst( 8 )
Ac
(3.4)
Boundary conditions used in the finite element model used fixed end conditions at the
soil spring elements nodes opposite to the beam element connection and, at the base of the
piles, pin conditions were employed to allow for any possible rotations at this location.
In order to avoid a singular or negative stiffness matrix after peak response, the
numerical procedure introduced in the finite element model was the constant stiffness method.
The finite element model was run by employing a displacement control iterative technique in
order to obtain the response of the structure beyond peak response of the column section. In
this technique, the pattern of applied loading is proportionally incremented to achieve
equilibrium of the structure under the specified displacement of the controlled degree of
freedom. For this model, the controlled degree of freedom was that of the central node at the
top of column in the direction of the applied lateral loading.
- 109-
A!>!>umed Direction of
Applied Leter'Ell Load
Lateral VTotst= 7500k.N
'Elnd Pile Ct:~p

Model 5hell Element!>
SHEUAT
Pressure Loading
Axial P = Gf!l k.N/m 2
LtJtertJI V = 50 k.N/m 2
-rliev,'ltll'ln
Mud Line
1G7Gmm
End of 5oll 5prlng

Model 1 Fixed Condition
Plies Model '

Element!>
BEAM3D
~--~c>l:lfle
of Pile!> Model
Pin Condition
Fig. 3-50 Pier 2 - Prototype Structure Finite Element Model

- 110-
1
A55Umed Direction of
Applied Lateral Load
Lateral VTobl= 7500kN
Applied Axilll Load
PTobl= 1'l8'lGkN
--/"Column and Pile Cap

Model = Shell Element5
SHELIAT
Pre55Ure Load~g =
Axial P == G8 kN/m 2
Ll!lten:~l V = 50 kN/m 2
Mud Line
GO'lGmm
End of Soli Spring

Model 1 Fixed Condition
of Pile5 Model
Pin Condition
Fig. 3-51 Pier 5 - Prototype Structure Finite Element Model
- 111-
Superstructure and column gravity loads were applied at the top of the column. Pile
cap gravity load was defined by considering surface loads along the pile cap, as depicted in
Fig. 3-50 and Fig. 3-51. At Pier 2, the maximum applied gravity load applied was 8,623 kN
and, at Pier 5, was 19,896 kN, which includes tributary area load from superstructure and pier
towers self-weight. Pressure loading on the pile cap to model self-weight of the pile cap was
68 kN/m2, which includes pile cap self-weight for a total load of approximately 6,389 kN and
9,229 kN for Pier 2 and Pier 5, respectively.
Lateral loading of the prototype structure was applied at the top of the column and
on the pile cap to model the simulated seismic loading of the prototype structure. Maximum
specified lateral load at the top of the column was 7500 kN at Pier 2 and Pier 5. Because the
pile cap has a large mass, it was also necessary to apply additional lateral loading to model
the pile cap inertia. This loading was applied as a surface load along the pile cap elements
with a magnitude of 50 kN/m2 obtained for a PGA of 1.45g and a force reduction factor of
Z=2.0, corresponding to a total load of 1457 kN and 6691 kN for Pier 2 and Pier 5,
respectively.
- 112-
3.4.1 Test Unit CORl and COR3 Loading Path and Control Program
In order to set up the loading paths for each test unit, output results for two corner
piles in compression and tension were extracted from the finite element analysis previously
described. The loading path obtained from the nonlinear finite element analysis expressed in
terms of moment versus axial load is presented in Fig. 3-52. This nonlinear loading path was
then converted to a piecewise linear curve to develop the control program to simulate the
seismic loading of test units CORI and COR3. This curve is indicated as the Pre-Test Analysis
Control Loading Path curve in Fig. 3-52.
The axial load upper and lower bounds were set to the design loads defined in Chapter
2 and presented in reference [3], which are +6,761 kN in compression and -681 kN in tension,
which corresponds to the prototype structure loads transmitted into the piles. For analysis of
the test units pile section, these values were +3,007 kN and -302 k:N, which corresponds to
the scaled values based on the 2/3 scale factor previously described. The compression design
axial load corresponds to an axial load ratio AXL of 10%, determined by the expression:
AXL
p*
( f~c,shell ( Ag,shell -Apsl) + f~,core ( Ag,core -Asl) + Astfy)
(3.5)
And the tension design axial load corresponds to an axial load ratio AXL of 10% determined
by the expression:
p"
AXL = - - r Astfy
(3.6)
Thus, both compression and tension design axial loads are considerably below the capacity
of the pile section.
The linearized loading path was then used to set up the program to control the
application of the experimental axial and lateral loads. In order to develop the control
program loading path, regions were defined according to the loading status of the test unit.
- 113-
7500
----
~-
--9--
6250
Pre Test Analysis Control Loading Path

Moment versus Axial Load Interaction Diagram at Pile Head
Loading Path- Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis
5000
Initial Axial Load

(Self-Weight)

1250
-1250
-4500
-1500
-3000
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
Moment (kN-m)
Fig. 3-52 Pier 5 Piles - Loading Path
Region 0
2800
(27 .94,2793)
(Apply Initial Axial Load) : Curve 0

Region 1
(Compression Loading Branch) : Curve I - Curve VI
2400
2000
Region 2
(Compression Unloading Branch) : Curve VII
/
/
Curve III
//
1200
//
I
I
J_~--~--
1 (Po,ll.i)
Curve XIV
.J.1
urve
XI
I
I
I
I
Curve II I
Curve VII
400
Region 4
Compression
Loading
______
_ _ _Branch
________
Curve V
I
Region 3
(Tension Unloading Branch) : Curve XIV
(83.82,2793)
(15.24,2242) '
800
(Tension Loading Branch) : Curve VIII - Curve XIII
1600
Curve VI
I(Pi,Hi)
Curve I /
(0,863) I
Initial Axial Load
( Selfweight )
~-&-------------~
I
(Po,ll.i)
I Curve VIII
Curve IX - - ; - - - -. . I C
.If/Ill;:'_CurveX
I
urve 0 _ -;::_ -
I _ :-----,__:-
0
(Pi,Hi)
-400
(-127.00,-302)
Curve XIII
(-50.80,-302)
----
-800
-1."i2.4
-127.0
-101.n
-7n.2
-."iO.R
-2."i.4
0.0
2."i.4
Control Program Loading Path
."iO.R
7n.2
Fig. 3-53 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Control Program Loading Path
- 114-
10
Referring to Fig. 3-53, five loading regions were defined to fully describe the
complete loading sequence of test units CORJ and COR3 and were as follows:
Region 0 describes the application of the initial load, while the pile top lateral
deflection is maintained at zero according to Curve 0. When the initial axial load P0 =863 kN
is reached, the lateral load, H 0 , is recorded for input to establish Curve VII and Curve XIV.
Region 1 was defined as the Compression Loading Branch when loading of the
structure occurs under increasing axial load and pile lateral deflection. In this region, the axial
load is always in compression and in this branch the structure was loaded according to loading
Curve I through Curve VI. In this region, when the residual displacement Lli;;.:-2.90 mm,
loading is accomplished according to Curve I. However, if Lli;;.:-16.51 mm then Curve II
controls the application of the axial and lateral load. Finally, in the compression loading
branch, if Lli<-16.51 mm, then loading of the test specimen is controlled by Curve III. Thus,
in this region, Curve I through Curve III utilizes the residual displacements, L1i, recorded from
Region 0 or Region 4 to redirect the loading path towards the original curve. Residual
displacements refer to the lateral deflection of the pile section when the recorded axial load
is equal to the initial axial load of 863 kN. A flowchart describing this loading path is
presented in Appendix B.
Region 2 was defined as the Compression Unloading Branch when unloading of the
structure occurs after Region I. In this branch, the structure was unloaded according to
loading Curve VII. In this Region, when either the target load or displacement are reached,
the axial load, Pi, and lateral load, Hi, are recorded to define Curve VII, which unloads the
structure back to the initial conditions, P0 , and lateral load, H0 In the passage from Region
2 to Region 3, residual displacements, L1i, are recorded as input to define settings for Curve
VIII through Curve X.
Region 3 was defined as the Tension Loading Branch when loading of the structure
occurs with decreasing axial load and pile lateral deflection. In this region, the axial load may
be in compression or tension because of the initial axial load, which simulates the selfweight
of the prototype structure and was described according to loading Curve VIII through Curve
XIII. In this region, when the residual displacement L1i5,+7.76 mm, loading is accomplished
according to Curve VIII. However, if L1i5,+85.23 mm, then loading is controlled in terms of
Curve IX. Finally, in the tension loading branch, if L1i>+85.23 mm, then loading of the test
specimen is controlled by Curve X. Thus, in this region, Curve VIII through Curve X utilizes
- 115-
the residual displacements, Ai, recorded from Region 2 to redirect the loading path towards
the original curve.
Region 4 was defined as the Tension Unloading Branch when unloading of the
structure occurs after Region III and is defined according to the loading Curve IX. In this
region, when the load or displacement target are reached, the axial load, Pi, and lateral load,
H;. are recorded to define Curve IX, which unloads structure back to initial conditions P0 and
lateral load, H0 In the passage from Region 4 to Region 1, residual displacements, A;, are
recorded as input to define the settings of Curve I through Curve III.
The equations that were developed to describe the loading curves depicted in Fig. 353 are the following:
Curve 0 - Initial Axial Load Simulation - Region 0 :
(3.7)
A = 0 ; P s 863kN
Curve I : Compression Loading - Region 1 ( if L1;.? -2.90 mm) :

p
IC
= 863
1334 863 ( A - A. ) P s 1334 kN

3.30 A.I
I
'
(3.8)
Curve II: Compression Loading -Region 1 (if L1i.? -16.51 mm):

P2 c
863
2242 - 863 (A -A.) P s 2242 kN

15.24 - A.I
I
'
(3.9)
Curve III: Compression Loading -Region 1 (if L1i <-16.51 mm):

p
=
JC
863 + 2793 -863 (A -A.)

. p s 2793 kN
1
27.94 -A.I
r
'
(3.10)
Curve IV : Compression Loading - Region 1:

p
= 1334 + 2242 -1334 (A -3.30) . p s 2242 kN

15.24
3.30
'
(3.11)
Curve V: Compression Loading -Region 1:.

p
sc
2242 + 2793 - 2242 (A -15.24) P s 2793kN

27.94 -15.24
'
(3.12)
Curve VI : Compression Loading - Region 1:

P6c
2793; A
.:?
+27.94mm
- 116-
(3.13)
Curve VII : Compression Unloading - Region 2:

863 -Pi
P7c =P; + H -H. (H
H;); P~863kN, H~H 0
(3.14)
fJ
Curve VIII : Tension 'Loading -Region 3 (if L1;.s + 7. 76 mm ) :

p
863 + 396 -863 (A -A.) . p z 396 kN

-4.83 - A.I
I
'
sc
(3.15)
Curve IX : Tension Loading -Region 3 (if L1i.s +85.23 mm) :

P9 c = 863
O - 863
(A -A. ) P ;. 0 kN
-15.49 -A.I
I
'
(3.16)
Curve X: Tension Loading -Region 3 (if L1i >+85.23 mm) :

= 863 + -302 - 863 (A -A.) P ;. -302 kN
-50.80 A.I
I
'
JOC
(3.17)
Curve XI: Tension Loading -Region 3:

P11 c = 396
O - 396
(A +4.83); P ;. OkN
-15.49 + 4.83
(3.18)
Curve XII : Tension Loading - Region 3:

P12 c
302 0
(A + 15.49 ) ; P ~ -302 kN
-50.80 + 15.49
-
(3.19)
Curve XIII : Tension Loading -Region 3:

P13 c
-302 ; A s -50.80mm
(3.20)
Curve XIV: Tension Unloading -Region 4:

P14c =Pi
863 -Pi
Ho -Hi
H - H;) ; P .s863 kN H .s H 0 kN
(3.21)
Based on the expressions presented above, Curve 0 is used to apply the initial axial
load, while maintaining the pile lateral deflection at zero. At this stage, the lateral load was
recorded and its value was assigned to the variable, H 0 , used to describe Curve V and Curve
IX.
In Region 1 and Region 3, the control program was expressed in terms of axial load
versus pile top lateral deflection, as indicated in the curves to describe these regions. When
the target displacement and/or lateral load were reached, the structure was unloaded to the
- 117-
initial axial load of +863 kN, and the lateral load, H 0 , in terms of axial load versus lateral load,
because during unloading the target must be the initial condition, which is the pair (H0
Pa=+863). At this stage the residual displacement, L1i, was recorded and its value used to
describe loading Curve I through Curve III and Curve VIII through Curve X.
3.4.2
Test Unit CORJ - Loading History

The loading history to simulate the seismic loading of test unit CORJ is presented in
Fig. 3-54. Observation of Fig. 3-54 indicates that the frrst step in the testing procedure
consisted of loading the specimen to an initial axial load of +863 kN, which corresponds to
the prototype structure tributary initial axial load. In the next four cycles, the specimen was
loaded to 25%, 50%,75% and 100% of theoretical first section yielding in force control.
Next, incremental displacement ductility levels were obtained based on lateral
deflections and lateral loads recorded at 1 00% of experimental first section yielding and
lateral loads at theoretical yielding. The structure was than loaded solely in displacement
control with three cycles at each specified lateral deflection, according to the deflections
presented in Fig. 3-54.
3.4.3
Test Unit COR3- Loading History

The loading history to simulate the seismic loading of test unit COR3 is presented in
Fig. 3-55. Similar to test unit CORJ, observation of Fig. 3-55 indicates that the first step in
the testing procedure consisted of loading the specimen to the initial axial load of +863 kN,
which corresponds to the prototype structure tributary initial axial load. In the next four
cycles, the specimen was loaded to 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of theoretical first
section yielding in force control.
Next, incremental displacement ductility levels were obtained based on lateral
deflections and lateral loads recorded at 100% of experimental first section yielding and
lateral loads at theoretical yielding. The structure was than loaded solely in displacement
control with three cycles at each specified lateral deflection according to the deflections
- 118-
127.0

3 Cycles at Each
Displacement Target
Single Cycles
to First Yield
76.2
,......._
s
s
'-"
f.l-3
Ll=+51.05
<'I
f.l-2
<"'
f.l-3.5
ll=+59.69
f.l-5
Ll=+85.09
f.l-4
ll=+68.07
+
II
25.4
0
......
.......
u
0
!+:::
0
Q
--
\0
-25.4
r--
00
11
.......
>
1-1
0
.......
~
~
0
- -~
<"'
<"'
II
'
II
>
>
>.
Jl-4
ll= -54.86
-76.2
.......
.-4
']i Vy'
ll
.:l
-127.0
IL
f.l-6
ll= -82.30
,Vy
11y= 11y---.Vy
f.l-8
ll= -109.73
f.l-10
ll= -137.16
fly'fly
Lateral Deflection
-177.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
Number of Cycles
Fig. 3-54 Test Unit CORJ - Loading History
20
22
24
26
127.0

Single Cycles
to First Yield
f-L3.5
Ll=+92.46
f-L3
ll=+78.74
3 Cycles at Each
Displacement Target
/-L4
Ll=+105.92
76.2
....._,
!:
12
12
"'+II
25.4
Ll=+2.54
au
(])
(])
-25.4
"'"'?II
>
""a
~
,...l
~
'
-II;.,
II
f-L3
> >
(])
r:~
'
Ll= -35.05
-76.2
(])
.....
1-L 4.5
Ll= -52.07
~ Yy'
f-L7
Ll= -81.79
.2
-127.0
,Vy
IJ.y= IJ.y---,Vy
...l
1-LlO
Ll= -116.84
1-L 12.5
Ll= -143.26
AyAy
Lateral Deflection
-177.8
0
10
12
14
16
Number of Cycles
Fig. 3-55 Test Unit COR3- Loading History
18
20
22
3.4.4 Test Unit COR2 - Loading Path and Control Program

Similar to the test units CORland COR3, the pile section material properties
implemented into the nonlinear finite element analysis to analyze the prototype structure using
the pile material properties of test unit COR2 were obtained according to the procedure
described by equation (3.4).
The loading path, expressed in terms of moment versus axial load, and obtained from
the nonlinear finite element model analysis, is presented in Fig. 3-56. This loading path was/
then linearized to develop the control program to simulate the seismic loading of this test unit
and is shown as the Pre Test Analysis Control Loading Path curve.
The axial load upper and lower bounds were set to the design loads defined in Chapter
2 and presented in reference [3] which are +6, 761 kN in compression and -681 kN in tension,
which corresponds to the prototype structure loads transmitted into the piles. For analysis of
the test units pile section, these values were +3,007 kN and -302 kN, which corresponds to
the scaled values based on the 2/3 scale factor previously described. These values are identical
to those presented for test units CORI and COR3. The compression and tension design axial .
load corresponds to an axial load ratio AXL of 10% as for test units CORI and COR3.
The linearized loading path was then used to set up the program to control the
application of the experimental axial and lateral loads. In order to develop the control
program loading path, loading regions.were defined according to the loading status ofthe test
unit.
- 121-
7500
6250
___...__
Pre Test Analysis Control Loading Path
-- -&-
Moment versus Axial Load Interaction Diagram at Pile Head
--9--
Loading Path- Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis
5000
3750
2500
Initial Axial Load

(Self-Weight)

1250
1250
-4500
-3000
-1500
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
Moment (kN-m)
Fig. 3-56 Pier 2 Piles- Loading Path
Curve IV
(6.35,2793)
Region 0
2800
(Apply Initial Axial Load) : Curve 0
2400
(Compression Loading Branch): Curve I- Curve IV
Region 1
I
I
Region.l
2000
(Compression Unloading Branch) : Curve V

I
~
..._,
~
c:a
"><
<t:
(Tension Loading Branch) : Curve VI - Curve IX
"'0
RegionJ
1600
1200
Curve ll 1
I
I~Po,Ai)
800
I
I
I
Curve I I
~~-~7~ _ _ !_n~a!_~i~ ~ad ( Selfw~g~t ~

# (Po.M) / /
--'-G----...1
I
/Curve '9"
400
I
Curve X
'
I
I
I Curve V
I
I
Region 4
(Tension Unloading Branch) : Curve X
I~
"
//Curve
vn
I
(Pi,Hi)
-400
(25.91.2793)
I (Pl,Hi)
(-39.88.302)
I
(-6.35,302)
Curve IX
___...__
-800
-38.10
-25.40
-12.70
0.00
12.70
Pile Lateral Deflection (mm)
Fig. 3-57 Test Unit COR2- Control Program Loading Path

- 122-
25.40
Similar to test units CORJ and COR3, referring to Fig. 3-57, five loading regions
were defined to fully describe the complete loading sequence of the test unit and were as
follows:
Region 0 describes the application of the initial load according to Curve 0.
Region 1 was defined as the Compression Loading Branch when loading of the
structure occurs under increasing axial load and pile lateral deflection. In this region, the axial
load is always in compression and, in this branch, the structure was loaded according to
loading Curve I through Curve IV. In this region, when the residual displacement L1;~-2.44
mm, loading is accomplished according to Curve I. However, if L1;>-2.44 mm, then Curve II
controls the application of the axial and lateral load. Thus, in this region, Curve I and Curve
ll utilizes the residual displacements, L1;, recorded from Region 0 or Region 4 to redirect the
loading path towards the original curve. A flowchart describing this loading path is presented
in Appendix B.
Region 2 was defined as the Compression Unloading Branch when unloading of the
structure occurs after Region I. In this branch, the structure was unloaded according to
loading Curve V. In this Region, when either the target load or displacement are reached, the
axial load, P;. and lateral load, H;, are recorded to define Curve V, which unloads the
structure back to the initial conditions, P0 , and lateral load, H0 In the passage from Region
2 to Region 3, residual displacements, L1;, are recorded as input to define settings for Curve
VI and Curve VII.
Region 3 was defined as the Tension Loading Branch when loading of the structure
occurs with decreasing axial load and pile lateral deflection. In this region, the axial load may
be in compression or tension because of the initial axial load, and was described according to
loading Curve VI through Curve IX. In this region, when the residual displacement L1;~+3.97
mm, loading is accomplished according to Curve VI. However, if L1;>3.97 mm, then loading
is controlled in terms of Curve Vll. Thus, in this region, Curve VI and Curve VII utilizes the
residual displacements, L1;. recorded from Region 2 to redirect the loading path towards the
original curve.
Region 4 was defined as the Tension Unloading Branch when unloading of the
structure occurs after Region III and is defined according to the loading Curve X. In this
region, when the load or displacement target are reached the axial load, P;, and lateral load,
- 123-
H;, are recorded to define Curve X, which unloads structure back to initial conditions, P0 , and
lateral load, H0 In the passage from Region 4 to Region 1, residual displacements, L1;, are
recorded as input to defme the settings of Curve I and Curve II.
Curve 0 - Initial Axial Load Simulation - Region 0 :

J = 0; P
667kN
(3.22)
Curve I: Compression Loading -Region 1 (if L1;.? -2.44 mm):

p
JC
= 667 + 1779 -667 ( J -J,.); p

2.16 - J,I
1779kN
(3.23)
Curve II: Compression Loading -Region 1 ( if L1; <-2.44 mm ) :

P 2c
667 + 2793 - 667 ( J -J.) P

6.35 J.I
I
'
2793 kN
(3.24)
Curve III : Compression Loading - Region 1:

2793 1779
( J -2.16) ; P
6.35-2.16
P3c = 1779 +
Curve IV : Compression Loading
2793 kN
(3.25)
Region 1:
2793 ; J
P4c
.?
.ffl.35mm
(3.26)
Curve V : Compression Unloading - Region 2:

Psc
= P;
667 -P;
+
-H.
0
H;) ; P
.?
667 kN, H.? Ho
(3.27)
Curve VI: Tension Loading -Region 3 (if L1;5 +3.97 mm):

P6c
667 + 222 - 667 ( J - J . ) . p

-o.76 J,I
I
'
-124-
.?
222 kN
(3.28)
Curve VII: Tension Loading -Region 3 (if L1 1 >+3.97 mm):

P
7C
= 667
302 667
(A -A,), P
--6.35 - A.
-302kN
(3.29)
'
Curve VIII : Tension Loading - Region 3:

302 222
(A + 0.76) ;
--6.35 + 0. 76
P8 c = 222 +
-302 kN
(3.30)
Curve IX: Tension Loading -Region 3:

P9 c
-302 ; A s --6.35mm
(3.31)
Curve X: Tension Unloading -Region 4:

P10 c =Pi +
667 -Pi
Ho
Hi
Hi) ; P s667 kN H s H 0 kN
(3.32)
Based on the expressions presented above, Curve 0 is used to apply the initial axial
load. When the initial axial load is reached, the lateral load was recorded and its value was
assigned to the variable H 0 , used to describe Curve V and Curve X.
In Region 1 and Region 3, the control program was expressed in terms of axial load
versus pile top lateral deflection, as indicated in the curves to describe these regions. When
the target displacement and/or lateral load were reached, the structure was unloaded to the
initial axial load of +667 kN and lateral load, H0 , in terms of axial load versus lateral load
because during unloading the target must be the initial conditions, which is the pair (H0 ,+667).
At this stage, the residual displacement, L1 1, was recorded and its value was used to describe
the loading Curve I and Curve II in Region 1 and Curve VI and Curve VII in Region 3.
- 125-
3.4.5
Test Unit COR2 - Loading History

The loading history to simulate the seismic loading of test unit COR2 is presented in
Fig. 3-58. The frrst step in the testing procedure consisted of loading the specimen to an
initial axial load of +667kN, which corresponds to the prototype structure tributary initial
axial load. Similar to test units CORJ and COR3, in the next four cycles the specimen was
loaded to 25 %, 50%, 7 5% and 100%oftheoretical first section yielding in force control.
Next, incremental displacement ductility levels were obtained based on lateral deflections and
lateral loads recorded at 1 00% of experimental first section yielding and lateral loads at
theoretical yielding. The structure was than loaded solely in displacement control with three
cycles at each specified lateral deflection according to the deflections presented in Fig. 3-58.
- 126-
76.2
Single Cycles
to First Yield
3 Cycles atEach
Displacement Target
J.l-5
t-=:+44.45
50.8
,-.....
...._,
J.i-2.5
t-=+22.35
10
[--
10
25.4
J.i-3
t-=+26.67
J.i-6
t-=:+53.34
J.l-4
t-=+35.56
II
c::
0
......
......
u
ll)
0.0
ll)
IV
-....l
ca
[--
::
-25.4
1'1
>
ll)
......
....:l
ll)
......
V1
~
II
>
"""
<'1
J.i-2.5
t.= -21.59
":'
II
>.
>
-50.8
ai
Vy'
J.l-4
t.= -34.54
.E
e!I
J.l-5
t.= -43.18
Yy
!:.y= t.y ---.Yy
"'
...l
J.i-6
t.= -51.82
J.l-7
t.= -60.45
-76.2

-101.6
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Number of Cycles
Fig. 3-58 Test Unit COR2- Loading History
22
24
26
28
4.
Development Length of Prestressing Strands

Experimental investigation to predict the behavior of precast prestressed concrete shell
piles of the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge under simulated seismic loads has led to an
experimental study to estimate the development length of 9.53 mm diameter prestressing
strands. Moment curvature analysis of these piles at the pile head revealed that a more precise
knowledge of the development length of the prestressing reinforcement in these piles was
required to better predict the failure mode of test units CORJ, COR2 and COR3.
Development length of prestressing strands is commonly defined in terms of two
expressions which consider the aspects of bond between prestressing steel and concrete at
different stages of loading [17]. The first stage that may be considered in the loading of
prestressing members is the sudden or slow release of the prestressing strands. In this stage,
the initial prestressing force is transferred to the concrete by anchorage and bond of the steel
over a distance at the ends of the precast member. Anchorage of the prestressing steel to the
concrete is due to the mechanical interlock of the strands, and bond is developed as a result
of friction between the two materials. These two mechanisms of force transfer are known as
transfer bond and must be developed over a length, commonly defined as the transfer bond
length, to transfer the initial prestressing force to the\ surrounding concrete.
Another expression considers the additional length at the ends of the precast member
required to transfer the prestressing force through bonding due to the imposed external forces
and is termed flexural bond length. Thus, as forces increase in the prestressing strands at
different loading
st~ges,
the required length of strand to transfer these forces is termed
development length and is composed of the transfer bond length and flexural bond length.
Recorded data during the precasting of the concrete shells and during the experimental
testing procedure oftest units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 was used to estimate the required
development length of the prestressing strands used in the construction of the test units.
Regression analysis of the obtained experimental test data during manufacturing of the
concrete shells revealed that the estimated transfer length is significantly higher than outlined
in recent code provisions. Code provisions show that common values for the transfer length
of prestressing reinforcement is in the range of 50~ to 80db, while based on this experimental
investigation, values in the range of 120db to 190db can be expected.
- 128-
Experimental test data presented in this chapter was obtained during the precasting
operation while at Utility Vault. A total of 64 data channels were used in the instrumentation
of test units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 during manufacturing of the precast concrete shells,
according to the outline presented in Table 3-4. These strain gages were connected to a rapid
data acquisition system to record strains in the prestressing strands from stressing to removal
of the shells from the casting bed, and strains in the concrete section after transfer for a time
interval of approximately 48 hours. Strain gage readings from the time of jacking to transfer
were recorded from the prestressing strands in 8locations for strands B, C andD, according
to the installation layout presented in Fig. 3-35 and Fig. 3-46, and for test units CORJ and
COR3 and test unit COR2, respectively. In addition, before transfer, 16 more strain gages
were installed on the top surface of the concrete shell to monitored strain accumulations in
the concrete and predict elastic strain losses due to concrete shortening and estimate the
transfer bond length. These strain gages were installed as presented in Fig. 3-40 and Fig. 3-
48.
- 129-
4.1
Fabrication of the Precast Prestressed Concrete Shells

Manufacturing of the precast concrete shells took place in the construction facilities
of Utililty Vault in Fontana, California with the construction outline presented in Chapter 3.
4.1.1
Prestressing Losses
The total required jacking force was .obtained by considering prestress losses due to:
(1) Elastic Shortening of Concrete - !1JES, (2) Shrinkage of Concrete- !1fs, (3) Relaxation of
Strand- !1fR. (4) Chuck Seating- l:!.fcs and {5) Bed Shortening -!1fns.
Evaluation of prestress losses was performed in two phases according to the casting
operation sequence. The final prestress force after prestress losses was obtained from the
construction specifications of the prototype structure. The total final prestress force for the
2/3 scale models was 1521 kN, which was determined by scaling of the prototype prestress
force of 3425 kN. For each strand, the required final prestress force after losses was 56 kN.
4.1.1.1
Elastic Shortening of Concrete

The elastic shortening of concrete was computed at transfer of the prestressing
strands. Prestress losses due to elastic shortening of concrete were computed based on the
following equation [18]:
JJ:
ES
=[
1
J -
1/pi Pps
FDT
Aps
(4.1)
Where TJpiis the moduli ratio given by~Ep/Eci, Pps is the reinforcement ratio of the prestressing
strands and A ps is the cross sectional area of a single strand. For is the required final force in
each strand before testing. Based on equation (4.1), prestress losses due to elastic shortening
of concrete between transfer and day of test were estimated at 55 MPa.
- 130-
4.1.1.2
Shrinkage of Concrete
Shrinkage of concrete between transfer and day of test was also considered in
estimating prestressing losses. Prestress losses due to shrinkage were computed based on the
following expression [18]:
11 fs
( t 1 , ti)
= E, Esu K58 K 55 0.157 Ln [ ;, )
(4.2)
Where KsH is the humidity correction factor given by KsH = 1.40 - 0.01 H where H was
estimated at 0.60 humidity, K 55 is the shape factor, which for a volume-to-surface ratio of
1.70, leads to Kss = 0.98 presented in reference [18], and t1 is the time in days between day
of test and transfer, t;, which was estimated at 90 days for all test units, and Esu was computed
based on:
e5 u
=[ 2
11
+ -- (
1337
(4.3)
Where w is the concrete mix design water content in newtons per cubic meter. Based on
equation (4.2), prestress losses due to shrinkage of concrete between transfer and day oftest
were estimated at 68 :MPa.
4.1.1.3
Relaxation of Strand
Relaxation of the strands was computed in two time intervals between transfer and
day of test, and between transfer and jacking. Prestress losses due to strand relaxation were
computed based on the following expression [18]:
( ti) ( fps ( t;) -
45
0.55 ]log (
!i_)
(4.4)
ti
!py
Wherefps(tJ is the stress present in the strand at the beginning of the time interval,_{py=1,830
MPa, as presented in Table 3-3 and Fig. 3-26, and
t1 was
estimated at 90 days between
transfer and day of test and 4 days between jacking and transfer for all three test units, and
t; must be equal to one. Between transfer and day of test, .[pit;=5 ) was estimated by adding
prestress losses due !1fEs +11fs +11fR to fPlti= 90 ) to estimate fPit;= 5 ), and between jacking and
transfer,JPlt;=1 ), was estimated by adding prestress losses due 11fcs +11f8 s +11fR to.[pltr-5 ) to
estimatefps(ti= 1), wherefPlt= 1 ),fps(t=5 ) andJ;,lt=90 ) corresponds to the time at jacking, transfer
and day of test, respectively. Based on equation (4.4), prestress losses due to strand
relaxation between transfer and day oftest, and between jacking and transfer, were estimated
at 34 :MPa and 62 :MPa, respectively.
- 131 -
4.1.1.4 Chuck Seating

Another source of prestress losses that was considered was slippage of the strands in
the anchorage device, which is defined in this section as chuck seating. Prestress losses due
to chuck seating was obtained based on the following expression :
(4.5)
Where L1t: is the estimated strain loss due to chuck seating. At the live end, which corresponds
to the pulled end of the strand, the chuck seating was estimated at l5L =9.53 mm and at the
dead end, which corresponds to the side ofthe strand that was bearing against the strong-end
bulkhead during stressing of the strands, the chuck seating was estimated at l5v=3.18 mm.
These values were provided by Utility Vault. Thus, the total strain loss may be computed as
L1t:= (l5L +l5v)ILBED' where LBED
= 6,096
mm is the distance between the casting bed
strong-end bulkheads. Based on equation (4.5), prestress losses due to chuck seating were
estimated at 409 MPa.
4.1.1.5
Bed Shortening
Prestress loss due to shortening of the casting bed was obtained based on the
following expression:
(4.6)
Where At: is the estimated strain loss due to bed shortening. Bed shortening was estimated at
l58 Ev=5.10 mm provided by Utility Vault. Thus, the total strain loss may be computed as L1t:=
l58 EvfLBED Based on equation (4.6), prestress losses due to chuck seating were estimated at
164 MPa. Table 4-1 presents a summary for the different sources of prestress loss.
- 132-
Table 4-1 Summary of Prestress Losses

Sources of Prestress Loss
Time Interval
Time Interval
Jacking - Transfer
Transfer- Test Date
[MPa]
[MPa]
Elastic Shortening of Concrete - 11fEs
55
Shrinkage of Concrete - !1fs
68
Relaxation of Strand - !1fR
34
62
Chuck Seating - 11fcs
409
Bed Shortening -11fns
164
Computation of prestress losses was based on the final prestressing force of 56 kN,
and to the expected sources of prestress losses during the time intervals of transfer to test
date and jacking to transfer as indicated inTable 4-1. Based on the values presented in Table
4-1, the total prestress loss is then !1f
=!1fEs + !1fR + 11fs + 11fcs + 11fns =792 MPa which leads
to the total jacking force of 93 kN per strand. This value wiU impose a concrete compressive
stress of 11 MPa in the concrete shell, which is approximately 40% of the estimated concrete
compressive strength at time of transfer fci
- 133-
_I
I
I
I
4.1.2 Prestressing Schedule

The strands were stretched between two strong-end bulkheads depicted in Fig. 3-1.
Each strand was stressed using a center-hole ram, and the tension in the strand was monitored
by a pressure meter. Each strand was initially stressed to 14% of the total jacking force to
remove slack in the strands. After all the strands were pulled to the initial prestressing force
of 13 kN, the concrete shell spiral
cage was realigned to the desired
pitch and the strands were then
stressed to the final jacking force of
93 kN. In both of these stressing
\
stages, the electric cables from the

strain gages were connected to a
rapid data acquisition system to
record strain gage readings during
the precasting phase.
To minimize unbalancedload
of the casting bed, the strands were
pulled and flamed cut according to
Fig. 4-1 Strand Jacking and Cut Sequence
the sequence presented in Fig. 41.

Strands B, C and D strain gages were monitored during the manufacturing of the concrete
shells.
- 134-
4.2
Transfer Bond Length

Estimated transfer length for test units CORJ, COR2 and COR3, used in pre-test and
post-test analysis, was obtained from a regression analysis. Strain gage readings obtained for
each strand and at the concrete surface allowed the evaluation of strain at different locations
along the concrete shells.
Strain gage readings recorded during manufacturing of test unit CORJ, at a distance
of152 mm, 914 mm and 2,337 mmfrom the pile head, are presented in Fig. 4-2, Fig. 4-3 and
Fig. 4-4. Total pile length is 4,572 mm. Referring to Fig. 4-2, it is clear that strain losses at
the section ends are mostly due to loss of mechanical bond. Strains obtained from the
concrete surface gage indicate minimum strain losses due to elastic shortening of the concrete
shell. Away from the section ends, at a distance of914 mm, there is a reduction in mechanical
bond losses and an apparent increase in losses due to elastic shortening, as illustrated in Fig.
4-3. Finally, at approximately the center of the pile section, prestress losses are only due to
elastic shortening of concrete, as shown in Fig. 4-4, because strain in the strand, Eps(t1), at a
time,
t ,
1
equals the strain in the strand,
shell Econc at time,
tf (
i.e.Eps(9
Etronsfer
obtained at transfer plus strain in the concrete
=Erransfer+Econc ).
In test unit COR2, the strands were anchored with a wedge-chuck VSL S5N
Anchorage System, as illustrated in Fig. 3-22, in order to reduce the effects of prestress losses
in the pile end near the load stub. Vertical strain profiles for the prestressing strands of test
unit COR2, presented in Chapter 6, suggest that the anchorage system was adequate in
clamping the strands near the load stub interface. Moreover, strand strain gage readings taken
during manufacturing of the precast concrete shell indicate small amount of slippage in the
region near the anchorage system.
Referring to Fig. 4-5, the concrete shell was separated in two parts at approximately
86 hours. Oscillations in the strand strain gage readings indicate wave propagation during
cutting of the strands. It is clear that before and after cutting of the strands, strain gage
readings were approximately the same, which indicates small amounts of strain losses while
cutting the pile section at the wood strip.
- 135-
12000
10000
{Strain at Jacking
Bed Shortening and Chuck Seating

Strain Losses
Steel Relaxation
Strain Losses
8000 - II
,.-.._
(..)
::3.._
UJ
0\
--
~Concrete Casting
;=- 1
Strain at Transfer Ctransfer _}
6000 -
Prestress Strand Cps(t)
'-"
a
t:l 4000 ~
----
Concrete Surface Cconc(t)
---
Ctransfer + Cconc(t)
CZl
2000 -
(!)

Strain Losses c transfer+ c conc(tf)
Mechanical Bond Strain Losses

c transfer+ c conc(tf) - Cps(tf)
...._
Strain at time 1f _/
------ Initial Pull
Cps(tf)
s~-::~me tf~
Cconc (tf)
-2000
0
24
48
72
96
120
Time ( Hours )
Fig. 4-2 Test Unit CORJ -Strand Strain versus Time at 152mm from the Pile Head
12000
Strain at Jacking
10000
Strain Losses
~ Concrete Casting
8000
(.,)
:::t
Cl)
_}
Prestress Strand t;ps(t)
6000
Concrete Surface t;conc(t)
1=1
.Cd
!:l
Strain at Transfer t;transfer
t;transfer + t;conc(t)
4000
Strain at time tf

Strain Losses t: transfer + t; cone (tf)
t;ps(tf)

t: transfer+ t: conc(tf) - t;ps(tf)
2000
Initial Pull
------;;~~timet;_}
t;conc (tf)
24
48
72
96
120
Time ( Hours )
Fig. 4-3 Test Unit COR/- Strand Strain versus Time at 914mm from the Pile Head
12000
10000 - {Strain at Jacking
~B'd Short,nlltg ond Chuok s,,ing
Steel Relaxation
Strain Losses
Strain Losses
8000 -
~-Concrete Casting
Strain at Transfer Ctransfer
_/~--
Strain at time tf _}
,.-.,
G..l
::3..
00
6000 -
t:l
(/)
Cps(tf)
Prestress Strand Cps(t)
'..-'
-{i)
4000
----
Concrete Surface C:conc(t)
---
transfer + Cconc(t)
(!)

Strain Losses c transfer+ E conc(tf)
Mechanical Bond Strain Losses c = 0.00
2000 - - - Initial Pull
L ____
s~:::a~~7::Ji
Cconc (tf)
-2000
24
48
72
96
120
Time ( Hours )
Fig. 4-4 Test Unit CORJ - Strand Strain versus Time at 2337mm from the Pile Head
12000
10000
Strain at Transfer
transfer

Strain Losses
8000
cu
::t
~Concrete Casting
Steel Relaxation
Strain Losses
6000
Prestress Strand Eps(t)
Concrete Surface Econc(t)
4000
Etransfer + Econc(t)
Strain at Pile Separation

Strain Losses E transfer+ E conc(tf)
2000
Strain at time tt Eps(tf)

E transfer+ E conc(tf)- Eps(tf)
Initial Pull
0
-2000
0
24
48
72
Time ( Hours )
Fig. 4-5 Test Unit COR2- Strand Strain versus Time at 610mm from the Pile Head
96
4.2.1
Regression Analysis
Based on all the strain gage readings obtained during manufacturing of the three
concrete shells, a regression analysis was performed in order to estimate the transfer bond
length for the prestressing strands. Regression analysis of the obtained data was performed
by minimizing the sum of the squared errors for different degrees of polynomials between
order one and order four. The best curve fit for the prestressing strands strain gage reading
'
was a quadratic curve, and for the concrete shell surface strain gage readings, the best curve
fit was a straight line.
The best curve fit was obtained for the curve with the minimum squared error
according to the following expression [19]:
n
A =
L( Yi
Yi
(4.7)
i=l
Where Yi represents the different normalized strain gage readings and y i represents values
obtained from the regression curve evaluated at the position of the strain gages. Fig. 4-6
presents the regression analysis final results ..
The strain gage readings were normalized in terms of the following expressions:
eps ( tf)
etransfer
(4.8)
for the strand strain gage readings, and:
(4.9)
for the concrete surface strain gage readings. In addition, a 95% confidence interval was
established to obtain different ranges of transfer length for pre-test and post-test analysis to
study sensitivity of analysis of the pile section under simulated seismic response, as discussed
in Chapter 2.
Confidence interval in the estimation of the mean values at different positions
corresponding to location of the strain gages was obtained based on the following expression
[20]:
(4.10)
Where (J.lJ.a) represents the interval with a confidence of a=95%, y is the mean for the
normalized strain gage readings as defined earlier, t a
2'n
- 140-
is the t distribution value estimated
at a/2 with n-1 degrees of freedom, n is the number of data points at each gage position, and
s is the unbiased sample variance obtained according to the expression [20]:

s = _1 [
n -1
E Yi2
- n y2]
(4.12)
i=l
Regression analysis to estimate the transfer bond length is presented in Fig. 4-6. In
this figure, data from all of the three test units was used in developing the regression analysis.
This analysis takes into account the strain transfer from the prestressing strands into the
concrete shell, as a result of the mechanical interlock and bond friction between the strands
and the concrete. Assuming that elastic shortening of the concrete shell did not occur, the
transfer length would be the distance from the free end of the strand to a point in which no
strain losses are observed in the prestressing steel. However, losses due to elastic shortening
of the concrete are present and, as expected, losses in the prestressing steel always occur as
it is suggested in the plots shown in Fig. 4-2 through Fig. 4-4, obtained from the recorded
strain gage data. These plots show the strain versus time history for three different locations
along the pile length for test unit CORJ. Similar plots may be developed for the other test
units as illustrated in Fig. 4-5.
The prestressing transfer length limit corresponds to that point in which no strain
losses occur due to a mechanical bond slip mechanism. In the regression analysis, the transfer
bond length was defined as the intersection point between the quadratic regression analysis
curve for the strands strain gage data proiile and the concrete surface strain gage data profile
shown in Fig. 4-6. Based on this regression analysis, the transfer bond length was estimated
at 1,473 mm, with a 95%confidence interval upper bound of 1,727 mm and lower bound of
1,219 mm. These three values were used in the pre-test and post-test analysis of test units
CORJ, COR2 and COR3, as discussed in Chapter 2.
- 141-
1.00
1.00
0.80
I
I
<>I
I
I
<>
""""
"'
'1:1
./:l
U)
'-'
0.60
1-<
"'
.j::o.
tv
-...
~Estimated Transfer Length = l727mm
r---+I
I
0.40
<>
8
"'0..
95% Confidence
Interval For
Variable
Standard
Deviation
r.u
0.20
y = -0.1355 x"2 + 0.7244 x
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.)
at 95% Interval Upper Bound
c::
Estimated Transfer Length= 1473mm

at Mean Value
0.60
"'c::
I
I
I
I
I
C<:l
Estimated Transfer Length= 1219mm

at 95% Interval Lower Bound
-...
0.40
1000
CJ
r.u
t;ps (t f) 1 Ctransfer
0.20
l - I.: cone (t f ) I Ctr~sfer
Regression Curve Prestressing Slrand
Regression Curve Concrete Surface
1500
.......
""""
,._..
CJ
c::
0
Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3
0.00
500
./:l
r.u
0.00
0
""""
~
r-----t----L
./:l
r.u
0.80
y = 1 - 0.02282 X
2000
Distance to Pile Head (mm)
Fig. 4-6 Transfer Bond Length Regression Analysis
2500
3000
4.3
Flexural Bond Length

Flexural bond length for pre-test analysis was based on an average bond strength of
1. 72 MPa, which corresponds to the current ACI [4] average bond strength.
4.3.1 Evaluation of Code Provisions for the Development Length of

Prestressing Strands
Current ACI code provisions specify that three or seven wire strands shall be bonded
within a development length according to the expression [4]:
ldp = 0.048 ise dbp + 0.145 (ips - fse) dbp
( SI units)
(4.13)
where the first and second terms represent the transfer and flexural bond length, respectively.
Thus, ACI current code provisions specify an average bond strength of 5.21 MPa and 1.72
MPa for transfer and flexural bond, respectively. Based on equation (4.13) and assuming an
initial prestress of 1,400 MPa, the transfer bond length and flexural bond length are 70dbp and
90dbp, respectively. Thus, the development length for a 9.53 mm diameter prestressing strand
with an initial prestressing stress of 1,400 MPa is 160dbp
4.3.2 Proposed Code Provisions for the Development Length of

Prestressing Strands
Martin et al. [21] introduces a different development length requirement for
prestressing strands, based on reevaluation of Hanson et al. [22] research data. Martin has
proposed different equations than the ACI current code provisions for estimation of
prestressing development length by fitting a bilinear curve to the curves, calculated by
Hanson. Martin recommends the following equations to estimate the prestressing stress at a
distance of lx from the section end of a 9.53 mm diameter prestressing strand [21] :
ips
= 1.72 lx
ips
= 1096
,
0.28 lx
lx s 80 dbp and dbp

lx > 80 dbp and dbp
( SI units)
- 143-
=9.53 mm
= 9.53 mm
(a)
(b)
(4.14)
As before, assuming an initial prestress of 1,400 MPa, the transfer bond length and
flexural bond length are 113dbp and 229dhp respectively. Thus, based on Martin's equations,
the development length for a 9.53 mmdiameter prestressing strand with an initial prestressing
stress of 1400 MPa is 342dbp which is approximately 2 times greater than the development
length proposed by current ACI code provisions.
Russel et al. more recently developed the following transfer length equation [23]:
11
= 0.0725 fse dbp
SI units)
(4.15)
which, yields the transfer length for a 9.53 mm diameter prestressing strand with an initial
prestress 1400 MPa of 106dhp Russel proposes the flexural bond length be computed
according to the average bond length of 1. 72 MPa.
Fig. 4-7 presents the normalized prestressing stresses in tenns offse away from the pile
ends for the
experiment~}
test results, the regression analysis and the different equations
presented earlier. In this figure, the experimental test results consist of the final prestressing
force recorded in the strands after testing of the three test units in single bending, and the
transfer stresses, fse, recorded during manufacturing of the concrete shells. Vertical strain
profiles for the prestressing strands for the three test units are presented in Chapters 5, 6 and
7.
In Fig. 4-7, the stresses indicated by the experimental test results increase from the
pile head to approximately 1,000 mm, and there is a reduction of stresses beyond a distance
of approximately 1,600 mm. This reduction in stress can be explained in terms of reduced
moment demand along the height of the pile. At the base of the pile, the moment demand is
highest, which is in the region of development of the prestress, as illustrated in Fig. 2-18.
Thus, it is not possible to quantify the flexural bond length for these test units based on the
experimental test results because of the reduction in stresses outside of the transfer length
zone.
The top linear part of the regression analysis curve presented in Fig. 4-7 was obtained
by assuming an average flexural bond strength of 1.72 :MPa. Referring to this figure, it is clear
that in regions near the pile ends, the regression analysis curve approximates the curves
proposed by Martin and Russel and the proposed code provision curve presents a lower
bound. In conclusion, test results in comparison with the pre-test analysis presented in
Chapter 2 suggests a higher transfer length than the one estimated based on ACI 318
requirements.
144-
;a/
I
1.00
0.80
Q)
+>-
0.60
VI
0.40
0.20
Test Units CORl, COR2 and COR3- Experimental Results
Predicted Stresses Regression Analysis
Recent Code Provisions- ACI 318
)(
Proposed Code Provisions -Martin & Scott
- B-
Proposed Code Provisions - Russel & Bums
0.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Position From Pile Head (nun)
Fig. 4-7 Stress Profiles versus Distance to Pile Ends
2500
3000
5.
Test Unit CORJ Experimental Test Results

This chapter includes a brief discussion of the general test description, load
deformation characteristics, control loading program performance, axial load versus lateral
load characteristics, vertical strain profiles longitudinal reinforcement and curvature profiles.
5.1
General Test Observations

Seismic load simulation of the pile specimen required application of fully reversed
cycles in both the vertical and lateral actuators. In this section, when in compression, the axial
force is designated as positive and, when in tension, the axial force is designated as negative.
In addition, when in the compression loading branch, the lateral force is positive and in the
tension loading branch, the lateral force is designated as negative. The complete test setup for
unit CORJ is shown in Fig. 3-18. Indicated on the test unit, 1,295 mm above the pile cap is
a horizontal line that marks the end of the inner core longitudinal reinforcement.
General observations recorded during the testing procedure are summarized as
follows:
Initial Axial Force Simulation : The first loading stage in the testing procedure
consisted of loading the specimen axially to +863 kN while controlling the top lateral
displacement to +0.00 mm. At the end of this loading stage, the lateral force was registered
at approximately +4 kN. This lateral force was then used as H 0 to define Curve VII and Curve
XIV for unloading, as described in Chapter 3, while describing test unit CORJ control
program outline.
At + 76 kN in the compression loading branch: This loading stage corresponds to the

specified +25% yielding force level. In this cycle, the registered lateral deflection was + 1.47
mm and the axial load was +1,029 kN.
At -43 kN in the tension loading branch: This loading stage corresponds to the
prescribed -25% yielding force level. The lateral deflection and the axial load were
respectively -1.49 mm and +738 kN.
- 146-
At + 152 kN in the compression loading branch: At the prescribed +50% yielding

force level, the lateral deflection was +4.09 mm and the axial load was+ 1320 k.N. At this
loading stage, the structure displayed no signs of physical distress, as no cracks were
observed in the test specimen.
At -87 kN in the tension loading branch: At -50% yielding, the lateral deflection and
axial load were, respectively, -3.22 mm and +578 k.N.
At +227 kN in the compression loading branch: In this cycle the structure was
loaded to +75% yielding in which the lateral deflection was registered at+7.37 mm and the
axial load was+1596 k.N.
At -130 kN in the tension loading branch: At -75% yielding the lateral deflection was
5.92 mm and the axial was +393 k.N.
At +302 kN in the compression loading branch: This loading stage corresponds to

the theoretical frrst section yielding (+ 100% yielding), at which stage the lateral deflection and
axial load were, respectively, +12.75 mm and +1948 k.N. During loading ofthe specimen a
noise was heard, followed by a slight drop in the lateral load. However, inspection of the
structure revealed no signs of physical distress.
theoretical first section yielding while in the tension loading branch ( -100%yielding). At this
stage the lateral deflection and the axial load were registered at approximately -11.64 mm and
+190 k.N, respectively.
After this cycle the loading pattern was changed from single cycles to three cycles,
according to the prescribed displacement ductility levels. The experimental yield
displacements, SY, and the loads corresponding to theoretical frrst section yield,
VY, that were used in the bilinear approximation calculations are as follows:
V'Y, and yield,
1. Lateral deflections at theoretical first section yielding:

Compression:
~'ye=
+12.75 mm
Tension:
~'yr =
Tension :
v~T=
-11.64 mm
2. Lateral load at theoretical first section yielding:

Compression:
V~c=
+302 kN
- 147-
-173 kN
3. Lateral load at theoretical section yielding:

Compression : Vyc =+ 403 kN
Tension: Vyr= -204 kN
4. Calculation of displacement ductility
llt.
=+,-1:
Compresswn
Tension
- yC
1
Vyc
A
ilyc
--
+17.02mm
-13.72mm
Fig. 5-l Bilinear approximation

At i1
= +17.02 mm in the compression loading branch (J1L1 = + 1 ):
In this cycle the
structure was displaced to the theoretical section yielding computed above. No damaged was
yet observed in this stage. The peak laterall?ad was recorded at +347 kN and the axial load
at +2304 kN.
At i1
= -13.72 mm in the tension Zocut,ing branch (J1L1 =-1 ): In this cycle the structure
was displaced to the theoretical section yielding computed above. At this displacement
ductility level, the lateral load was -178 kN and the axial load was +66 kN.
At i1
= +25.65 mm in the compre~sion loading branch W-1 = +1.5):
Onset of
cracking began with a single horizontal flexural crack registered at approximately 457 mm
from the soffit slab and a vertical splitting crack 1,092 mm long, starting at 584 mm from the
soffit slab, providing first visual evidence of slipping of the prestressing strands (see Fig. 5-2).
Peak lateral and axial loads atthis displacement ductility level were +415 kN and +2,630 kN,
respectively.
At L1
= -20.57 mm in the tension loading branch W-1 = -1.5):
In the tension loading
branch, onset of cracking began also at this level, with similar observations described earlier.
A horizontal flexural crack was first observed at a height of 1,219 mm, and a vertical splitting
crack started at 76 mm from the soffit slab and extended 1,956 mm centered about the line,
marking the end of the longitudinal reinforcement (see Fig. 5-3). Peak lateral and axial loads
at this displacement ductility level were -194' kN and -28 kN, respectively. At this cycle the
axial load was for the ftrst time in tension.
-1;48-
At L1
=+34.04 mm in the compresslon loading branch (u.a = +2):
Lateral load and
axial load at this displacement level were +456 kN and +2,758 kN, respectively. At this cycle,
the prescribed maximum axial compressive lbad that the prototype structure might experience
in a seismic event was achieved.
At L1 = -27.43 mm in the
comp~ession
loading branch W.a = -2):
At this
displacement ductility level, the lateralload 1 was -191 kN and the axial load was -38 kN.
At +51.05 mm in the compression loading branch W.a
= +3):
Minor crushing and
spalling of the cover concrete at the base of the pile indicate first signs of formation of plastic
hinge in this region. More extensive vertical ~plitting cracks appeared in the region where the
longitudinal reinforcement terminates. One additional horizontal flexural crack was observed
at approximately 1,270 mm above the soffit slab. In addition, on the sides of the pile, the
previous marked flexural cracks are beginning to incline towards the opposite side of the
compression toe, as indicated in' Fig. S-4. This occurrence is opposite to the formation of the
flexural-shear cracking pattern that might be expected in any flexural-shear test. At this
displacement ductility level, the lateral load was +520 kN and the axial load was +2,758 kN.
At this stage, the maximum flexural strength was achieved under axial compressive loading.
At -54.86 mm in the tension loading branch (u.a
=-4): The structure is expected to
display an increased displacement ductility c~pacity in the tension loading branch, compared
to the ductility levels obtained for the compression loading branch. As a result, the loading
procedure was effected such that the ratio
~n
increase of the current ductility level to the
expected ultimate ductility level was approximately the same in both loading branches to
avoid early failure in any one of the loading ~ranches. Registered lateral load and axial load
were -229 kN and -298 kN, respectively. Concurrently with the compression loading branch
in the tension loading branch, the maximum flexural strength of the structure was achieved
I
at this stage.
At +59.69 mm in the compression loading branch W.a
= +3.5):
A few minor cracks

were recorded in this stage which emanated from previous cracks. Peaks loads at this
displacement ductility level were +494 kN arid +2,758 kN, respectively.
- 149-
At -82.30 mm in the tension loading branch (uJJ = -6): Peaks loads at this
displacement ductility level were -215 kN and -302 kN, respectiv~ly. At this cycle the
I
prescribed maximum axial tensile load tha~ the prototype structure might experience in a
seismic event was achieved.
At +68.07 mm in the compression loading branch (yJ = +4 ): No significant increase

in the number of flexural, vertical or inclined cracks was recorded. However, present cracks
are wide open, which corroborates the section negative stiffness while in the transition from
I
the compression to the tension loading branch, or vice versa, until cracks begin to close at the
compression toe. Peak loads were lateral load +495 kN and axial load +2758 kN. Slight drop
in the lateral load from peak load was observed. During the third cycle at this displacement
level, crushing and spalling of the cover concrete at the region where the longitudinal
reinforcement terminates is observed, whicq indicates plastic hinge formation in this region
(see Fig. 5-5).
At -109.73 mm in the tension loading branch (yJ = -8): Wide open horizontal
flexural crack at the termination of the inner core reinforcement was observed. Concentration
of inclined flexural cracks is more visible vrhen in the tension loading branch than in the
compression loading branch and inclination of flexural-shear cracks are towards the opposite
side of the compression toe as previously d9cumented (see Fig. 5-6). At this displacement
ductility level, the lateral load was -211 kN and the axial load was -302 kN.
At +85.09 mm cycle in the compression loading branch WJ = +5): Significant

crushing and spalling of the cover concrete in the region where the longitudinal reinforcement
terminates indicates considerable loss in the p10ment carrying capacity of the section in this
region (see Fig. 5-7). At this displacement ductility level, the lateral load was +457 kN and
the axial load was +2758 kN. Lateral load continued to drop frompeakload by approximately
10%. At the third cycle, increased crushing ahd spalling of the cover concrete was observed,
and fracture of the spiral bars, due to buckling of the prestressing strands, occurred at the
termination of the longitudinal reinforcemeqt. This event was followed by unwinding and
buckling of the exposed prestressing strands, with increasing propagation of the plastic hinge
at this level (see Fig. 5-8 and Fig. 5-9).
- 150-
At -137.16 mm in the tension loading branch (yL1 = -10): At this displacement

ductility level, the lateral load and axial load were -192 kN and -302 kN, respectively. The
lateral capacity of the pile specimen was approximately 84% of the registered maximum
lateral capacity. The testing procedure was stopped at this stage because rapid lateral load
degradation occurred during the last cycles of the testing procedure. However, the axial load
was still being supported by the specimen. Fig. 5-10 indicates formation of second region of
plastic deformations above soffit slab where inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates.
Post test investigation of the specimen revealed that a total of 5 fractures occurred in
the spiral cage and that the inner core bars were exposed. In addition, at the termination of
the inner core longitudinal reinforcement, a crack approximately 25.4 mm wide was visible.
Fig. 5-11 shows the final damage state of the test unit.
Fig. 5-2 Onset of Flexural Cracking at Lateral Deflection +25.65 mm
- 151-
Fig. 5-4 Cracking Pattern at +51.05mm
Fig. 5-3 Cracking Pattern at -20.57mm
Fig. 5-5 Onset of Plastic Hinge Relocation at +68.07mm
Fig. 5-7 Extent of Spalling at +85.09mm
- 154-
Fig. 5-8 Unwinding of Prestressing Strands at Lateral Deflection +85.09mm
Fig. 5-9 Wide Open Crack Above Inner Core Bars
- 155-
Fig. 5-11 Complete Test Setup Mter Testing
Fig. 5-10 Plastic Hinge Relocation at -137.16mm
5.2
Load Deformation Characteristics

Fig. 5-12 shows the measured lateral force versus lateral deflection response of test
unit CORJ. The initial response of the pile section indicates a slightly higher stiffness than
originally predicted in both the compression and tension loading branch. At peak load in the
compression loading branch, the predicted maximum load was approximately 20% lower than
the measured maximum load. However, in the tension loading branch, the predicted value
matches closely the observed test results.
In the compression loading branch, a maximum lateral force of +520 kN was recorded
at approximately ~~=3x1. At this level, 5% degradation oflateral strength between successive
cycles was recorded, and between ~ ~ =3 x1 and ~ ~ =4x 1, only a minor reduction was observed,
which coincides with the frrst stages of crushing and spalling of the cover concrete in the
region where the longitudinal reinforcement terminates. At
~~=5xl
there was a significant
drop in the lateral strength of the section and, at successive cycles, the lateral load decreased
rapidly as a consequence of loss of the cover concrete around the termination of the
longitudinal reinforcement and slipping of the prestressing strands.
A maximum lateral force of -229 kN was recorded in the tension loading branch
during cycle ~~=-4xl. At successive cycles ~~=-8x1 and ~~=-10x1, approximately 3% of loss
in the lateral strength was recorded. The testing procedure was stopped at ~~=-10x3 because
of rapid degradation in the lateral strength of the section.
Post test investigation of the test data indicates that the maximum displacement
ductility of ~~=+5 was achieved in the compression loading branch and J.l.~=-1 0 was achieved
in the tension loading branch. However, excessive degradation at these levels is significant.
In the compression loading branch, lateral deflections at maximum displacement and yield
L1max= +85.09 rnm and L1y = +17:02 rnm, while in the tension loading
branch these values were L1max= -137.16 rnm andL1y = -13.72 rnm, respectively.
were, respectively,
- 157-
J-L= 1
1.5
Experimental Test Results
450
Pre-Test Analysis
Post-Test Analysis
300
,.-._
~
...._,
"'C:)
C':l
150
"'
C!)
........
V\
00
-150
-300
-152.40
10
-127.00
-101.60
-76.20
-50.80
l=J-L
-25.40
0.00
25.40
50.80
Fig. 5-12 Lateral Load versus Lateral Deflection Characteristics
76.20
101.60
Fig. 5-13 shows the measured lateral force versus curvatures computed at the pile cap
interface. The diagram depicted in this figure indicates a good correlation between the post
test analysis and the experimental test results, in particularly at peak forces. The main
characteristics visible in this figure are very similar to those indicated earlier for the pile lateral
deflection, mainly negative stiffness at the transition from the compression to the tension
loading branch and vice versa and lower stiffness in the compression loading branch.
Post test investigation of the test data indicates that a maximum curvature ductility
of !-iq~=+ 11 was achieved in the compression loading branch and ).l"'=-17 in the tension loading
branch. In the compression loading branch, maximum and yield curvatures are, respectively,
cpnuu:=+0.00006 mm- 1 and cpy=+0.0000055 mm- 1, and . cpmax=-0.000085 mm- 1 and
cpy=-0.000005 mm- 1 in the tension loading branch. As expected, curvature ductility levels are
slightly higher than displacement ductility levels.
Curvatures presented in Fig. 5-13 represent average values and were computed
according to the expression:
lfJ al!e
(5.1)
where AN and A5 are the relative vertical displacements between adjacent curvature rods in
the extreme faces on opposite sides of the pile section,
the pair of linear potentiometers and
hcur
wcur is
the horizontal distance between
is the vertical distance between the adjacent linear
potentiometers.
During computations of curvatures at the pile cap interface, the height of the linear
potentiometer cell
hcur include
an additional term to account for tensile strain penetration into
the pile cap by including the strain penetration length into the curvature cell height,
hcur
according to the expression:

(5.2)
where db is the main pile bar diameter and.fs is the pile main bar stress obtained from the pile
inner core reinforcement strains. In the early stages of the testing procedure, strain levels in
the inner core reinforcement are minimum and
fs should be used instead of /y because tensile
strain penetrations are negligible.
- 159-
450

Pre-Test Analysis
Post-Test Analysis
300
----g
~
150
0
~
'"a
~
......
Q\
Branch
-150
-300
-10.00
!= 17
-8.00
14
10
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Base Curvature (1/mm e-5)
Fig. 5-13 Lateral Load versus Base Curvature Characteristics
8.00
10.00
Axial load versus lateral deflection characteristics are presented in Fig. 5-14. This
figure also shows the profile of the loading path that was employed to control the application
of the simulated seismic forces. The maximum and minimum axial loads were predefined at
+2793 kN in the compression loading branch and -302 kN in the tension loading branch,
respectively.
Loading curves defined in Chapter 3 for test unit CORJ are also presented in Fig. 5-
14. In addition, indicated in this figure are the location at which the residual displacements
~i
were obtained when Curve VII and Curve XIV crossed the initial axial load axis and used
to define Curve I, Curve II and/or Curve III in Region 1 and Curve VIII, Curve IX and/or
Curve X in Region 3, which redirect the loading path towards the control program loading
path. In Fig. 5-14 not all curves are presented for clarity. Refer to Fig. 3-53 for additional
curves not shown here. As expected, these curves are straight lines which emanate from the
residual displacements,
~i
and point towards the end points of these curves.
Fig. 5-15 presents the axial load versus the lateral load characteristics for test unit
CORJ. In this figure is also shown the pre-test analysis loading path which was used to
develop the control program loading path depicted in Fig. 5-14. Pinching in the hysteresis
loops at the initial axial load are due to the fact that the control program loading path in the
unloading branches is described by a straight line initiating at the peak deformation to the
initial load state.
- 161 -
3000
2500

(Pi, Hi)
control Program Loading Path
2000
~
--g
1500
....:I
0\
-a
......
1000

Tension
Loa~ng
Branch
500
Curve Xlll
-500
l=J.L
-152.40
-127.00
-101.60
-76.20
-50.80
-25.40
0.00
25.40
50.80
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 5-14 Axial Load versus Lateral Deflection Characteristics
76.20
101.60
3000
2500
2000
I
I
I
I
I
I
1500
1l0
~
0\
ca
IV'
I
I
1000
Compression
Loading Branch
---------~
I
I
Tension
Loading Branch
I
I
I
I
I
500
-500
ly
I
-300
-150
150

Pre-Test Analysis
300
Lateral Load (kN)
Fig. 5-15 Axial Load versus Lateral Load Characteristics
450
5.3
Pile Curvature Profiles

In this section and future sections, the plotted values are the frrst cycle peak values
for each cyclic response. Curvature vertical proflles along the height of the pile are presented
in Fig. 5-16(a) and Fig. 5-16(b) for initial and final stages of the testing procedure,
respectively.
The curvature profiles depicted in Fig. 5-16(a) show that in the initial stages of the
testing procedure region of plastic deformations form at the bottom of the pile section
illustrated by a significant increase in curvature a position 1. A second region of plastic
deformations is well illustrated in Fig. 5-16(a), depicted by a significant increase in the
curvature near the region where the inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates. This
second region of plastic deformations began to form when the lateral deflection was
approximately
~=-54.86
mm as a result of wide open cracks at this location, as it was
previously described.
The curvature profiles along the height of the pile, illustrated in Fig. 5-16(b), indicate
the length of the plastic hinge reached a maximum height of approximately 356 mm above the
pile cap interface. Referring to Fig. 5-16(b ), in the tension loading branch, maximum
curvatures at the soffit slab were recorded when the lateral deflection was approximately
~=-109.27
mm, and a decrease in curvature is observed at increasing lateral deflections
which indicates relocation of plastic hinge. At the same displacement levels, curvatures at the
termination of the inner longitudinal reinforcement increase with increasing lateral deflection.
Indicated in these figures are the yield curvature levels obtained from Fig. 5-16(a),
which provides a visual indication of regions of plastic deformations achieved in the different
loading stages. The length of the plastic hinge reached a maximum height of approximately
356 mm near the soffit slab, which is considerably less than the theoretical effective plastic
hinge length, lP, of 522 mm, obtained from the expression [8]:
(5.3)
This difference between experimental and theoretical results can be attributed to
minimum crushing of cover concrete at the base of the pile section. If plastic deformations at
the base of the pile section are sought to occur only in terms of yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement, then one obtains from the tensile strain penetration term presented above the
- 164-
plastic hinge length of approximately 148 mm. Thus, a smaller value than the experimental
test results can be explained in terms of some crushing of the cover concrete. Note inner core
reinforcement is Grade40 steel.
At the location where the longitudinal reinforcement terminates, it is not readily
perceived what is the exact length of plastic deformations; however, region of plastic
deformations are more concentrated between positions 8 and 5, which leads to a plastic hinge
length of approximately 609 mm.
- 165-
I
I
I
_______I___8
I
I
I
I
1828.80
1524.00
--.
1219.20
.:dbJl
;;
::X::
--e-
Termination of
_I __ !!lng Core _
Longitudinal
I
Reinforcement
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
914.40
Q.,
V=+76kN
~ v
--+---
I
I
Pull
+152kN
V= +227kN
-43kN
-87kN
-130kN
--+--
v =+302kN
-173kN
-+-
~=
-13.72mm
+17.02mm
Pull
I
I
I<P'
<P' yl
609.60
---e..-
Push
Initial Axial Load\',= +860kN
I y
I
I
I
I
304.80
Push
Soffit Slab Line

-LOO
-1.50
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.50
1.00
Curvature (1/mm x E-5)
(a) Curvature Vertical Pror.Jes- Initial Stages of Testing
1828.80
Termination of
1524.00
,-...1219.20
!.:d
~ 914.40
::X::
~
i:i:
609.60
304.80
- -
Soffit Slab Line

-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
Push
Pull
-+-
~=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
-8-
~= +25.65mm
-20.57mm
- - - ~= +34.04mm
-27.43mm
--f!r-
~= +51.05mm
-54.86mm
_.,_
~= +59.69mm
-82.30mm
-M-
~= +68.07mm
-109.73mm
__._
~= +85.09mm
-!37.16mm
10
(b) Curvature Vertical Profiles - Final Stages of Testing
Fig. 5-16 Curvature Vertical Profiles
- 166-
5.4
Pile Inner Core Longitudinal Reinforcement Strain Profiles
The inner core reinforcement consists of#7 Grade40 ([y=276 MPa) steel with a yield
strain of approximately 1500J.Le.
5.4.1 Pile Longitudinal Reinforcement- Vertical Strain Profiles

Vertical strain profiles for the inner core longitudinal reinforcement are presented in
Fig. 5-17 through Fig. 5-20.

Strain profiles along inner core bar A reveal that yielding of this bar in compression
occurred at approximately 304 mm above the pile cap line at Jl~=+2, and yield in tension at
the same location at
Jl~=-1.5.
Yield strain penetrations were recorded in this bar to a depth
of approximately -304 mm, which indicates a strain penetration of approximately 0.045d/y.

In
a~dition,
strain profiles indicate an approximate linear variation of strains from the top of
the bar to approximately position 6, which suggests a development length of approximately

533 mm. For this level of development length, an average bond stress of approximately
pave = 223
{i? {Mpa ] is required according to the expression pave
= ( db fy ) I ( 4 ld ).
Basic development length of a #7 bar, as required by the ACI318 [4], implies a bond strength
of Pave = 128
{i? {MPa].
The profiles for bars B and D, which are positioned on the sides of the pile, revealed
that these bars where always in tension and reached yielding only at later stages of the testing
procedure.
Strain profiles along inner core bar C reveal this bar yielded in tension at
approximately Jl~=+2 and, in compression, the recorded strains were always below yielding.
Furthermore, yield strain penetration into the pile cap did not occur until later stages of the
testing procedure. Yield strain levels for this bar were not recorded below a depth of
approximately -304 mm, which matches the results for bar A.
- 167-
-e-
1219.20
609.60
~
:::c
~
p:;
304.80
Pull
~=
+860kN
~ V=+76kN
-43kN
~ V=+152kN
-87kN
---+--+--+-
914.40
Push
Initial Axial Load
V=+227kN
-130kN
V=+302kN
-173kN
6=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
";;)
0.00
Pull
-304.80
-609.60
-914.40
-1500
-1000
-500
1000
500
Push
1500
Strain f..U:
(a) Vertical Strain Profiles - Initial Stages of Testing
1219.20
914.40
I
~
609.60
304.80
";;)
:::c
-------
0.00
Pile Cap Line
-+-
-B-
-304.80
--~
-609.60
---Push
--Pull
Yield
-3000
-1500
1500
3000
4500
Push
Pull
6=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
6=+25.65mm
-20.57mm
6=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
___...._
"= +51.05mm
-54.86mm
"=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
---*-+-
6=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
6=+85.09mm
-137.16mm
6000
Strain f..U:
(b) Vertical Strain Profiles- Final Stages of Testing
Fig. 5-17 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core Bar A

- 168-
-e--+--
1219.20
7
914.40
609.60
Pull
V=+76k:N
-43kN
V=+l52kN
-87k:N
-+-
V=+227k:N
-130k:N
-+--+--
Push
Initial Axial Load t= +860kN
V=+302kN
-173k:N
k+l7.02mm
-13.72mm
'-'
~
:::c
304.80
';3
0.00
Pull
-304.80
-609.60
---Push
--Pull
-1500
-500
-1000
500
1000
Push
1500
Strain f..LC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1219.20
914.40
609.60
'-'
304.80
'ii3
ii:
6
5
--~---
::t::
~
Soffit Slab Line
L ___
0.00
I
I
I
I
-304.80
Pile Cap Line
-609.60
Yield
---Push
--Pull
Yield
-+-e-
---
-1500
1500
3000
4500
6000
Strain f..LC
Pull
-13.72mm
1!.=+25.65mm
-20.57mm
1!.=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
---fr-
1!.~
-54.86mm
.............
fl=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
--M-
1!.~+68.07mm
-109.73mm
1!.=+85.09mm
-137.16mm
-914.40
-3000
Push
1!.=+17.02mm
-----
(b) Vertical Strain Profiles - Final Stages of Testing
Fig. 5-18 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core BarB
- 169- .
+51.05mm
-e-
1219.20
914.40
609.60
a;
:I:
~
i:i:
Push
Pull
Initi!d Axial Load Ji?,= +860kN
~ V =+76kN
-43kN
v "'+152kN
-87kN
--+--
V =+227kN
-130kN
-+-
V=+302kN
-173kN
-+--
!::.=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
304.80
0.00
Pile Cap Line
-304.80
-609.60
---Push
--Pull
II
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
Strain p,e
I
I
I
I
1219.20
I
~
I
I
609.60
I
I
14
304.80
'03
:I:
~
p::
914.40
0.00
---,
Line
___ L
13
-+-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Yield I
-304.80
-609.60
--9-
-Push
--Pull
-914.40
-3000
-1500
1500
3000
4500
6000
Push
Pull
t:.=+l7.02mm
-13.72mm
/::.=+25.65mm
-20.57mr,n
t:.=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
---6-......_
!::.= +1l.05mm
-54.86mm
~+59.69mm
-82.30mm
--M--
t:.=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
t:.=+85.09mm
-137.16mm
---
....
Strain p,e
Fig. 5-19 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core Bar C

- 170-
-e-
1219.20
914.40
s
~
:::c
;:;
.!l
0::
304.80
-43kN
V=+I521<N
-87kN
V=+227kN
-UOkN
--+-
Pull
~ V =+76kN
-+--+--
609.60
Push
Initial Axial Load ~= +860kN
V=+302kN
-173kN
~=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
Soffit Slab Line
0.00
-304.80
-609.60
---Push
--Pull
-1500
-1000
-500
0
Strain fU;
500
1000
1500
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1219.20
914.40
609.60
!;:;
304.80
---~---
::I:
.!l
0::
0.00
___ L ___
I
Pile Cap Line
I
I
I
I
I
-304.80
-609.60
Pull
-13.72mm
~=+25.65mm
-20.57mm
---......_
~=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
"'= +51.05mm
-54.86mm
"'=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
"""*"""
.......
~=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
"'=+85.09mm
-137.16mm
-a~
---Push
Pull
I
-914.40
-3000
Push
~=+17.02mm
--+-
-1500
1500
3000
Strain fU;
4500
6000
Fig. 5-20 Vertical Strain Profiles Inner Core BarD

- 171-
5.4.2
Pile Longitudinal Reinforcement- Circumferential Strain Profiles

Circumferential strain profiles for the pile inner core longitudinal reinforcement are
presented in Fig. 5-21 through Fig. 5-24. The circumferential profiles depicted in these
figures indicate, in the initial and fmal stages of testing, a linear variation of strain between the
longitudinal bars, which indicate small excursions into yielding strain. Yielding occurred
mainly between horizontal lines 2 and 7 with strains higher than yielding only between levels
3 and4.
Strain profiles at levelS indicate minimum strains in the pull direction; however, in the
push direction, strains approximate yielding which indicates a much smaller development
length under compressive strains.
- 172-
1500
1500
---Push
---Push
--Pull
--Pull
1000
1000
500-
"':t
iii,!:j
500
C'-l
"'
::i..
....
c
'(;l
-e--
~=
V=+76kN
-43kN
V=+152kN
-87kN
---+----+---+-
V=+227kN
-130kN
V=+302kN
-173kN
li=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
Pull
,!:j
-500
-500
-1000
-1000
-1500
90
180
270
360
Angle Positon (Degrees)

(a) Circumferential Strain Profiles
Initial Stages of Testing - Horizontal Line 1
180
90
270
360
Angle Position (Degrees)

(c) Circumferential Strain Profiles
---Push
---Push
--Pun
6000
--Pun
6000
4500
4500
-------m
~ 3000
,!:j
C'-l
+860kN
C'-l
-1500
Pull
Push
Initial Axial Load
Y~d
1500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A
= 1500
'<;l
,!:j
-3000 + - - - - - - - , , - - - - - - - , - - - - , - - - - - - l
90
180
270
0
360

(b) Circumferential Strain Profiles
Final Stages of Testing - Horizontal Line 1
~~ ::::
:::::.::::.~- .....
--+-a-
0
-1500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yield
--~...,--
C'-l
-----ft--
___....._
----*-
---------------
-1500
Yield
-3000
0
90
180
270
360

(d) Circumferential Strain Profiles
------
Fig. 5-21 Inner Core Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Horizontal Line 1 and 2
Push
Pull
li=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
li=+25.65mm
-20.57mm
11=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
11=+51.05mm
-54.86mm
li=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
li=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
li=+85.09mm
-137.16mm
1500
---Push
1500
--Pull
---Er
Initial Axial
Pull
Load~=
+860kN
1000
1000
V=+76kN
-43kN
-87kN
500
.............
.............
V=+152kN
500
cu
:::3...
s::
c;
Push
---Push
--Pull
-+-
V=+227kN
-130kN
V=+302kN
-173kN
6=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
Pull
!:l
r.l)
-500
-500
-1000
-1000
c
-1500
-1500
0
90
180
270
360

90
180
270
360

---{g)
--ITl
-+-a-
---
--Pull
-3000 - t - - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - - j
90
180
270
360
0

(b) Circumferential Strain Prof"Iles
--Pull
-3000~--------,---------.---------,-------~
90
180
270
360

(d) Circumferential Strain Prof"Iles
Pull
-13.72mm
6=+25.65mm
-20.57mm
6=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
- f t - 6=+51.05mm
54.86mm
___....._
-1500
-1500
Push
6=+17.02mm
""'*"-
----
6=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
6=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
6=+85.09mm
-137.16mm
1500
1500
---Push
--Pull
---Push
500
"'c:
V=+76kN
V=+IS2kN
-87kN
500
--+-
V=+227kN
-130kN
V=+302kN
-173kN
--+--
1>.: +17.02mm
-13.72mm
"'::t
::t
c:
-43kN
Pull
IZl
!Zl
-500
-500
-1000
-1000
-1500
-1500
0
90
180
270
360

.......
-....l
VI
90
4500
4500
~ 3000
~ 3000
Yield
...
- - - -~~~~~-- - - - ~~::.-+:::.:::~
!Zl
270
360
---Push
6000
--Pull
1500
180

(,;:) Circumferential Strain Profiles
---Push
6000
c:
a
b
Pull
Initial Axial Load~= +860kN
1000
1000
Push
-e-
--Pull
ac:
b
1500
--Pun
~
--!II
Yield
-+-e-
IZl
---
-1500
Yield
-3000
0
90
180
270
360

-3000+----.-----..,-----.-------1
0
90
180
270
360

(d) Circumferential Strain Prordes
Pull
-13.72mm
ll>=+2S.6Smm
-20.S7mm
a=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
_....._
ll>=+SI.OSmm
-S4.86mm
a=+S9.69mm
-82.30mm
---M-
ll>=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
-----
ll>=+8S.09mm
-137.16mm
-1500
Push
ll>=+l7.02mm
1500
-Push
--Pull
1500
Push
---Push
--Poll
'i':.~
-43kN
B60kN
1000
1000
v = +76kN
v = + 152kN
500
soo
V=+227kN
-130kN
V=302kN
-17JkN
lkl7.02mm
-IJ.72mm
c.J
::!.
'!
Pull
loitiol Axiol Load
!:l
tl)
Pull
-500
-SOD
-87kN
-1000
-1000
-1500
-1500
90
180
360
270

90
180
270
360

....:a
0\
---Push
---Push
6000-
4500-
4500
3000-
~ 3000
A
.!:I 1500-,- -
tl)
6000
--Poll
Yield
-----
c -- - - - - - A-
oiI~F~~::!!II~!~,...~~~~~'t~=~-~-;;;;::--to;...~i:S~~=,
-1500 - r - - - - - - - _ ..........._ - - - - - - Yield

-3000 + - - - - . - - - - - - , - - - - - . , - - - - - - - j
0
90
180
270
360

(b) Circumferential Strain Promes
---Pun
Yield
'! 1500
.!:I
--+-a-
Vl
---
-20.57mm
II= +34.lmm
-27.4Jmm
~~~+51.05mm
-54.86mm
11~+59.69mm
-82.30mm
........._
11=+68.07mm
-109.7Jmm
11=+85.09mm
-IJ7.16mm
--fr-
Yield
-M-
-3000
0
90
180
270
Pull
-IJ.72mm
11=2S.65mm
____...,_
-1500
Push
11~+17.02mm
360

5.5
Prestressing Strands Vertical Strain Profiles

Strain profiles for the prestressing strands are presented in Fig. 5-25 through Fig. 5-
28. Strain readings were obtained during fabrication of the precast prestressed concrete shell
while at Utility Vault and the gages were disconnected between fabrication and testing at
UCSD. Then, before testing, these same gages were reconnected to the data acquisition
system and balanced to zero. Then, the final strains recorded during the fabrication process
were added to the strains obtained during testing.
In the final stages of the testing procedure, strain profiles presented in these figures
indicate that maximum strains were achieved between positions 5 and 6, which is
approximately where the inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates. This indicates that
a total development length of approximately 1,524 mm is expected. The code required
development length is computed based on the following equation [18]:
ld
~e db
+ (fps - fse)
(5.4)
db
where the first and second terms represent the transfer and flexural bond length, respectively.
Based on an initial prestressing force of approximately 1378l\1Pa and a prestressing diameter
of9.53 mm, one obtains the required development length of 1,302 mm, which is slightly less
than extrapolated from experimental test results.
Difficulties associated with obtaining the prestressing development length, with a good
degree of confidence for this test setup, arise because regions of transfer forces are associated
with regions where moment demand is the highest. In addition, at the pile cap interface,
flexure cracking is significant and reduces bond strength, which in term increases required
development length. Development length extrapolated from test results match with those
values used in the pre-test analysis and are corroborated by test results in which plastic
deformations occurred where longitudinal reinforcement terminates.
Strain profiles presented in Fig. 5-25 through Fig. 5-28 indicate that prestressing
forces are always in tension with minimum decrease under compressive loads and increase
under tension loads, depending on the position of the strand relative to section compression
;
toe. For example, along strand A, maximum strains are observed in the pull direction because
in this direction this strand is in tension, and along strand C, maximum strains are observed
in the push direction when this strand is in tension.
- 177-
Push
Pull
2133.60
-e-
~ V=+76kN
-43kN
1828.80
--$--- v
-871cN
1524.00
-+-+-
Initial Axial Load JlJ= +860kN
-+-
+152kN
V=+227kN
-1301cN
V=+3021cN
-173kN
ik+17.02mm
-13.72mm
l219.20
... 914.40
re
Pull
609.60
Soffit Slab Line
304.80
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Strain f-LE:
(a) Vertical Strain Profiles- Initial Stages of Testing
2133.60
1828.80
1524.00
11219.20
:c
bll
~
2 914.40
p:
-+-
-a-
609.60
--__..._
----er-
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
--M-
0.00
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Push
Pull
li=+l7.02mm
-13.72mm
li=+25.65mm
-20.57mm
li=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
li=+51.05mm
-54.86mm
li=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
li=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
li=+85.09mm
-137.16mm
10000
Strain f-LEJ
Fig. 5-25 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand A
- 178-
Push
2133.60
--&-
Pull
Initial Axial Load ~= +860kN
~ V=+76kN
-43kN
1828.80
~ V=+152kN
-87kN
-130kN
1524.00
--+-- V=+227kN
--+-- v =+302kN
-+--
1!.: +17.02rnm
-173kN
-13.72mm
11219.20
~
bJj
.s
::I:
~
914.40
i5:
PuJJ
609.60
Soffit Slab Line
304.80
0.00
Push
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
StrainJU
---Push
2133.60
--Pull
1828.80
1524.00
s
s-1219.20
',
'ii:)
::t:
., 914.40
-+-
-a-
609.60
2000
4000
6000
8000
Pull
-13.72mm
1!.= +25.65mm
-20.57mm
t.=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
1!.: +51.05mm
-54.86mm
......._
---
a=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
--M-
fl:+68.07mm
-109.73mm
-----
t.=+85.09mm
-137.16mm
---6--
304.80
Push
1!.=+17.02mm
10000
Strain JJ-E:
Fig. 5-26 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand B
- 179-
Push
2133.60
1828.80
1524.00
Pull
-&-
Initial Axial Load Jl,= +860kN
+76kN
-43kN
~ V =+152kN
-87kN
-+---+-
V =+227kN
-130kN
V=+302kN
-173kN
~+17.02mm
-13.72mm
-I5
11219.20
..:
bl)
;:;
::c
.2 914.40
l5:
Pull
609.60
Soffit Slab Line
304.80
0.00
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Strain J.U
2133.60
1828.80
1524.00
Il219.20
..:
::c
914.40
-+-
--e-
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
-----0.00
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
---
---b.......__
Push
Pull
"'=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
"'=+25.65mm
-20.57mm
"'=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
"'=+51.05mm
-54.86mm
"'=+59.69mm
BZ.30mm
-K-
"'=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
----
"'= +85.09nun
-137.16mm
10000
Strain J.U
Fig. 5-27 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand C

- 180-
2133.60
Push
-e~
1828.80
--+-
v +76kN
v +152kN
v +227kN
v =+302kN
-+-
ll=+l7.02mm
1524.00
Pull
Initial Axial Load Jb= +860kN

-43kN
-87kN
-l30kN
-173kN
-13.72mm
11219.20
:c
bO
:u
:I::
~
914.40
i:i:
Pull
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
0.00
0
2000
4000
6000
10000
8000
Strain J.U;
---Push
2133.60
--Pull
1828.80
6
1524.00
512l9.20
:c
bl}
:u
:I::
~
914.40
i:i:
-+-
-B-
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
2000
4000
6000
8000
Push
Pull
ll=+l7.02mm
-13.72mm
ll=+25.65mm
-20.57mm
ll=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
~ 6,. +51.05mm
-54.86mm
--____.__
ll=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
---M-
ll=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
ll,+85.09mm
-137.16mm
-----
10000
Strain J.U;
Fig. 5-28 Vertical Strain Profiles Along Strand D

- 181-
5.6
Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles

The spiral reinforcement used in this test unit varied between #3 on a 84 mm spiral
pitch at the pile cap interface to a W3 on a 114 mm spiral pitch above the inner cage
longitudinal reinforcement.

Vertical strain profiles for the pile transverse reinforcement are presented in Fig. 5-29
through Fig. 5-32. The strain profiles along longitudinal line A (see Fig. 5-29) and along
longitudinal line C (see Fig. 5-31) indicate the level of confinement strain developed in the
pile section as a result of the applied axial load and deformations. Strains in the spiral cage
recorded along these lines in the early stages of the testing procedure indicate higher strains
along line A than along line C because of higher axial compressive forces that develop in the
push direction, which results in higher confinement demands. Along line A in the final stages
of the testing procedure, vertical strain profiles are slightly higher between positions 4 and 6
because extensive spalling of the cover concrete and unwinding of strands occurred in these
locations, as previously noted, which also indicates higher confinement demands in this
region. Along longitudinal C, it is also visible high confinement demands in this region.
The strain profiles along longitudinal line B (see Fig. 5-30) and along longitudinal line
D (see Fig. 5-32) indicate the level of shear-induced strain as a result of the applied lateral
load. High strains below position 3 indicate higher shear demands in this region, which
matches extensive cracking of the pile section below termination oflongitudinalreinforcement
with two cracks at 45 cracks marked on the sides of the pile section.
- 182-
2133.60
Push
Pull
-e-
Initial Axial Load\?,= +860kN
~ V=+76kN
-43kN
1828.80
v = +152kN
-87kN
V=+227kN
-130kN
1524.00
~
.......,._
--+-
V = +302kN
-173kN
"'=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
---Push
--Pull
11219.20
.,
..:
.bJl
::r:
~
Pull
914.40
1:5:
609.60
2
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
0.00 -f--,---y---,-r--.--...--,--,-,-,---y---,-r--.--...--,--,-,-,-t
-1000
-500
1000
500
Strain /-it;
2133.60
'
1828.80
''
''
---Push
--Pull
1524.00
11219.20
~
.,
.bJl
::r:
~
914.40
1:5:
Push
Pull
-I-
"'=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
---
"'=+25.65mm
-20.57mm
"'=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
___..._
"'= +51.05mm
-54.86mm
"'=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
--M-
"'=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
----
"'=+85.09mm
-137.16mm
-a-
609.60
-fr-
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
0.00 -t-,-,-,--,--r-T---y-r-,-.,-..,--,--r-T---y-r-,-.,-..,--,--r-T-i
-1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
Strain /-it;
Fig. 5-29 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Line A
- 183-
2133.60
---Push
--Pull
Push
---E:7-
~ V=+761cN
1828.80
--+--
-431cN
-t-152kN
-+-- V = +2271cN
--+- v =+302kN
1524.00
Pull
Initial Axial Load Jb= +8601cN
6= +l7.02nun
-87kN
-BOleN
-l731cN
-13.72mm
11219.20
~
l>ll
o;
::r::
Pull
914.40
it
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
---------
------
0.00
Push
-500
-1000
500
1000
Strain J.U:
2133.60
---Push
--Pull
1828.80
1524.00
11219.20
1:
.~
0
::r::
0
914.40
it
--+--
-B-
609.60
304.80
t:..l
Soffit Slab Line
----
0.00 -1--r--r--r-,--,r--r--r-r.....,--..,.......-.--,--,r--r--r---r--,-...,.-..,--,.-,--r-r-l
-1000
1000
2000
3000
------e.___.__
Push
Pull
6=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
6=+25.65mm
-20.57mm
ll=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
ll=+51.05mm
-54.86mm
!1=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
~ ll= i-68.07mm
-109.73mm
ll=+85.09mm
-137.I6mm
_..._
4000
Strain J..U:
Fig. 5-30 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Line B

- 184-
---Push
--Pull
Push
Pull
-e-
lnitinl Axial Load ll.= +860kN
->--
V=+76kN
V=+152k.N
-87kN
--+--
V=+227kN
130kN
~ V=+302kN
17JkN
-+-
13.72mm
11:+17.02mm
-43kN
Pull
Soffit Slab Line
-1000
-500
1000
' 500
Strain ;.a;
2133.60
---Push
--Pull
1828.80
1524.00
11219.20
'<)
::c
...
;
914.40
-+-
-a-
609.60
Soffit Slab Line
11:+25.65mm
-20.57mm
ll:+J4.04mm
-27.43mm
__._
/!J,. +S 1.05mm
54.86mm
I!J=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
II: +6B.07mm
-109.73mm
t.=+B5.09mm
-1J7.16mm
------ -M-
o.oo+-,--....-.,--h---r.....,.--,-,--,.,--,.--,.-,.....,.--,-,--,.,.-,.--r-r-1
-1000
1000
2000
3000
Pull
-13.72mm
-II-
-h:304.80
Push
11:+17.02mm
-----
4000
Strain ;.u;;
Fig. 5-31 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Line C

- 185-
2133.60-
---Push
--Pull
1828.80-
6
1524.00-
11219.20~
-e---+--
Push
Pull
Initial Axilll Load];!,= +860kN
v = +76kN
-43kN
~ V = +152kN
-87kN
--+----+-
v =+227kN
v = +302kN
-173kN
-+-
k+17.02mm
-13.72mm
-130kN
4,.
bJ)
:u
::r:
4
914.40-
Pull
0::::
3
609.60-
2H
____ _2!
304.80f--
0.00
Soffit Slab Line
----
-1000
-500
500
1000
Strain 1.u:
2133.60
---Push
. --Pull
1828.80
6
1524.00
11219.20
~
::r:
<!.)
re
914.40
3
609.60
\\.'
304.80
b~~---------
-+--B--
Soffit Slab Line
0.00 -t--..-.-.-t-.-,-,r-r--.--.-,--,--,--,,.-.-,.-,-.-,-,r-r--.-i
-1000
1000
2000
3000
Push
Pull
fl=+l7.02mm
-13.72mm
fl:+25.65mm
-20.57mm
---
fl:+34.04mm
--er-
-27.43mm
fl: +51.05mm
...........
-54.86mm
fl=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
-M--
fl=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
fl:+85.09mm
-137.I6mm
........_
4000
Strain fLC
Fig. 5-32 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Line D
- 186-
5.6.2
Pile Transverse Reinforcement - Circumferential Strain Profiles

Circumferential strain profiles for the pile transverse reinforcement are presented in
Fig. 5-33 through Fig. 5-35. Circumferential strain profiles indicate higher strains are always
registered at position A rather than at position C as a result of confinement induced strains

in the early stages of the testing procedure. At later stages of the testing procedure, this
increase in strains at position A are more a result of prevention of strands buckling due to
spalling of the cover concrete where longitudinal reinforcement terminates.
Maximum strains are recorded at positions B and D at later stages of the testing
procedure, which illustrates increase in shear demand in regions where shear-induced inclined
cracks were registered.
- 187-
1000 .----------------------------------------.
---Push
--Pull
Pull
Load~=
+860kN
V= +76kN
-43kN
500-
---e--
V=+IS2kN
-87kN
V= +227kN
-130kN
--+---+---+--
"'
"OJ
Push
Initial Axial
::l..
c:
-e-
.t:l
t:---
,._
EF---""
tiJ
v=
+302kN
ll>=+17.02mm
-173kN
-13.72mm
Pull
-500
-1000 -+----------.------------.------------.------------1
1W
no
MO
0
W
-1000
0
90
180
270
360


---Push
--Pull
4000,----------------------------------------.
---Push
--Pull
..........
00
00
4000
3000
3000
"' 2000
~ 2000
c:
c:
::l..
.t:l
tiJ
"OJ
"OJ
.t:l
1000
tiJ
1000
-+-
-a-
----~
.......__
-1000
0
90
180
270
360

-1000 + - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - - - - - l
0
90
180
270
360

(d) Circumferential Strain Prof"Lies
""""*-
Fig. 5-33 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Horizontal Line 1 and 2
Push
Pull
6=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
6=+25.6Smm
-20.57mm
6=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
ll.=+Si.OSmm
-54.86mm
6=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
6=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
ll>=+85.09mm
-137.16mm
1000.----------------------------------------,
1000
---Push
--Pull
---Push
--Pull
..,
::t.
500
500
c
~
""'
en
=='*==
..,
::t.
~
en
90
180
270
360

Initial Stages of Testing- Horizontal Line 3
00
\0
V=+76kN
-43kN
V=+IS2kN
-87kN
..............
V=+227kN
-L30kN
V=+302kN
-173kN
t.=+l7~02mm
-13.72mm
Pull
-1000
-!000
Pull
-500
-500
Push
Initial A:xilll Load!,?,= +860kN
-+-+-
......
-e-
90
lBO
270
360

4000
4000
3000
3000
---Push
--Pun
.., 2000
::t.
2000
'<;!
!:I
'<;!
!:I
0
A
-10001----~~~~~~~~~~~,-----.----.----~
90
180
270
360

Push
Pull
l>=+l7.02mm
-13.72mm
l>=+2.5.6.5mm
-20.57mm
l>=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
___.....__
l>=+Sl.OSmm
-.54.86mm
l>=+S9.69mm
-82.30mm
-M-
l>=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
l>=+8.5.09mm
-137.16mm
-+-a-
en 1000
en 1000
-------ir-
-1000 1---------.----------,-------,------~
0
90
180
270
360

1000
1000
--Push
---Push
Pull
--Pull
500
500
c..J
::i..
a
1:l
V)
::i..
c
.<
tw
no
F"
1:l
V)
--->---
V=+76kN
-43kN
V=+l52kN
-B7kN
___.,_
V=+227kN
-130kN
V=+3021<N
-173kN
-+--
l>=+J7.02mm
-13.72mm
Pull
-500
-500
-1000
....
Pull
Initial Axial Load V,= +B60kN
............._
c..J
Push
-e-
r-----------------.-----,-------,;------i
0
90
180
270
-1000
360
Push
3W


---Push
--Pull
4000,-------------------------------.
---Push
--Pun
3000
!
~
...._ ...._
...._ ...._
2000
1:l
V)
1000
90
180
270
360

Final Stages of Testing - Horizontal Line S
-+-
fi~~;::;
-- --------- ---...... -- --
-ec
-------r-
-1000 -+-----..,..-----..,-----,..-------l
0
90
180
270
360

Push
Pull
~=+17.02mm
-13.72mm
~=+2S.6Smm
-20.S7mm
~=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
___..._
~=+51.0Smm
-S4.86mm
~=+59.69mm
-82.30mm
---*-
~=+68.07mm
-109.73mm
6: +S5.09mm
-137.16mm
5. 7
Pile Cap Reinforcement Strain Profiles

Maximum strains in the pile cap top and bottom reinforcement, positioned in the
direction of applied lateral load, were registered in the pile cap bottom reinforcement at strain
gage Bottom 3-B. Note that bottom reinforcement refers to position of reinforcement as it
occurs in the prototype structure. For strain gage location, refer to Fig. 3-37. Strain readings
illustrated in Fig. 5-36 indicate minimum strains recorded in this reinforcement. Thus, strain
profiles for the pile cap top and bottom reinforcement are not shown since strain levels were
always considerably below yielding.
101.60
76.20
50.80
,-.,
25.40
Compression
Branch
Tension Loading
Branch
'-'
.....
~
0.00
Q.)
o;j
0..
Cll
0
ca
!l
-25.40
-50.80
o;j
...l
-76.20
-101.60
-127.00

-152.40
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
Strain f.U;

Strain Gage Pile Cap Bottom Reinforcement Bottom 3-B
- 191 -
200.00
Maximum strains in the pile cap vertical reinforcement were registered at strain gage
3-B. For strain gage location, refer to Fig. 3-39. Strain readings illustrated in Fig. 5-37
indicate minimum strains recorded in this reinforcement. Thus, strain profiles for the pile
vertical reinforcement are not shown since strain levels were always considerably below
yielding. Strain levels recorded in this reinforcement can be taken as an indication of joint
performance. Levels of principal tensile stress computed in Chapter 2 and presented in Fig.
2-27 indicate that no joint shear failure was expected as a result of minimum level of
expected stress in the joint region, which were 0.16
. 0.27
Jt: < 0.29 Jt:
Jt: < 0.29 Jt:
[MPa] and
[MPa] . These values corroborate observed test results in which
negligible strains were recorded in the pile cap vertical reinforcement indicating that no joint
cracking occurred.
101.60
76.20
50.80
,......
25.40
Compression
Branch
Tension Loading
Branch
'-'
....
0.00
-....
u
<1:1
-25.40
c.
"'
0
';J
-50.80
..J
-76.20
-101.60
-127.00

-152.40 -t-.,-,-,----,.-,-,.....,-.,.-r,-r-,-r-r,-r-r-'1-r--,--r--,-o-,-f--,--r-r--r-;-r-,--,-"T"T--,--,,--,-T"T-,-,-,-,--,-,...,-,-,--j
-250.00
-200.00
-150.00
-100.00
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
Strain J.U:

Strain Gage Pile Cap Vertical Reinforcement 3-B
- 192-
200.00
250.00
5.8
Pile Cap Rotation

Uplift of the pile cap from the strong floor was monitored by linear potentiometers
positioned at the base of the pile cap, as illustrated in Fig. 3-31 and Fig. 3-32. Rotation of the
pile cap was then computed based on the expression :
UPA - UPB
'l'cap =
where '!'cap is the' pile cap rotation UPA
(5.5)
AB
=( UP1 + UP2 ) I 2, UP8 = ( UP3 +UP4 ) I 2, UP1
through UP4 are the measurement readings taken from the linear potentiometers positioned
at the base of the pile cap, and LAB is the distance between the linear potentiometers
positioned along lines A and B. Contribution of pile cap rotation to pile lateral deflection may
then be estimated according to the expression :
L1 L1
= 'I'cap (
Hpile + Heap )
Based on the values presented in Fig. 5-38, the maximum pile cap rotation,
(5.6)
'l'cap
was
0.0000201rad and it was computed when the lateral deflection was +51.69 mm, which
coincides with the cycle at which the lateral load began to drop. This rotation of the pile cap
will contribute 0.11 mm to the pile lateral deflection at peak response, which is rather small
and, as a result, no correction to the pile lateral deflection was computed.
- 193-
101.60
76.20
50.80
,......
E
E
'-'
....0
0
25.40
0.00
E
0
-a
~
Compression
Loading Branch
Tension Loading
Branch
,r-----
-25.40
Q..
"'
.....:l
-50.80
-76.20
-101.60
...
'
1
'
-127.00
-152.40
-0.03
-&
Pile Cap Uplift- Line A
~ Pile Cap Uplift- Line B
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
Pile Cap Uplift (mm)
Fig. 5-38 Lateral Deflection versus Pile Cap Uplift
- 194-
0.02
6.
Test Unit COR2 Experimental Test Results

load characteristics, vertical strain profiles longitudinal reinforcement and curvature proftles.
6.1

force is designated as positive and when in tension, the axial force is designated as negative.
In addition, when in the compression loading branch the lateral force is positive and in the
tension loading branch the lateral force is designated as negative. The complete test setup for
unit COR2 is shown in Fig. 3-24 and Fig. 3-25. Indicated on the test unit, 1,295 mm above
the pile cap is a horizontal line that marks the end of the inner core longitudinal reinforcement.
follows:
consisted of loading the specimen axially to +667 kN 'while controlling the top lateral
displacement to +0.00 mm. At the end of this loading stage, the lateral load was negligible.
At + 169 kN in the compression loading branch: This loading stage corresponds to
the specified +25% yielding force level. In this cycle, the registered deflection was+ 1.19 mm
and the axial load was + 1,189 kN.
prescribed -25% yielding force level. The lateral deflection and the axial load were -0.57 mm
and +399 kN, respectively.
At +338 kN in the compression loading branch: At the prescribed +50% yielding
force level, the lateral deflection was +2.63 mm and the axial load was+1,856 kN. During
loading of the specimen at this cycle, onset of horizontal and vertical splitting cracks began,
as illustrated in Fig. 6-2. Formation of vertical splitting cracks provides first visual evidence
of slipping of the prestressing strands.
- 195-
At -167 kN in the tension loading branch: At -50% yielding the lateral deflection and
axial load were -1.34 mm and +205 kN, respectively.
At + 507 kN in the compression loading branch: In this cycle the structure was
loaded to+ 75% yielding, in which the lateral deflection was registered at +4.28 mm and the
axial load was +2,249 kN.
At -250 kN in the tension loading branch: At -75% yielding the lateral deflection was
-2.75 mmand the axial was +75 kN.

the theoretical first section yielding (+ 100% yielding), at which stage the lateral deflection and
axial load were +6.68 mm and +2718 kN, respectively.
theoretical first section yielding while in the tension loading branch (-100%yielding). At this
stage, the lateral deflection and the axial load were -5.63 mm and -216 kN, respectively. At
this cycle the axial load was for the first time in tension.
After this cycle the loading pattern was changed from single cycles to three cycles,
displacements, IJ.'Y, and the loads corresponding to theoretical first section yield, VY, and yield,
VY, that were used in the bilinear approximation calculations are as follows:
1. Lateral deflections at theoretical first section

yielding:
Compression : L\ 'ye = +6.68 mm
Tension: L\'yr
=-5.63 rnm
2. Lateral load at theoretical first section
yielding:
Compression:
Tension :
V~c=
v~T=
+676 kN
-334 kN
Fig. 6-1 Bilinear approximation

- 196-

Compression: Vyc=+ 899 kN
Tension : vyT= -511 kN
~ll
=+,-1:
Vc 1
Compression : ~ Aye = +8.89mm Tension
Vyc
VT
--7
AyT =
I
At L1 = +8.89 mm in the compression loading branch (u 11
corresponds to the displacement ductility level of
~ll=
-8.63mm
vyT
= +1 ):
This loading stage
+1 based on the values computed
above. The peak lateral load was recorded at +785 kN and the axial load at +2718 kN.
At L1 - -8.63 mm in the tension loading branch (JJ 11
branch at the displacement ductility of
~ll=
=-1 ):
-1, the lateral load was -422 kN and the axial load
was -269 kN. In the tension loading branch onset of vertical splitting crack was registered in
this cycle, as illustrated in Fig. 6-3.
At L1
=+13.46 mm in the compression loading branch (}1 =+1.5 ): Peak lateral and
11
axial loads at this displacement ductility level were +924 kN and +2739 kN, respectively.
At L1
= -12.95 mm in the tension loading branch (}1
11
= -1.5): Peak lateral and axial
loads at this displacement ductility level were -480 kN and -302 kN, respectively. Onset of
inclined cracking was recorded at this stage with two cracks emanating from the load stub,
as illustrated in Fig. 6-4 and Fig. 6-5. At the load stub interface, the cracks are almost
horizontal but begin to inclined towards the compression toe along the pile length, which
provides first evidence of shear induced cracking. However, on the sides of the pile and closer
to the soffit slab, these cracks are almost vertical as a result of the forces present in the
prestressing strands which incline the compression field near these cracks. In addition, at this
cycle the prescribed maximum axial tensile load as defined in reference [3] that the prototype
structure might experience in a seismic event was achieved.
At L1 = + 17. 78 mm in the compression loading branch (J1 11
= +2 ):
Lateral load and

axial load at this displacement level were +981 kN and +27 54 kN, respectively. At this cycle
the prescribed maximum axial compressive load as defined in reference [3] that the prototype
structure might experience in a seismic event was achieved. Cracking pattern registered at this
stage is illustrated in Fig. 6-6.
- 197-
At L1 = -17.27 mm in the compression loading branch (ULJ = -2): At this displacement

ductility level the lateral load was -455 kN and the axial load was -302 kN. Increase in
horizontal and inclined cracks is visible in Fig. 6-7.
At +22.35 mm in the compression loading branch ft,1L1
= +2.5):
At this displacement
ductility level the lateral load was +1,009 kN and the axial load was +2,754 kN. At this
stage, the specimen achieved its maximum flexural strength under axial compressive loading.
At -21.59 mm in the tension loading branch (ULJ
= -2.5 ):
Registered lateral load and
axial load were -450 kN and -302 kN, respectively. Horizontal cracks wrap around the
column near the soffit slab as indicated in Fig. 6-8.
At +26.67 mm in the compression loading branch (f.iLJ
= +3):
Peaks loads at this
displacement ductility level were+ 1,030 kN and +2, 754 kN, respectively. In the compression
loading branch, onset of vertical cracking was first registered in this cycle. Fig. 6-9 indicates
the cracking pattern recorded in this stage.
= -4):
At -34.54 mm in the tension loading branch (ULJ
Peaks loads at this
displacement ductility level were -506 kN and -302 kN, respectively. At this stage, the
specimen achieved its maximum flexural strength under axial tensile loading.
At+ 35.56 mm in the compression loading branch WLJ
=+4 ): Peak loads were lateral
load +1,039 kN and axial load +2,754 kN. Cracking pattern registered in this cycle is
At -43.18 mm in the tension loading branch (JlLJ
= -5 ):
At this displacement ductility
level, the lateral load was -487 kN and the axial load was -302 kN. Horizontal cracks near the
termination of the inner core longitudinal reinforcement were wide open (see Fig. 6-11),
which suggests that the flexural capacity/demand ratio at this level is lower than the flexural
capacity/demand ratio at the base of the pile under tensile loads, which corroborates with
analysis along the pile length discussed in Chapter 2 and presented in Fig. 2-31 and Fig.
2-32.
At +44.45 mm cycle in the compression loading branch WLJ
= +5):
At this
displacement ductility level, the lateral load was+ 1,043 kN and the axial load was +2,754 kN.
Onset of spalling of the cover concrete in the region of termination of the inner core
longitudinal reinforcement was observed at this stage, as illustrated in Fig. 6-12, which
- 198-
indicates formation of a second region of plastic deformations at this location.

At -51.82 mm in the tension loading branch W-1 = -6): At this displacement ductility
level, the lateral load and axial load were -482 kN and -302 kN, respectively.
At +53.34 mm cycle in the compression loading branch
W-1
= +6):
At this
displacement ductility level the lateral load was +1055 kN and the axial load was +2754 kN.
At -60.45 mm in the tension loading branch (u-1 = -7): At this displacement ductility
level, the lateral load and axial load were -473 kN and -302 kN, respectively.
Final stages of the testing procedure clearly shows the extent of spalling of the cover
concrete and unwinding of the prestressing strands in the region of termination of the inner
core longitudinal reinforcement (see Fig. 6-13). Post test inspection of the test unit revealed
that a total of 2 fractures occurred in the spiral cage along an inclined crack, as illustrated in
Fig. 6-14 and Fig. 6-15, which indicates onset of shear failure. Notes taken during the testing
procedure indicate that these spirals fractured during the last cycle. In addition, necking of
a third spiral was observed along this same line. This spiral did not fracture at the necking,
however, fracture of this same spiral level was observed two strand spacings to the side of
the exposed concrete core as a result of a strand bearing on this spiral, which is shown in Fig.
6-16.
After completion of the testing procedure, the soffit slab concrete around the pile
section was removed, as indicated in Fig. 6-17. Removal of this concrete shows spalling of
the cover concrete occurred at the base of the pile section, which indicates that plastic
deformations were also observed at the pile cap interface, as discussed in Chapter 2.
The testing procedure was stopped due to a large difference between the vertical
displacements of the two vertical actuators; however, no reduction of the pile section lateral
load carrying capacity was observed and the axial load was still being supported by the
specimen.
- 199-
N
0
0
Fig. 6-2 Onset of Flexural and Vertical Splitting Cracking
~\_~
~
c
....
Fig. 6-5 Onset of Inclined Shear Cracking at -12.95mm
Fig. 6-4 Onset of Inclined Shear Cracking at -12.95mm
~
N
I
Fig. 6-7 Cracking Pattern at - 17.27mm
N
0
UJ
N
0
VI
Fig. 6-13 Post Test Damage State
Fig. 6-12 Onset of Concrete Crushing at +44.45mm
Fig. 6-14 Post Test Damage State
Fig. 6-15 Spiral Fracture Along Inclined Shear Crack

-206-
Fig. 6-16 Spiral Fracture at Prestressing Strand
Fig. 6-17 Extent of Spalling of the Cover Concrete at Pile Cap Interface
-207-
6.2

Fig. 6-18 shows the measured lateral force versus lateral deflection response of test
unit COR2. The initial response of the pile section indicates a slightly higher stiffness than
originally predicted in both the compression and tension loading branch. In the post-test
analysis, presented in Chapter 8, this finding is attributed in part to the concrete model that
was employed during development of the post-test analysis. Also, in the transition of the
loading procedure from compression to the tension, and vice-versa, there is a significant
pinching of the hysteresis loops, because in this transition region, the axial force is not
effective in closing the open cracks.
At peak load in the compression loading branch, the predicted maximum load was
approximately 15% lower than the measured maximum load. However, in the tension loading
branch, the predicted value matches closely the observed test results, which suggests that the
concrete used to develop the pre-test analysis underestimates the confined compressive
strength of the high-strength concrete. This is so because, in the compression loading branch,
the contribution of the concrete component to the flexural capacity of the section is
significantly higher than for axial tension loads.
In the compression loading branch, a maximum lateral force of +1009 kN was
recorded at approximately Jl 6 =2.5. At this level, 5% degradation of lateral strength between
successive cycles was recorded, and between Jl 6 =2.5xl and ~a=5xl, no significant reduction
was observed in the lateral load.
A maximum lateral force of -506 kN was recorded in the tension loading branch
during cycle ~ 6 =-4xl. At successive cycles between Jl 6 =-4xl and ~ 6 =-7xl, minimum loss in
the lateral strength was recorded. The testing procedure was stopped at Jl 6 =-7x3 because the
section was maintaining constant lateral load and maximum achieved lateral deflection and
it was considerably higher than those estimated during analysis. Moreover, a large difference
between the vertical displacements of the two vertical actuators was observed and, to
safeguard integrity of the equipment, the testing procedure was stopped at this stage.
Post test investigation of the test data indicates that a maximum displacement ductility
of ~ 6 =+5 was achieved in the compression loading branch and ~a=-7 wa~ achieved in the
tension loading branch, with minimum degradation in the lateral strength of the section. In the
compression loading branch lateral deflections at maximum displacement and yield were,
-208-
respectively, Llmax= +53.34 nun andLly= +8.89 nun, while in the tension loading branch these
values were Llmax = -60.45 nun and LJY = -8.63 nun, respectively.
In Fig. 6-18 the curve labeled Corrected Defonnations was obtained by integrating
the vertical curvature profiles along the length of the pile based on the experimental test
results and neglecting the increase in curvature at the region of termination of the inner core
longitudinal reinforcement. Curvature vertical profiles are described in later sections. An
immediate observation of this curve reveals that there is no significant decrease in the
compression loading branch maximum lateral deflection, and approximately one ductility level
drop is observed in the tension loading branch.
interface. The main characteristics visible in this figure are very similar to those indicated
earlier for the pile lateral deflection, mainly pinching of the hysteresis loops at the transition
from the compression to the tension loading branch and vice versa.
of ~'ll=+ 7.5 was achieved in the compression loading branch and ~..,=-9 in the tension loading
branch. In the compression loading branch, maximum and yield curvatures are, respectively,
IPmax=+0.000061 nun 1 and IJJy=+0.0000071 nunI, and IPmax,::::;-0.000047 nun 1 and
IJJy=-0.0000052 nun 1 in the tension loading branch. As expected, curvature ductility levels
are slightly higher than displacement ductility levels.
Curvatures presented in Fig. 6-19 represent average values and were computed
according to equation 82, 159. Also, during computations of curvatures at the pile cap
interface, the height of the linear potentiometer cell, hcur includes an additional term to
account for tensile strain penetration into the pile cap by including the strain penetration
length into the curvature cell height, hcur according to equation (5.2).
-209-
'"'= 1I

1000
800
--<7
1.5
Corrected Deformations
Pre-test Analysis
Post-Test Analysis
600
400
200
Compression
Loading Branch
.......
0
0~~~~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----~~~~
-200
-400
-600
-50.80
-25.40
0.00
25.40
50.80
1000
;=1
Pre-Test Analysis
----
Post-Test Analysis
800
600
,-...
'-"'
400
""d
~
c:a
200
1-1
cu
......
Compression
Loacting Branch
Tension Loading
Branch
-200
-400
-600
-6.00
-4.50
-3.00
-1.50
0.00
1.50
3.00
4.50
6.00
figure also shows the profile ofthe loading path that was employed to control the application
res pee ti ve ly.
Loading curves defined in Chapter 3 for test unit COR2 are also presented in Fig. 6-
20. In addition, indicated in this figure are the location at which the residual displacements,
.1i, were obtained when Curve V and Curve X crossed the initial axial load axis and used to
define Curve I and/or Curve II in Region 1 and Curve VI and/or Curve VII in Region 3,
which redirect the loading path towards the control program loading path. In Fig. 6-20 not
all curves are presented for clarity. Refer to Fig. 3-57 for additional curves not shown here.
As expected, these curves are straight lines which emanate from the residual displacements,
.1i, and point towards the end points of these curves.
COR2. In this figure is also shown the pre-test analysis loading path which was used to
\
unloading branches is des~ribed by a straight line initiating at the peak deformation to the
initial load state.
-212-
_I
700
600
Curve IV
Initial Axial Load

( Selfweight )
Curve IX
-25.40
0.00
25.40
50.80
I
I
IV'
I y
I
I
I
I
I
Initial Axial Load

( Selfweight )
Compression
Loading Branch
I
I
------l-
.j:::..
Tension
Loading Branch
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-500
IV'
I y
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Control Loading Program Path

600
Lateral Load (kN)
800
1000
6.3

In this section and future sections, the plotted v lues are the first cycle peak values
for each cyclic response. Curvature vertical profiles along the height of the pile are presented
respectively.
testing procedure, region of plastic deformations form at the bottom of the pile section,
deformations is well illustrated in Fig. 6-22(a), depicted by a significant increase in the
curvature near the region where the inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates. Increase
in curvature in this region is more accentuated in the tension loading branch. This second
region of plastic deformations began to form when the lateral deflection was l:l.=- 21.59 mm,
as a result of wide open cracks at this location previously described.
Indicated in these figures are the yield curvature levels obtained from Fig. 6-22(a)
423 mm near the soffit slab, which is' sightly higher than the theoretical effective plastic hinge
length, lP, of 326 mm, obtained from equation (5.3).
At the location where the longitudinal reinforcement terminates, it is not readily
deformations are more concentrated between positions 8 and 5, which leads to a plastic hinge
-215-
1524.00
1219.20
I....
Termination of
Innercore- Longitudinal
Reinforcement
914.40
.c
bl)
'<)
::c
it<>
609.60
I
I
Push
yl
I~
I y
-----r--
t-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
K~--
304.80
Initial Axial Load Po= +667kN
---4----
V=+169kN
-83kN
v~+338kN
-167kN
--+---
V=+507kN
-2501cN
V=~76kN
-334kN
-I-
1!.=+8.89mm
-8.63nnn
Pull
'\ ' ............'":_,.........
-r+--:::...,..1__
~~
I
0.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
Pull
--e-
---Push
--full
1.00
1.50
Curvature (IImm x E-5)
Pusb
(a) Vertical Strain Profiles - Initia_l Stages of Testing
1524.00
Termination of
Inner Core
- - - - - I:oligitu"dinal1219.20
Reinforcement
914.40
<>
::c
it<>
ruoUI
-+-
609.60
-e-
304.80
-6.00
-4.50
-3.00
-1.50
0.00
1.50
3.00
4.50
6.00
.S.6Jmm
1!. =+13.46mm
-12.95mm
1!.=+17:78mm
-17.27mm
----&--
1!.=+22.3Smm
-2L59mm
-A-
1!.=+26.67mm
-34.S4rnm
-+--
6 =+35.56mm
-43.18mm
---*-
6 =+44.45mm
-51.82rnm
6 = +53.34rnm
-60.45mm
-----
(b) Vertical Strain Prordes - Final Stages of Testing

-216-
rull
1!.=+8.89mm
6.4
Flexural and Shear Components of Deformation

Flexural components of deformation were calculated from data recorded from linear
potentiometers installed on the test specimen to measure curvatures according to the layout
presented in Fig. 3-41 and Fig. 3-42. Shear components of deformations were calculated
from data recorded from linear potentiometers installed on the test specimen to measure
shear panel deformations according to the layout presented in Fig. 3-43. Shear deformations
were estimated according to the equations presented in Fig. 3-44.
Flexural and shear components of deformation are plotted in Fig. 6-23 and Fig. 6-24
in terms of the pile top displacement. The curve labeled Top Deflection was obtained from
the measured pile lateral deflection, the curve labeled Flexure+Shearwas obtained by adding
the Flexure Component and Shear Component curves, which were determined as previously
described, and the curve labeled Revised Flexure was obtained by neglecting increase in
curvature near the termination of the inner core longitudinal reinforcement.
In these plots, comparison of Top Deflection with Flexure+Shear suggests a
correlation with a minimum error between these two curves. As expected, errors between
these two curves are expected because of,the nature measured versus calculated data. For
example, when computing the shear and flexure components of deformation, it is assumed
that the instrumentation devices are rigidly connected to the test specimen and any
deformation of the devices is ignored for computational simplicity. However, the presented
data depicts a good correlation between these variables.
From the plots depicted in Fig. 6-23 and Fig. 6-24, it is observed that the flexure
component of deformation dominates response, indicating a more predominant ductile flexural
response of the pile section under the imposed lateral loads. However, as indicated earlier,
fracture of the spiral reinforcement along an inclined crack occurred at later stages of the
testing procedure without reduction to the lateral load carrying capacity of the section.
Referring to Fig. 2-34, and based on the UCSD three component shear model, the shear
strength of the pile section relies primarily on the shear capacity of the concrete and a more
predominant shear response should have occurred after fracture of the spiral reinforcement
because of the reduced capacity of the concrete component in relation to the shear demand
imposed on the section. This observation suggests that the shear capacity of the precast
concrete shell was considerably higher than originally computed and the concrete shell is
adequate in confining the cast in place concrete core.
-217-
"""'
s
---
50
'-'
""
~g
"'@
40
J.ii"'l
60
I
Direction Tension
Loading Branch
Pull
Top Deflection
-B-
Flexure + Shear
Shear Component
-+-
Flexure Component
$-
.s..,
~o
Revised Flexure
..,~
30
..<:
tl)
+
;;
l3
20
..,><
ii:
Push
Direction Compression
Loading Branch
lO
()
40
30
Top Displacement (mm)
50
20
10
60
(a) Displacement Components - Compression Loading Branch
-10.00
.g
e"'
..su
-20.00
Top Deflection
-30.00
Flexure + Shear
..<:
tl)
-40.00
Ii:
fDl
--$---
Shear Component
-+-
Flexure Component
- $
Revised Flexure
-50.00
3
-60.00
.,
l=p.
~L~~~~~~~~~-r~~~~~~~-r~~-r,-~
-60
-SO
-40
-30
-20
-10
(a) Displacement Components - Tension Loading Branch
Fig. 6-23 Displacement Components versus Pile Lateral Deflection
-218-
1000
Direction Tension
Loading Branch
Pull
800
'"g
0
600
.....l
C<i
....
B
400
200
10
20
30
Top Deflection
-D-
Flexure+ Shear
Shear Component
-+-
Flexure Component
- $ -
Revised Flexure
60
50
40
Push
Loading Branch
(a) Displacement Components- Compression Loading Branch
-8-
-100
Top Deflection
Flexure + Shear
Shear Component
Flexure Component
Revised Flexure
'"'
-200
'"g
0
.....l
C<i
....
B
-300
"'
.....l
-400
-500
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
.JQ
(a) Displacement Components - Tension Loading Branch
Fig. 6-24 Displacement Components versus Lateral Load
-219-
6.5

The inner cqre reinforcement consists of#7 Grade40 ([y=276 :MPa) steel with a yield
strain of approximately 15001J.c.
6.5.1
Pile Longitudinal Reinforcement- Vertical Strain Profiles


occurred at the pile cap interface at IJ.,..=+ 1.5, and yielded in tension at IJ.,..=-1.5 also at
location 3. Yield strain penetrations were recorded in this bar to a depth of approximately 304 mm, which indicates a strain penetration of 0.045d,fy. Similar to test unit CORJ, strain
profiles indicate an approximate linear variation of strains from the top of the bar to
approximately position 6, which suggests a development length of approximately 533 mm.
The profiles for bars Band D, which are positioned on the sides of the pile, revealed
that these bars where always in tension and reached yielding only at later stages of the testing
procedure at ll,.. =+ 1. 5. The vertical profiles for bars B and D are similar as a result of the
symmetrical position of these two bars with respect to the loading direction.
Strain profiles along inner core bar C reveal this bar yielded in compression at
approximately IJ.c.=-4 and in tension this bar yielded at IJ.,..=+l. Yield strain levels for this bar
were not recorded below a depth of approximately -304 mm, which matches the results for
bar A.
-220-
I
I Yield
I
I
1219.20
Yield
I
I
I
I
;:;
::I:
..!:!
c:
609.60
I
I
914.40
-e-
Push
V=+l69kN
-83kN
v-+33BkN
-167kN
-+--+--
v =+507kN
-250kN
-+-
V =-Ki76kN
-334kN
"'= +8.89mm
-8.63mm
304.80
0.00
Pull
-304.80
-609.60
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
Strain f.-LC
1000
1500
2000
1219.20
914.40
8 609.60
e
'-'
~
::t
304.80
0,)
..!:!
c:
0.00
-304.80
-609.60
-914.40
-3000
-1500
0
Strain f-LC

- 221 -
Pull
Initial Axial Load Po = ~71cN
Push
I Yield
1219.2.0
9
5
;::;
0.00
= +!69 kN
-83kN
V=+338kN
-!67kN
= +507kN
-250kN
V = -H576kN
-334kN
D. = +8.89mm
-S.63mm
I
I
I
I
------t--
--,--
<U
i5:
I
I
I
Slab :
Line -I-
Pull
Initial Axial Load Po= -H567kN
I
I
I
I
609.60
304.80
Yield
914.40
Push
Pull
-304.80
I
I
I
-609.60
---Push!
-914.40 t-r-;--r-T+--r--r-r-rr-r--,--,-..,.--,-.---r-r-rll-r-r--,-.---r-r-;;,-,-,P,ur-llri-:,--,--,---1
-2000
-1500
-1000
500
-500
1000
1500
Push
2000
Strain J.U:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1219.20
914.40
9
5
609.60
304.80
'G)
~
i:i:
-----~-
0.00
-304.80
-609.60
Soffit Slab Line
____ _j _____
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Yield I
-+-
-a-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Yield I
--Push
--Pull
-914.40
-3000
-1500
PU:IIII
Strain
1500
3000
f.L&
/), = +8.89mm
/), =+13.46mm
-12.95rnm
/), =+17.78mm
-17.27mm
----6---......._
----
D.= +22.35mm
-21.59mm
D.=+26.67mm
-34.54rnm
--+--
D.= +35.56mm
-43.18mm
"""'*""
D.= +44.45mm
-51.82mm
1!.=+53.34mm
-60.45mm
------

-222-
Pull
-8.63mm
Push
Pull
Initial Axial Load Po= -Hi67kN
1219.20
914,40
'? 609,60
g
~
=+169kN
-83kN
V = +338 kN
-!67kN
V = +507kN
-250kN
V =+676kN
-334kN
d = +8.89mm
-8.63mm
304.80
Jl
<1.1
ii:
0.00
Pull
-304.80
-609.60
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
Strain J.U:
1000
1500
2000
1219.20
I
I
,,,b..-.\~
~''
:
7
914.40
'''I
\'~)\
'\ \ll{
'? 609.60
304.80
---
<1.1
:I!
~
i:.i:
0.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
Yield I
-304.80
-609.60
~-
----Soffit Slab Line

----c:+-/ ~7
Pile Cap Line
/~
?:
-1500
0
1500
Strain J.U:
-+-
---
-a-
-17.27rnrn
......._
d=+2235mrn
-21.59mm
d = +26.67rnrn
-34.54mm
d =+35.56rnm
-43.18mm
"""'*__._
d =+44.45mm
-51.82mm
d =+53.34mm
-60.45rnm
3000

-223-
Pull
-8.63mm
=+13.46rrun
=+17. 78rrun
I
I
I
Yield I
-914.40
-3000
PU~II
d = +8.89nun
-12.95mrn
1219.20
914.40
s 609.60
g
~
;;
304.80
I
I Yield
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soffit
I
Slab
Line I
0.00
Pik
-304.80
Cap
Line
Pull
Initial Axial Load Po = +667kN
~ V=+169kN
-83kN
~ v =+338kN
-167kN
---+--
V =+507kN
-250kN
V =+676kN
-334kN
!J. =+8.89mm
-8.63mm
--+--
I
I
I
I
--+-
------t-1
-~----
----3
---~--
Pull
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-609.60
-e--
I
I
--1--------
::I:
Push
I
Yield I
---Pushl
--Pull
-914.40 i-,.-,,--,+,.-,-,""",..,-,-,.-,..,-,-rrTT-r-r--,-T"'T'"l'<-,-h-T"T-,-l
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
Push
2000
Strain p,c
1219.20
914.40
609.60
304.80
;;
::I:
I
0.00
I'U:IIII
--~--~-----
-+-
I
I
I
I
-304.80
---Push
--Pull
Yield I
-3000
-1500
!J. = +13.46mm
-12.95mm
----
!J.=+17.78mm
-17.27mm
!J.=+22.35mm
-21.59mm
!J. =+26.67mm
-34.54mm
___...__
1500
3000
Strain p,c
--+--
!J. =+35.56mm
-43.18mm
-M-
tJ. =+44.45mm
-5l.82mm
-----
!J. =+53.34mm
-60.45mm

-224-
I'UII
-8.63mm
--8-
--ft--
-609.60
!J.=+8.89mm
6.5.2 Pile Longitudinal Reinforcement - Circumferential Strain Profiles

figures indicate that in the initial stages of testing, a linear variation of strain between the
longitudinal bars suggests small excursions into yielding strains. Yielding of bars A and C
occurred mainly between horizontal lines 2 and 7, with strains significantly higher than
yielding only between levels 3 and 4.
-225-
2000
-.-------------~---------,
2000
Yield
1500
-e-
1500
1000
1000
::t
Pull
~ V=+169kN
-83kN
~ V=+338kN
-167kN
---+--
V=+507kN
-25<lcN
V=.-+676kN
-334kN
-+-
t.=+8.89mm
-8.63nnn
-1-
11=+8.89mm
-+-
c.J 500
Push
Initial Axial I.md Po= +667kN
Pull
en -5oo
-1000
---Push
--Pull
-1500
-2000
-1500
Yield
-j---~~~~~~~~~T~
90
-1000
-2000
180
270
360

90
180
270
360

N
N
0\
3000
3000
Yield
1500
c.J
::t
c
ca
1:::1
CIJ
-1500
Pus. If
-1500
Yield
Yield
---Push
---Push
--Pull
-3000-j-----,---------.--------,,-------~
90
180
270
360

(b) Circumferential Strain Pror.J.es
Final Stages of Testing - Horizontal Lme 1
--Pull
-3000+-----.-----.-----,----~
90
180
270
360

(d) Circumferential Strain Pror.J.es
Pull
-8.63mm
~ 11=+13.46mm
l2.9Snnn
~ 11 = +!7.78nnn
-17.27rmn
---fr-
11=+ZL3Snnn
-21.59nnn
11 = +26.67nnn
-34.54mm
--...---
--+----*""""
_._
11 = +35.56nnn
-43.18nnn
11 = +44.45mrn
-SL82nnn
11 = +S3.34mrn
~60.45mm
2000 . , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
"' 500
::t
-~
0~~~~~~~~~==~==~~~~~~~~~
::t
-~
en -500
-1000
-1000
-167kN
---+--
V=+507kN
-250kN
V= +676kN
-334kN
-+--
{;. = +8.89rnm
-8.63nun
-+-
{;. = +8.89nun
Pull
90
180
270
360

3000
3000
1500
1500
"'
"'
::t
::t
-83kN
V=+338kN
-2000

V=+l69kN
-1500
Yield
-2000 + - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - - j
0
90
180
270
360
.b
en -500
-1500
Pull
Initial Axial Load Po = +667kN
--+--
"' 500
Push
-e-
0+~~---~~--------i?~------~~~
-1500
a
.b
en
I'U:IIII
-a-1500
Yield
---Push
-3000 +-------.,----------,-----------.---_-_-_-_:Pu:..=ll'-1
0
90
180
270
360

(b) Circumferential Strain Prorlles
---Push
---Pull
-3000
0
90
180
270
----
-8.63mm
= +13.46nun
-12.95nun
IJ.=+l7.78nun
-17.27nun
IJ. =+22.35mm
-21.59nun
_.__
1J. =+26.67mm
-34.54nun
t;.=+35.56mm
-43.18nun
IJ. =+44.45mm
-51.82nun
IJ. =+53.34mm
-60.45nun
--+--
360---*-

(d) Circumferential Strain Prorlles
t;.
Pull
-----
2000
2000 ,---------------------------------------,
---- -e--
Yield
!500
->------$--
1000
--+--+-+-
500
<.l
::i.
Cl)
-500
Push
Pull
Initial Axial Load Po
+667kN
V=+!69kN
-B3kN
V=+338kN'
-167kN
V=+507kN
-250kN
V= +676kN
-334kN
1:!.=+8.89mm
-8.6Jmm
Puii
-1000
-1500
Yield
-2000
+---------.------------.-----------,-----------1
0
90
180
270
-2000
360

90
180
270
360

3000
3000
Yield
Yield
1500
<.l
::i.
c
I'U:IIit
a
l:l
Cl)
--+-
+8.89mm
-8.63mm
---
1:!.
+l3.46mm
-12.95mm
1:!.
+17.78mm
-17.27mm
1:!.
+22.35mm
-2l.59mm
1:!.
+26.67mm
-34.54mm
1:!.
+35.56mm.
-43.18mm
--M-
1:!.
+44.45rnm
-51.82rnm
360----- 1:!.=+53.34mm
-60.45mm
-R---b-
-1500
Yield
Yield
Push
--Pull
-3000,__________,---------,,---------.----------1
0
90
180
270
360

---Push
--Pull
-3000
0
90
ISO
270
I'UII
1:!.
___....._.
-+-

(d) CircUillferential Strain Profiles
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
1500
t.v 500
:i_
0
Cl']
-500
-1000
-2000
-B3kN
v
v
= +338 kN
-167kN
= +507kN
-250kN
V=+676kN
-334kN
-+-
II.= +B.B9nun
-8.63trun
-+-
t. = +B.B9nun
-8.63mm
ll.=+l3.46mm
-12.95mm
ll.=+l7.78mm
-17.27mm
Pull
---PUsh
--PUll
-1500
Yield
V=+169kN
-500
-1000
-1500
Pull
J:l
Cl']
Push
-+---+-
-~
_g
--e-
Yield
-2000
0
90
180
270
360

90
180
270
360

3000
3000
1500
1500
Yield
"'
<..)
:i_
:i_
c:
.c
'[!
Ci5
Cl']
-1500
-a-
-1500
Yield
Yield
---Push
--PUll
-3000 + - - - - - - , - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - l
0
90
180
270
360

-3000 -!------.--------,
90
180
0
PUsh
--PUll
no
---
l'u.:lll
Pull
---ft- ll.=+22.35mm
-21.59mm
__._
ll.=+26.67mm
-34.54mm
-+-
II.= +35.56rnm
-43.1Smm
----*-
II.= +44.45mm
-51.S2mm
t.=+53.34mm
-60.45mm
360----

6.6

36. Similar to test unit CORI,strain readings were obtained during fabrication of the precast
prestressed concrete shell while at Utility Vault and the gages were disconnected between
fabrication and testing at UCSD. Then, before testing, these same gages were reconnected
to the data acquisition system and balanced to zero. Then, the final strains recorded during
the fabrication process were added to the strains obtained during testing.
In the final stages of the testing procedure, strain profiles presented in these figures
indicate that maximum strains were achieved between positions 6 and 7, which is
approximately where the inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates. This indicates that
a total development length of approximately 1,524 mm is expected. The code required
development length is computed based on equation (5.4). Similar to test unit CORl, based
on an initial prestressing force of approximately 1,378 MPa and a prestressing diameter of
9.53 mm, one obtains the required development length of 1,302 mm, which is slightly less
than extrapolated from experimental test results.
At the pile cap interface flexure cracking is significant and reduces bond strength,
increasing the required development length. Development length extrapolated from test
results match with those values used in the pre-test analysis and are corroborated by test
results in which plastic deformations occurred where longitudinal reinforcement terminates.
In addition, recorded strains along the strands were predominantly higher near the ends of the
inner core longitudinal reinforcement, which indicates increasing transfer of forces to the
strands. In addition, these high levels of recorded strains suggest that minimum slippage of
the prestressing strands may have occurred near the load stub interface.
Strain profiles presented in Fig. 6-33 through Fig. 6-36 indicate that prestressing
forces are always in tension with minimum decrease under compressive loads and increase
under tension loads, depending on the position of the strand relative to section compression
' toe. Along strand A, maximum strains are observed in the pull direction because in this
direction, this strand is in tension and, along strand C, maximum strains are observed in the
push direction when this strand is in tension.
-230-
7
1524.00
~
o;
Pull
Initial Axial Loi!d Po
---+-
V=+l69k.N
<667k.N
-83k.N
v ~+338 kN
-167k.N
--+--
V =+507kN
-250kN
V =+676kN
-334k.N
-+-
t;.
-+-
1219.20
Push
--e-
=+8.89mm
-8.63mm
914.40
:I:
.!l
i3:
Pull
609.60
304.80
---Pusb
--PuU
Soffit Slab Line
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Strain f..U:
Push
1524.00
1219.20
914.40
FUIII
.!l
i3:
609.60
--Pusb
--Pull
304.80
---------0
2000
4000
6000
Strain J..U:
8000
-+-
-8.63mrn
-a-
tJ.= +13.46mm
-12.95mm
t;.
= +17.7Bmm
-17.27mm
t;.
= +22.35nun
-21.59mm
6. =+26.67mm
-34.54mm
-...-+-----*-
----
6.~+35.56mm
-43.18rnm
= +44.45nun
-5L82mm
= +53.34nun
~60.45tiUll
10000

- 231 -
Full
tJ.=+8.89mm
7
1524.00
:g
-e-
v = +169 kl'l
-+-
-+--
=+338 kN
83kN
-167k."'
+507~N
-2SO~N
V=->{;76kN
-334kN
t. =+8.89nun
-8.63nun
914.40
"'
:0::
Pull
Initial Axial Load Po; ->{;67kN
-+-
1219.20
Push
--e-
Pull
609.60
c
--Push
--Pull
304.80
Soffit Slab Line

0
2000
4000
6000
Strain f.U;
8000
10000
A
Push
7
1524.00
\
_k5
--- -
1219.20
914.40
PU:IIb
:0::
609.60
---Push
--Pull
304.80
------
Soffit Slab Line
2000
4000
6000
Strain f.l
8000
t.;+8.89mm
-8.63mm
-a-
t.;+J3.46mm
-12.9Smm
t.;+l7.78mm
-17.27mm
--fr-
t.;+2235mm
-21.59mm
l!.=+26.67mm
-34.54mm
___...__
--+-
l!. = +35.56nun
-43.1Bmm
---
l!.=+44.45mm
-51.82mm
l!. ;+53.34mm
.00.4Snun
-M--
10000

-232-
Pull
-+-
V=+i69kN
-+--
1219.20
-+-
Pull
Initial Axial Load Po = -Hi67kN
---v---+---+---
1524.00
Push
--e-
-83kN
V =+338kN
-167kN
v
v
= +507kN
-250kN
= -Hi76kN
-334kN
!!. =+8.89mm
-8.63mm
914.40
Ji
i:i:
Pull
609.60
c
---Push
--Pull
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
2000
4000
6000
Strain f.U;
8000
10000
Push
7
1524.00
1219.20
I
.,
.~
914.40
::c:
l'u~ll
i:i:
-+-a-
609.60
---Push
--Pull
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
2000
4000
Strain
6000
8000
-8.63nun
!!. = + 13.46nun
-12.95mm
!!. = +17.78nun
-17.27nun
!!. = +22.35nun
-21.59nun
!!. = +26.67mm
-34.54mm
!!. = +35.56nun
-43.18nun
---M--
!!. = +44.45nun
-51.82nun
-+--
!!. = +53.34nun
-60.45nun
---
---ft-
.....___
--+--
10000
f.l,C

-233-
Pull
!!. = +8.89nun
7
1524.00
1219.20
Pull
Initial Al<illl Load Po = +667kN
---7----
V=+l69kN
V =+338 kN
-167kN
--+--+--
V=+507kN
-250kN
V=+676kN
-334kN
t.=+8.89mm
-8.63mm
,-I-
Push
--e-
-83kN
914.40
::r:
0,)
re
Pull
609.60
2
304.80
---Push
--Pull
Soffit Slab Line
4000
6000
Strain p,c
2000
8000
10000
Push
7
1524.00
-''
1219.20
)t-
914.40
'iil
'
::r:
~
c.
Pull
-+--
609.60
2
---Push
--Pull
304.80
----
2000
6000
4000
Strain p,c
8000
t.=~.89mm
--B--
{;.
---__..._
t.= +17.'78mm
-17.Z7mm
{;.
+22.35mm
-2U9nun
l'l=+26.67mm
-34.54mm
--+-
t;. =+35.56mm
-43.18mm
+13.46mm
-12.95nun
--M--
l'J.= +44.45mm
-51.82mm
-+-
t;. =+53.34mm
-60.45nun
10000

-234-
Pull
-8.63mm
6. 7

longitudinal reinforcement, as illustrated in Fig. 2-30.

through Fig. 6-40. The strain profiles along longitudinal line A (see Fig. 6-37) and along
longitudinal line C (see
Fig~
6-39) indicate the level of confinement strain developed in the

pile section as a result of the applied axial load and deformations. As in test unit CORJ,
strains in the spiral cage recorded along these lines indicate higher strains along line A than
along line C because of higher axial compressive forces that develop in the push direction,
which results in higher confinement demands.
Along lines A and C in the early stages of the testing procedure, maximum strains
were recorded in the vicinity of the pile cap as a result of high confinement demands in this
region than in the upper portion of the pile section. However, in the later stages of the testing
procedure, strains at position 8 are significantly higher than at position I because of large
spalling of the cover concrete where the inner core reinforcement terminates, which imposes
higher confinement demands at this location for prevention of buckling of the prestressing
strands.
The strain profiles along longitudinal line B (see Fig. 6-38) and along longitudinal line
D (see Fig. 6-40) indicate the level of shear-induced strain as a result of the applied lateral
load. High strains above position 5, and significant loss of strains gages above this location,
suggests higher shear demands in this region, which matches extensive cracking of the pile
section near the termination of longitudinal reinforcement with cracks at 45 cracks, marked
on the sides of the pile section.
-235-
8
1219.20
914.40
~+169kN
~67kN
-83kN
~ V = +3381cN
-167kN
Ill
--+-
V =+5071cN
-250kN
=~761cN
-334kN
-+--+-
609.60
Pull
Initial Axial Load Po ~
I
6
Push
-e-
1!. =+8.89nun
-8.63mm
5
304.80
'<)
::c
~
ii:
Pull
0.00
-304.80
-609.60
Soffit Slab Line
-1000
-500
500
0
Strain f.U:
1000
Push
1219.20
I
I
914.40
6
5
609.60
304.80
......
-*
---
'o:l
::c
I'UIII
-+-e-
0.00
-304.80
---A-
Soffit Slab Line
-609.60
___...__
-+-
-3000
-1500
1500
Strain f.U:
3000
4500
-8.63nun
fl.= +l3.46mm
-12.95mm
1!. =+17.78mm
-17.27mm
1!.=+2235mm
-2l.59mm
1!.=+26.67mm
-34.54mm
1!.= +35.56mm
-43.l8mm
1!.=+44.45mm
-Sl.82mm
~ 1!.=+53.34mm
-60.45mm
---}(--914.40
I'UII
fl.=+8.89mm
6000

-236-
---Push
PuU
8
1219.20
7
914.40
-e-
-+--
Pull
V =+169kN
-63kN
v =+336 kN
-167kN
--+---
V =+507kN
-250kN
--+-
-+-
E' 609.60
Push
V =+676kN
-334kN
11 =+8.89mrn
-8.63mm
g
~
-~
=:c
304.80
Pull
'-l
if
0.00
-304.80
-609.60
-914.40
-1000
-500
500
1000
Strain J.-LC
Push
(a) Vertical Strain Profiles -Initial Stages of Testing
8
1219.20
7
914,40
E' 609.6o
g
~
"ii)
=:c
_
304.80
Pull It
-+-a-
0.00
-304.80
Soffit Slab Line
-609.60
Push
-914.40
-3000
-1500
1500
3000
4500
--------
Pull
11=+8.89mm
-B.63mm
ll. =+IJ.46mm
-12.95nun
l!.=+l7.7l!mm
-17.27mm
---fr--
l!.=+22.35mm
-2!.59nun
ll.= +26.67mm
-34.54mm
--+--
l!.=+35.56mm
-43.1Bmm
ll. =+44.45mm
-51.B2mm
ll. =+53.34mm
-60.45mm
---....-
6000
Strain J.-LC
-237-
--e-
----e-
1219.20
Push
V=+169kN
~ v =+338 kN
--+--+--
914.40
609.6{)
304.80
--+-
Pull

83kN
-167kN
V =+507kN
-250kN
V=+676kN
-334kN
6 =+8.89mm
-8.63mm
s
Jl
Pull
0)
0.00
-304.80
-609.60
---Push
-914.40
t---,----,-,-,--,--,--,----,-,.----t-,--,--,----,==~-::,Pu__,U,--,-...,--i
-1000
-500
500
1000
Push
Strain j.U;
1219.20
914.40
I
~
609.60
304.80
"U)
::z::
..!!
E:
Pull
1'11~11
-+--e-
0.00
-304.80
---
......_
---ft-
Soffit Slab Line
-609.60
--
---Push
--Pull
-914.40
-3000
-1500
1500
I
3000
4500
-+-M-
-----
6 = +8.89nun
-8.63mm
t. = +13.46nun
-12.95rrun
+11.18mm
-17.27mm
t. :+22.J5mm
-21.59mm
t. = +26.61nun
-34.54mm
=+35.56nun
-43.18mm
t.=+44.45mm
-51.82mm
t.=+S3.34mm
-60.4Smm
t.
t.
6000
Strain J.U::

-238-
-e--+---
1219.20
Push
V=+169kN
914.40
~
~ V=+5071i:N
609.60
--+---+-
~
;u
304.80
V =+338 kN
Pull

-83kN
-1671i:N
-250kN
V=+676kN
-334kN
1!. =+8.89mm
8.63mm
::c
Pull
0.00
-304.80
-609.60
---------Push
--Pull
-1000
-500
0
Strain ;.u::
500
1000
Push
8
1219.20
7
914.40
609.60
:;;
5
304.80
::c
..2
i:i::
ru811
-+-a-
0.00
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
-609.60
-914.40
-3000
-1500
1500
Strain ;.u:
3000
4500
rull
1!. =+8.89mm
-8.63nun
1!. =+IJ.46mm
12.95mm
1!.=+17.78mm
-l7.27mm
---A-
1!. =+22.35mm
-21.59rnm
1!. = +26.67mm
-34.54mm
-+-
1!.=+35.56mm
-43.18mm
-M-
1!. =+44.45mm
-51.82mm
1!.=+53.34mm
60.4Smm
-------...-
---
6000
Fig. 6-40 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along LineD

-239-
6. 7.2
Pile Transverse Reinforcement Circumferential Strain Profiles
Circumferential strain profiles for the pile transverse reinforcement are presented in
Fig. 6-41 through Fig. 6-43. Circumferential strain profiles indicate higher strains are always
registered at position A rather than at position C as a result of confinement induced strains

in the early stages of the testing procedure. At later stages of the testing procedure, this
increase in strains at position A are more a result of prevention of strands buckling due to
spalling of the cover concrete where longitudinal reinforcement terminates.
Maximum strains are recorded at positions B and D at later stages of the testing
procedure, which illustrates increase in shear demand in regions where shear-induced inclined
cracks were registered.
240-
1000
2000-r--------------------------------------~
1500
500
1000
"' 500
:::l...
-~
1:::!
en
-SOD
---B>-
V=+l69kN
-83kN
V=+338kN
-l67kN
-+-
Pull
-+---+-
-~
1:::!
en
Push
--e-
V=+S07kN
-25<kN
V=-+676kN
-334kN
11=-K89mm
-8.63mm
Pull
D
A
-500
---Push
--Pull
-1000
--Push
--Pun
-1500
-2000
-+------- -----,--------,.------,.-------1
0
90
ISO
270
-1000
360

90
180
270
360

Push
6000
4500
3000
"'
:::l...
= 1500;a
1:::!
en
--:;:---"""'!
~~~-
r---- --...:""'
-1500
-1500
90
180
270
360

(b) Circumferential Strain Prordes
PU:IIII
-+-
ll=+l3.46mm
-l295mm
./
/
----
tJ. = +l7.78n:un
-17.27mm
---A-
11=+Z2.35mm
-21.59mm
.............
11
+26.67mrn
-34.54n:lrn
---Push
--Pun
-3000+----.-------,-------r----~
90
-8.63mm
-a--
X'
0
PUll
11=+8.89mm
....... -j
/
---Push
-3000 +-------.,---------------,.---=--:::..-=.-:::..-=-Pu=-::...Jll
180
270
360

(d) Circumferential Strain Proiiles
--+--
--M-
...........
tJ. = + 35.56mrn
-43.18mm
ll=+44.4Smm
-51.82mm
tJ.=+53.34mm
-60.45mm
------------------------~--
----
1000
"'
:i_
c
t...
-~
v~+I691<N
en
.......
-- .... -- ---.....
-+-+--
....
c
--+-
Pull
lnitial Axial Load fu
~ V=+338kN
500
Push
-e-
V=+507kN
=+667kN
-831<N
-167kN
-25tkN
v~+6761<N
-3341<N
A:+8.89mm
Pull
-8.63rnm
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
---Push
--Pull
---Push
--Pull
-+-----.----
-1000
1w
no
300

Initial Stages of Testing~ Horizontal Line 3
90
180
270
360
Push

6000
6000
4500
4500
3000
3000-
"'c
<..)
:i_
:.:t
-~1500
!:I
.....
en
0
A
;a
.!:1
en
1500
B
A
ill=o.
=*---
e:r
PU:IIk
A
-1500
-1500
---Push
--Pull
90
180
270
300

---Push
-3000
--Pull
+----.-----.,------,-------1
0
90
180
270
360

(d) Circumferential Strain Promes
Final Stages of Testing- Horizontal Line 4
-+-
1!.:+8.89mm
Pull
.,'!.63rmn
-8- e. "' + J3.46mrn
-l295mm
A=+l7.78mm
-17.21mm
---.6--
e.=+22.35mm
-21.S9mm
............
t.~+26.67mm
-34.54mtn
--+-e-
=+35.561IIIIl
-43.l8rnm
e.= +44.45mm
-.Sl.B2rnm
A= +53.34tmn
-60.45mm
-M-
2000
1000
~---------------------------------------,
1500
500
1000
"' 500
::i.
.. .....c
0~------~~----
s::
~
~~~----~---~
-~
0
A
.b
<Zl
-500
<Zl
"'::i.
B
V;+J69kN
-83kN
V;+338kN
-167kN
--+---+--
-+A
-2000
---Push
--Pull
+------,-----.------.-------1
0
90
180
270
---Push
--Pull
-1000
360

90
180
270
V;+507kN
-250kN
V;+676kN
-334kN
6.; +8.89rrnn
Pull
-8.63IIII1
-1500
Pull
Initial Axial Lood Po ; -+667kN
-500
-1000
Push
--e-
360
Push

.j:::...
6000
6000
4500
4500
3000
3000
"'::i.
"'::i.
.~1500
.b
<Zl
0
A
s:: 1500
"8
.b
<Zl
FU~II
---Push
--Pull
-3000~---------,---------.---------,----------l
90
180
270
360

---Push
--Pull
-3000~---------.---------,----------.-------~
90
180
270
360

Full
6. ; +8.89rrnn
-8.63nnn
-B-
ll ; + 13.46nnn
-12.95mm
----
/l;+J7.78mm
-17.Z7mm
ll ; + 22.35nnn
-21.59nnn
----6----
-1500
-1500
-+__...._
-+----*__._
ll; +26.67nnn
-34.54nnn
6;+35.56mm
-43.18mm
/l;+44.45mm
-51.82rnm
ll ;+53.34mm
-60.45nnn
6.8

Maximum strains in the pile cap top and bottom reinforcement positioned in the
gage Bottom 2-B. Note that bottom reinforcement refers to position of reinforcement as it
profiles for the pile cap top and bottom reinforcement are not shown since strain levels were
always considerably below yielding.
50.80
'"' 25.40
'-'
1::0
e
0
..:;!
0.00
0.
c"'
....0~
'iii
...l
-25.40
-50.80
-250.00
-125.00
0.00
125.00
250.00
375.00
Strain J.U;

Strain Gage Pile Cap Bottom Reinforcement Bottom 2-B
-244-
500.00
3-B. For strain gage location, refer to Fig. 3-39. As in test unit CORJ, strain readings
profiles for the pile vertical reinforcement are not shown since strain levels were always
considerably below yielding. Strain levels recorded in this reinforcement can be taken as an
indication of joint performance. Levels of principal tensile stress computed in Chapter 2 and
presented in Fig. 2-27 indicate that no joint shear failure was expected as a result of
minimum
0.16
level
of
expected
JI: < 0.29 JI:
[MPa]
stress
and
in
0.27
the
joint
JI: < 0.29 JI:
region,
which
were
[MPa]. These values
corroborate observed test results in which negligible strains were recorded in the pile cap
vertical reinforcement, indicating that no joint cracking occurred.
101.60
-,------------------,------~---------,
76.20
- - Experimental Test Results
50.80
25.40
0.00
Compression
Loadin Branch
Tension Loading
Branch
-50.80
-76.20
-101.60
-127.00
-152.40 .-::\-.--.-...,--,-,-,-,--,---,-,---,-,,--;-,.-r..,.--r-r-r-r...,--r-1--r-,--,--.,-,--,-,,-,-..,--,-,-,-'T-,-,---,-,r-r..-r..,..,l
-250.00
-200.00
-150.00
-100.00
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
Strain j.U::

-245-
200.00
250.00
6.9
Pile Cap Rotation

Similar to test unit CORJ, uplift of the pile cap from the strong floor was monitored
by linear potentiometers positioned at the base of the pile cap, as illustrated in Fig. 3-41 and
Fig. 3-42. Rotation ofthe pile cap was then computed'based on equation (5.5). Contribution
of pile cap rotation to pile lateral deflection may then be estimated according to equation
(5.6). Based on the values presented in Fig. 6-46, the maximum pile cap rotation,
'!'cap
was
0.000027/rad and was computed when the lateral deflection was +53.34 mm. This rotation
of the pile cap will contribute 0.09 mm to the pile lateral deflection at peak response, which
is rather small and, as a result no correction to the pile lateral deflection was computed.
101.60
76.20
50.80
~....
25.40
.._,
s
1::
0.00
Q)
(.)
(II
'a
Cll
i5
~
-25.40
Compression
Loading Branch
Tension Loading
Branch
~Jr'
,.,.,.~
-50.80
II!"
B
(II
...l
-76.20
I!
-101.60
-~- Pile Cap Uplift- Line A
\\.
-127.00
-152.40
-0.04
-0.03
~ Pile Cap Uplift- Line B
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
-246-
0.02
7.
Test Unit COR3 Experimental Test Results

load characteristics, vertical strain profiles longitudinal reinforcement and curvature profiles.
7.1

force is designated as positive and, when in tension, the axial force is designated as negative.
In addition, when in the compression loading branch, the lateral force is positive and in the
tension loading branch, the lateral force is designated as negative. The complete test setup for
unit COR3 is shown in Fig. 3-19. Indicated on the test unit 1,295 mm above the pile cap is
a horizontal line that marks the end of the inner core longitudinal ireinforcement.
follows:
consisted of loading the specimen axially to +863 kN while controlling the top lateral
displacement to +0.00 mm. At the end of this loading stage the lateral force was registered
at approximately + 10 kN.
At +82 kN in the compression loading branch: This loading stage corresponds to the
specified +25% yielding force level. In this cycle the registered deflection was+ 1.88 mm and
the axial load was +1073 kN.
prescribed -25% yielding force level. The lateral deflection and the axial load were -1.23 mm
and+700 kN, respectively.
At+ 161 kN in the compression loading branch: At the prescribed +50% yielding
force level, the lateral deflection was +5.29 rom and the axial load was+1,439 kN. At this
loading stage, the structure displayed no signs of physical distress as no cracks were observed
in the test specimen.
-247-
At -83 kN in the tension loading branch: At -50% yielding the lateral deflection and
axial load were -3.01 mm and +546 kN, respectively.
At +238 kN in the compression loading branch: In this cycle the structure was
loaded to +75% yielding in which the lateral deflection was registered at + 10.79 mm and the
axial load was+1,846 kN.
At -127 kN in the tension loading branch: At -7 5% yielding the lateral deflection was
-5.30 mm and the axial was +404 kN.
the theoretical first section yielding (+ 100% yielding), at which stage the lateral deflection and
axial load were, respectively, + 18.44 mm and +2,311 kN. Onset of flexural cracking began
at this stage with two horizontal cracks at approximately 305 mmn and 1,219 mm from the
soffit slab (see Fig. 7-2).
theoretical first section yielding while in the tension loading branch (-100%yielding). At this
stage the lateral deflection and the axial load were registered at approximately -10.83 mm and
+202 kN, respectively.
After this cycle the loading pattern was changed from single cyc1es to three cycles,
displacements, Ll~, and the loads corresponding to theoretical first section yield, VY, and yield,
y;, that were used in the bilinear approximation

calculations are as follows:
1. Lateral deflections at theoretical first section

yielding:
Compression: L1 ~c= +18.44 mm
Tension : L1 ~T
=-10.83 mm
2. Lateral load at theoretical frrst section

yielding:
Compression :
Tension :
V~c =
v~T =
+317 kN
Lateral Deflection {mm)
Fig. 7-1 Bilinear approximation
-172 kN
-248-

Compression : Vyc =+ 454 kN
Tension: Vyr= -186 kN
~t~
=+,-1:
vyc /
Compression : -Aye = +26.42mm
v:c
At L1
Tension
VyT
v/yT
.4/T -y
LI
-11.68mm
=+26.42 mm in the compression loading branch W.1 =+1 ): This loading stage
corresponds to the displacement ductility level of ~t~= +1. Extension of the artificial crack
along line D from its lower extremity of approximately 610 mm, long and extension of
previous horizontal cracks, was observed (see Fig. 7-3 and Fig. 7-4). During the third cycle,
extension of the artificial crack along line D from its upper extremity to approximately the
load stub height was observed, as illustrated in Fig. 7-5 and Fig. 7-6. The peak lateral load
was recorded at +375 kN and the axial load at +2645 kN.
At L1 = -11.68 mm in the tension loading branch (J1.1 = -1 ): In this cycle the structure
was displaced to the theoretical section yielding computed above. Onset of vertical splitting
cracks, originating from the artificial crack along line A, was observed (see Fig. 7-7). At this
displacement ductility level, the lateral load was -170 kN and the axial load was +169 kN.
At L1
= +39.62 mm in the compression loading branch fu.1
= +1.5): Horizontal
cracks developed in the previous cycles continued to extend around the circumference of the
section (see Fig. 7-8). Onset of inclined cracks propagating towards the compression toe and
vertical splitting cracks were observed, as depicted in Fig. 7-8 and Fig. 7-9. One of these
vertical cracks are observed to be oriented along a very steep angle on the side of the pile to
almost vertical as a result of the forces present in the prestressing strands, because the
component of the prestressing force begins to incline the compression field near these cracks
(see Fig. 7-9). Peak lateral and axial loads at this displacement ductility level were +425 kN
and +2,749 kN, respectively. At this cycle the prescribed maximum axial compressive load
that the prototype structure might experience in a seismic event was achieved.
-249-
At L1
= -17.53 mm in the tension loading branch (p = -1.5):

11
branch, onset of flexural cracking occurred at this cycle with a single horizontal crack forming
in the vicinity of the termination of the inner core longitudinal reinforcement, as shown in Fig.
7-10 and Fig. 7-11. Extension of the vertical crack emanating from the artificial crack along
line A is also documented in this figure. Peak lateral and axial loads at this displacement
ductility level were -193 kN and +22 kN, respectively.
At L1
=+52.83 mm in the compression loading branch {p =+2):

11
Lateral load and
axial load at this displacement level were +438 kN and +2,749 kN, respectively.
At L1
= -35.05 mm in the compression loading branch W.c1 = -3 ):
ductility level, the lateral load was -224 kN and the axial load was -167 kN. At this cycle the
axial load was for the first time in tension. Because the structure is expected to display an
increased displacement ductility capacity in the tension loading branch compared to ductility
levels in the compression loading branch, the loading procedure was effected such that the
ratio in increase of the current ductility level to the expected ultimate ductility level was
approximately the same in both loading branches to avoid early failure in any one of the
loading branches.
At +78.74 mm in the compression loading branch (J1 6 = +3): An increase in the
number of horizontal and vertical cracks were documented in the previous cycles. In this cycle
the horizontal crack at the tennination of the inner core longitudinal reinforcement wraps
around the pile section with its maximum width recorded at 1.60 mm (see Fig. 7-12). At this
displacement ductility level the lateral load was +495 kN and the axial load was +2749 kN.,
and at this stage, the specimen achieved its maximum flexural strength under axial
compressive loading.
At -52.07 mm in the tension loading branch
WLJ =, -4.5): Large concentration of
cracks emanating from the artificial crack along line 2 were observed with the horizontal
crack in the vicinity of the limits of the inner core longitudinal reinforcement dominating
response (see Fig. 7-13 and Fig. 7-14). Registered lateral load and axial load were -221 kN
and -302 kN, respectively. At this cycle, the prescribed maximum axial tensile load that the
prototype structure might experience in a seismic event was achieved.
At +92.46 mm in the compression loading branch (J1 4 = +3.5): Peaks loads at this
displacement ductility level were respectively +496 kN and +2,749 kN.
-250-
At -82.04 mm in the tension loading branch (u.tJ = -7): Peaks loads at this
displacement ductility level were -241 kN and -302 kN, respectively.
At + 105.92 mm in the compression loading branch
(j1LJ
= +4 ):
No significant
increase in the number of flexural, vertical or inclined cracks was recorded. Sudden crushing
and spalling of the cover concrete in an explosive manner near the region where the
longitudinal reinforcement terminates was observed, followed by a rapid drop in the axial load
carrying capacity of the section for this stipulated ductility level. Fig. 7-15 documents the
distress pattern observed at this displacement ductility cycle, which was very similar to that
observed during testing of test unit COR1. Peak loads were lateral load +488 kN and axial
load +2,749 kN, respectively.
At -116.84 mm in the tension loading branch (j1LJ = -10): After considerable drop
in the axial load observed during the previous cycle, the loading procedure was carried out
only in the tension loading branch with small excursions into the compression loading branch
up to an axial load of approximately+ 1334 kN and a lateral deflection of 2.54 mm. Reversed
cyclic loading propagated the extension of spalling of the cover concrete, with spalling of the
cover concrete occurring in large blocks of concrete characteristics of high strength concrete
(see Fig. 7-16). Peak loads were lateral load -235 kN and axial load -302 kN, respectively.
At -143.26 mm in the tension loading branch
(ULJ
= -12 ):
ductility level, the lateral load was -248 kN and the axial load was -302 kN.
Fig. 7-17 documents the extent of spalling of the cover concrete and unwinding of the
prestressing strands in the region were the inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates.
The testing procedure was stopped after the maximum lateral deflection observed during
testing of test unit COR1 was reached.
- 251 -
Vt
Fig. 7-3 Cracking Pattern at +26.42 mm
Fig. 7-2 Onset of Flexure Cracking at V=+317 kN
Fig. 7-7 Cracking Pattern at -11.68 mm
VI
VI
Fig. 7-12 Cracking Pattern at Lateral Deflection of+78.74 mm
Fig. 7-13 Cracking Pattern at Lateral Deflection of -52.07 mm

-257-
Fig. 7-14 Cracking Pattern at Lateral Deflection of -52.07 mm
Fig. 7-15 Extent of Spalling of Cover Concrete at Lateral Deflection of +105.92 mm

-258-
Fig. 7-17 Wide Open Crack
Fig. 7-16 Plastic Hinge Relocation
7.2

Fig. 7-18 shows the measured lateral force versus lateral displacement response of the
test unit. The initial response of the pile suggests a good correlation between the expected and
the observed stiffness in both loading branches. However, in the compression loading branch,
after the lateral load exceeded 50% of the expected first yield lateral load, there was an
apparent softening of the structure compared to the expected stiffness of the pile. Post test
investigation of the opening width of the artificial cracks reveals that the artificial cracks were
opening up at low load level cycles. The opening of these cracks influences the confinement
of the inner core cast in place concrete. Thus, a post test analysis was carried out in which the
precast concrete shell and the inner core cast in place concrete in the region where these
cracks appear was assumed unconfined. The post test moment curvature analysis is also
shown in Fig. 7-18, and it shows a good correlation with the test results. Thus, post-test
analysis shows that confinement of the concrete in the artificial cracked region is indeed
affected when the cracks open up.
The confined concrete model used to develop the pre-test analysis for test unit COR3
was the model proposed by Bjerkeli [24], which is different than the concrete model used to
develop the pre-test analysis for test units CORJ and COR2. Pre-test analysis for test units
CORJ and COR2 was developed using the Mander model [15] for confined concrete. Study
of the differences between these two models for confined concrete is presented in Chapter 8.
At peak load in the compression loading branch, the predicted maximum load was
approximately 12% lower than the measured maximum load. The maximum achieved lateral
load of test unit COR3 was approximately the same as for test unit CORJ. Peak load in test
unit CORJ was reached at +51.05 mm and, in test unit COR3, the peak load was not reached
until+ 78.74 mm, which suggests slight softening of the pile section of test unit COR3, as
previously indicated. In this loading branch a maximum lateral load of +49 5 kN was recorded
at flt.==+3xl without excessive degradation in the lateral strength of the pile section during
successive cycles.
In the tension loading branch the predicted response of the pile section matches
closely the observed test results. A maximum lateral force of -248 leN was recorded during
the displacement cycleflt.==-9xl. The testing procedure was stopped at f.1t.=-9x2 because the
section was maintaining constant lateral load and maximum achieved lateral deflection at this
cycle match that reached when testing unit CORJ.
-260-
Post test investigation of the test data indicates that a maximum displacement ductility
of jl~=+4 was achieved in the compression loading branch and approximately j..l~=-12 was
achieved in the tension loading branch with minimum degradation in the lateral strength of the
section. In the compression loading branch, lateral deflections at maximum displacement and
yield were, respectively, .dma.r= + 105.92 mm and.dy= +26.42 mm, while in the tension loading
branch these values were .d== -143.26 mm and L1y= -11.68 mm, respectively.
interface. The main characteristics visible in this figure are very similar to those indicated
earlier for the pile lateral deflection mainly pinching of the hysteresis loops at the transition
from the compression to the tension loading branch and vice versa.
of llq~=+ 7 was achieved in the compression loading branch and approximately j..l<P=-13.5 in the
tension loading branch. In the compression loading branch, maximum and yield curvatures
are, respectively,lf?ma.r=-t0.000068 mm 1 and 1f?y=+0.0000099 mm 1, and IPmax=-0.000070 mm 1
and lf?y=- 0.0000050 mrn 1 in the tension loading branch. As expected, curvature ductility
levels are slightly higher than displacement ductility levels.
Similar to test units CORJ and COR2, curvatures presented in Fig. 7-19 represent
average values and were computed according to equation (5.1). Also, during computations
of curvatures at the pile cap interface the height of the linear potentiometer cell, hcur includes
an additional term to account for tensile strain penetration into the pile cap by including the
strain penetration length into the curvature cell height,
-261-
hcun
according to equation (5.2).
500
400
1-'
1.5
50.8
76.2
Pre Test Analysis
Post Test Analysis
300
_.........
'-"
200
"t::
~
....:I
..~
100
al
......
ca
tv
0\
tv
....:I
0
-100
-200
-300
-177.8 -152.4 -127.0 -101.6 -76.2
-50.8
-25.4
0.0
25.4
101.6
127.0
500
Pre Test Analysis
Post Test Analysis
400
300
200
100
Compression
Loading Branch
Tension
Loading Branch
-100
-200
I
2
-300
-10.00
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
figure also shows the profile of the loading path that was employed to control the application
respectively. These values are identical to test units CORJ and COR2.
Loading curves defined in Chapter 3 for test units CORJ and COR3 are also presented
in Fig. 7-20. In addition, indicated in this figure are the location at which the residual
displacements, Lli, were obtained when Curve VII and Curve XIV crossed the initial axial load
axis and used to define Curve I, Curve II and/or Curve II in Region 1 and Curve VIII, Curve
IX and/or Curve X in Region 3, which redirect the loading path towards the control program
loading path. Note that not all curves are presented for clarity. Refer to Fig. 3-53 for
additional curves not shown here. As expected, these curves are straight lines which emanate
from the residual displacements, lli, and point towards the end points of these curves.
COR3. In this figure is also shown the pre-test analysis loading path which was used to
unloading branches is described by a straight line initiating at the peak deformation to the
initial load state.
-264-
11-
3000
2500
=l
I
1.5
1curve
vt
(Pi, Hi)
2000
,.-...
1500
'-'
"'t:j
~
0
~
~
.......
1000
----------
;.<
N
0'\
Vl

<r:
500
0
Curve XIII
-500
I I I
-177.8
152.4 -127.0 -101.6 -76.2
-50.8
-25.4
0.0
25.4
50.8
76.2
Deflection (mm)
101.6
127.0
3000
2500
2000
,.--..
1500
'-"
"'c::
C'd
0
....:I
~
......
N
01
01
1000
Initial Axial Load ( Selfweight )
----------------
Compression
Loading Branch
__,.......,.......,...
Tension
Loading Branch
500
I
ly
-500
I
I
-300
-150
150

Pre-Test Analysis
300
Lateral Load (kN)
450
7.3

In this section and future sections, the plotted values are the first cycle peak values
for each cyclic response. Curvature vertical profiles along the height of the pile are presented
respectively.
testing procedure, region of plastic deformations form at the bottom of the pile section
deformations is well illustrated in Fig. 7-22(a), depicted by a significant increase in curvature
near the region where the inner core longitudinal reinforcement terminates. Increase in
curvature in this region is more accentuated in the tension loading branch. This second region
of plastic deformations began to form when the lateral deflection was .!1=- 27.43 mm as a
result of wide open cracks at this location, as previously described.
Indicated in these figures are the yield curvature levels obtained from Fig. 7-22(a),
423 mm near the soffit slab, which is sightly lower than the theoretical effective plastic hinge
length, lP, of 522 mm, obtained from equation (5.3),
At the location where the longitudinal reinforcement terminates it is not readily
deformations are more concentrated between positions 8 and 6 which leads to a plastic hinge
A comparison with the curvature profiles of test unit CORI is presented in Chapter
8 while discussing test results.
-267-
1828.80
--Pull
1524.00
Termination of
I
8
In~rJ:oE _ _ _ _ j_ __
Longitudinal
I
7
I
Reinforcement
I
I
1219.20
:g
.fo
';;) 914.40
:z::
0
if
cp'
609.60
Push
---Push
V=+76kN
-43kN
+152kN
-87kN
+227kN
-130kN
---+-- v
+302kN
-+--
f>= +17.02mm
I
I
I
I
I
-1.50
yl
-0.50
-1.00
-l73kN
-13.72mm
Pull
I
I
I
304.80
Pull
--9-
Push
0.00
0.50
1.00
!.50
(a) Curvature Vertical Profiles- Initial Stages of Testing
1524.00
~1219.20
:c
~ 914.40
:z::
4.)
Push
--+-a-
609.60
------*-----er---
304.80
___,.___
-15.00
-12.00
-9.00
-6.00
-3.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
(b) Curvature Vertical Profiles- Final Stages of Testing

-268-
!!.=
+17.02rnm
Pull
-13.72mrn
l>=+25.65mm
-20.57mrn
l>=+34.04mm
-27.43mm
-54.86mm
!!.=
+51.05mm
!!.=
+59.69mm
-82.30mm
!!.=
+68.07mrn
-109.73mm
fl.= +85.09mm
-137.16mm
7.4
Vertical Profiles of Artificial Cracks Opening

During the testing procedure the crack width or opening of the artificial cracks was
monitored with 8linear potentiometers positioned along the artificial cracks, as illustrated in
Fig. 3-33.
Vertical profiles along lines A and D are shown in Fig. 7-23 and Fig. 7-24,
respectively. Along line A the artificial ~rack opening increases from the start of the testing
procedure after the initial axial load of +863 kN is applied (see Fig. 7-23), which corroborates
the loss in confinement of the concrete in this region. Opening of this cut is registered after
+50% yielding, which corresponds with the stage at which cracks are seen to emanate from
the cut. Moreover, in the early stages, crack width opening is more accentuated at the central
positions 2 and 3. However, in the later stages of the testing procedure, crack width opening
is more accentuated at position I. This is so, because in the early stages of the testing
procedure, confinement demands are rather small and the tensile strength of the concrete is
adequate in preventing crack from opening at its extremities. In the later stages of the testing
procedure, confinement demands at the lower extremity are more accentuated as a result of
formation of plastic hinge at the lower extremity.
Along lineD, opening of the crack is not visible in the early stages of the testing
procedure and very small up to 100% yielding. A considerable jump in its opening is visible
at approximately flt.=l and f.! . . =-1. At these loading stages, the crack width opening is more
accentuated at position 4 because it was at this position where the first cracks were recorded
to emanate from this extremity. However, at later stages of the testing procedure, there is a
shift and crack width opening is more accentuated at its lower extremity. During the later
stages of the testing procedure, crack width opening along cracks A and D at location I is
approximately the same, which suggests constant radial expansion of the concrete shell as a
result of confinement demands.
-269-
---Push
--Pull
-e-
Pull
~ V=+82kN
-39kN
v = +16lkN
-83kN
V=+238kN
-127kN
V=+317kN
-172kN
6= +26.42rnm
-11.68mm
--+-+--+-
Push
Initial Axial Load !i.= +860kN
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pull
2
Termination of Inner Core
Longitudinal Reinforcement
0.00
0.50
0.25
0.75
1.00
Crack Width Opening (mm)
(a) Vertical Profiles - Initial Stages of Testing
---Push
--Pull
2209.40
:;::: 1904.60
.!l
i:l:
Push
Pull
"'= +26.42mm
-11.68mm
"'= +39.62rnm
-17.53mm
1599.80
Termination of
Inner Core
Longitudinal
Reinforcement
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
__...
"'= +52.83mm
-35.05mm
"'=+78.74mm
-52.07mm
ll=+92.46mm
-82.04mm
15.00--M-- "'= +105.92mm

"'=
(b) Vertical Profiles - Final Stages of Testing
Fig. 7-23 Crack Width Opening Vertical Profiles Along LineA

-270-
-116.84mm
-143.26mm
I
I
I
I
I
2209.4{)
---Push
--Pun
I
I
I
I
I
'-"
il904.60
'<ij
=
.
Pull
Initial Axial Load\)= +860kN
-e--
V=+82kN
v "'+l61kN
-83kN
-+-
V=+238kN
127kN
-+-+-
Push
-e--
39kN
V=+317kN
172kN
8:+26.42mm
-1L6Smm
I
I
is:
1599.80
I
Pull
I
I
I
1295.00
0.25
0.00

0.75
0.50
1.00
(a) Vertical Profiles- Initial Stages of Testing
I I
I II I I
I II I I
I II I \
I II I I
2209.4{)
---Push
--Pull
I I I I
I I I I
I
I
I
I
;a 1904.60
e.o
I
I
I
I
I I
=
0
it
I I
I I
1599.80
tI
\
\
\
\
I
I
\
I
\
\
-+-
---__..._
\
\
1295.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
lZ.OO
Push
Pull
ll: +26.42mm
-IL6Bmm
8=+39.62mm
-17.53mm
~'~=+.52.8Jmm
3.5.0.5mm
--;0;-- A=+78.74mm
-52.07mm
6=+92.46mm
-B2.04mm
_._
15.00-M-
~'~=
+I 05.92mm
ll ..
(b) Vertical Profiles - Final Stages of Testing
Fig. 7-24 Crack Width Opening Along Vertical LineD
-271-
-116.84mm
143.26mm
7.5

As in test units CORJ and COR2, the inner core reinforcement consists of#? Grade40
(/y=276 MPa) steel with a yield strain of approximately 1500)la.
7.5.1
Pile Longitudinal Reinforcement - Vertical Strain Profiles


occurred above the soffit slab line at )1 8 =+4.0 and yielded in tension at )1 8 =- 3, also at location
4.
The profiles for bars B and D, which are positioned on the sides of the pile, revealed
that these bars where always in tension and below yielding levels. The vertical profiles for bars
B and D are similar as a result of the symmetrical position of these two bars with respect to
the loading direction.
Strain profiles along inner core bar C reveal that strains in this bar were below yielding
levels in compression, and in tension, this bar yielded at
-272-
)1 8 =+ 1.5.
-e-
1219.20
914.40
8
5
V = +82kN
-39kN
v =+161kN
v = +238kN
-83kN
V=+317kN
-172kN
l!.: +26.42mm
-11.68mm
--+---+-
304.80
Pull
--+---
609.60
Push
Initial Axial Load~= +860kN
-127kN
";)
:I:
~
0.00
Pull
-304.80
-609.60
---Push
--Pull
-1500
-1000
-500
0
Strain !J-C
500
1000
1500
1219.20
914.40
I
~
609.60
304.80
";)
:I:
0.00
13
I
-304.80
Pile Cap Line
--+--
I
I
I
-609.60
Yield I
-2000
-1000
1000
---Push
--Pull
2000
Push
Pull
l!.=+26.42mm
-11.68mm
-8-
l!.: +39.62mm
-17.53mm
-----....--
l!.: +52.83mm
-35.05mm
~ !:.: +78.74mm
-52.07mm
!:.=+92.46mm
-82.04mm
-M--
l!.: +105.92mm
-116.84mm
l!.:
-143.26mm
___._
3000
Strain !J-C
-273-
-e-
1219.20
'? 609.60
~
304.80
:I;
..,
ii:
0.00
;:;
Pull
Load~=
+860kN
--->-- V:: +82kN
-39kN
-83kN
--+--
V = +238kN
-127kN
-172kN
-+-
6:: +26.42mm
914.40
Push
Initial Axial
+161kN
+317kN
-11.68mm
Pull
-304.80
-609.60
---Push
--Pull
-1500
-1000
-500
0
Strain ;.u:;
500
1000
Push
1500
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
1219.20
914.40
I
~
;:;
609.60
304.80
I
J
:I;
it"
0.00
-304.80
~
1
Soffit Slab Line
I
I
I
I
I
Pile Cap Line
-8-
Push
--Pull
I Yield
-914.40
-2000
-----A-
I
I
-609.60J
-+-
-1000
1000
2000
.............
__._
-M-
Push
Pull
6=+26.42mm
-1 !.68mm
6=+39.62mm
-17.S3mm
6: +S2.83mm
3S.OSmm
+78.74mm
-S2.07mm
t.=
6=+92.46mm
-82.04mm
6= +10S.92mm
-116.84mm
6=
-143.26mm
3000
Strain j.LC
(b) Vertical Strain Pror.Ies- Final Stages of Testing

-274-
-e-
Push
Initial Axial
Pull
Load~=
~ V = +82kN
~
--+-+-+--
v =+161kN
v = +238kN
+860kN
39kN
-83kN
-127kN
V=+317kN
-172kN
D.= +26.42mm
-11.68mm
Pull
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
Strain f.J,E:
(a) Vertical Strain Profiles Initial Stages of Testing
I
I
I
~
a;
::r:
if"'
1219.20
I
I
I
914.40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
609.60
304.80
I
I
I
I
~~
~7
\ '~,1
~'~ 6
t- v-~~\
\'lt- \
-,-
_j __
0.00
~ ~4
~ H~ ~f~t~l~ ~i~
// 1f.
//~I
I
I
I
I
304.80
3 Pile Cap Line
-1-
~I
2
/L. ._,
/1-~
--e-
I
I
I ,
I
I Yield
Yield!
---Push
--Pull
-914.40
-2000
-1000
1000
---__,.__
___._
---A-
-609.60
~~~5
\I \J 1 I
2000
....__
Push
Pull
D.= +26.42mm
-1!.68mm
!J.= +39.62mm
-17.53mm
!J.= +52.83mm
-35.05mm
!J.= +78.74mm
-5l.07mm
!J.= +92.46mm
-82.04mm
l>= +105.92mm
-116.84mm
!J.=
-143.26mm
3000
Strain f.J,E:
(b) Vertical Strain Profiles Final Stages of Testing

-275-
-e-
1219.20
7
914.40
fa 304.80
;g
lf"
Pull
---->--
V =+82kN
-39kN
V=+l61kN
-83kN
v +238kN
v = +317kN
-172kN
tl: +26.42mm
-ll.68mm
-+-+-
609.60
Push
Initial AJ<ial Load~- +860kN
-127kN
Soffit Slab Line
0.00
Pull
-304.80
-609.60
---Push
--Pull
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
Strain j.U::
Soffit Slab Line

Pile Cap Line
-+-
-e-
--Push
--Pull
-2000
-1000
1000
2000
---
---6-_..._
Push
Pull
t.= +26.42mm
-11.68mm
<l.: +39.62mm
-17.~3mm
t.= +~2.83mm
-35.05mm
t.= +78.74mm
-52.07mm
t.=+92.46mm
-82.04mm
....,-)(--
<l.: +105.92mm
-116.84mm
----
<l.:
-143.26mm
3000
Strain j.U::
(b) Vertical Strain Proiiles- Final Stages of Testing

-276-
7.5.2 Pile Longitudinal Reinforcement- Circumferential Strain Profiles

figures indicate in the initial stages of testing a linear variation of strain between the
longitudinal bars, which suggests small excursions into yielding strains. Yielding of bars A and
C occurred mainly between horizontal lines 2 and 7, with maximum registered strains slightly
higher than yielding only between levels 3 and 5.
-277-
1500
Push
1500
Push
1000
1000
500
500
::t
"'
c:l
a
!:;
...
0
A
cr.>
"'
::t
.
cr.;
-500
-1000
-1000
90
180
270
+82kN
-39kN
+16lkN
-83kN
+238kN
-127kN
v = +317kN
-172kN
<'>= +26.42mm
-11.68mm
-1500
r
0
Pull
-500
-1500
Pull
Jnitinl Axial Load Jij= +860kN
--Pull
360
90
180
270
360


3000.-----------------------------------Push
--Pull
3000.----------------------------------------.
---Push
--Pull
2000
2000
-..,J
00
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Yiel<!_ _
-1000
_ _ _ _ _ _ Yield _ _ _ _
-2000
ll= +39.62nun
-17.53mm
-35.05mm
"= +78.74nun
-52.07mm
____.._ ll=+92.46mm
-82.04mm
Yield
-+----------,----------.---------,----------1
0
90
180
270
360

-2000
0
90
180
270
Pull
-11.6Smm
"=+52.83mm
-1000
Yield
Push
1>=+26.42mm
360 ~ ll= +105.92mm

----
Fig. 7-29 Inner Core Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Horizontal Line I and Z
"=
-116.84mm
-143.26mm
1500
-e1000
...,
::t.
I~
en
Pull
Jl.: +860kN
V=+82k.."'
-39kN
v = +l6lk.."'
v = +238k.."'
-l27kN
-+-
v = +3l7k.."'
-l72kN
-+--
"'=+26~42mm
-ll.68mm
--+-
500
Push
Initial Axial Load
-83kN
Pull
-500
c
-1000
-1500
-1000
+----~r~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~--.
90
-1500
180
270
360

90
180
270
360

(c) Circumferential Strain Protues
3000,-----------------------------,
---Push
--Pull
2000
2000
..., 1000
~ 1000
:::1.
ca=
;:a
!:::
en
!:::
en
-+---1000
--B-
-1000
Yield
0
90
180
270
360

Final Stages of Testing -Horizontal Line 3
-2000+---------r---------.--------~--------~
90
180
270
---
Yield
-2000-l--------.--------,---------r-------~
___....__
Push
Pull
"'=+26.42mm
-IL68nun
"'=+39.62mm
-17~53nun
ll.=+52.83mm
-35.05mm
ll.=+78.74mm
-52.07mm
ll.=+92.46mm
360-M- ll.= +105.92mm

Final Stages of Testing -Horizontal Line 4
---
ll.=
-82.04mm
-116.84mm
-143.26mm
1500
---Push
1500
Push
--Pull
--Pun
1000
1000
500
500
Push
Pull
Initial Axial L>ad
-->--
V=+82kN
-39kN
V= +16lkN
-83kN
-+-+--+-
"'::t
o:;
-e-
+860kN
V= +238kN
-127kN
V=+3171cN
-172kN
"= + 26.42nun
-1!.68mm
Pull
-500
-500
-1000
-1000
-1500
0
90
-,~~~~-,~~~~~
180
270
-1500
360

90
H!O
270
360

00
3000,-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3000.-~~~~~--~~~~~~~~--------~-.
---Push
--Pull
---Push
--Pull
2000
2000
Yield
~ 1000
e"'
~
o~~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~~~~
-1000
-1000
--Yieid
Yield
-2000
-t-~~~~-.----------.----------.---------4
90
180
270
360

-2000+~~~~-.~~~~-.---------.----------4
90
180
270
360-M--

-----
Push
Pull
t.~+26.42mm
-ll.68nun
t.~+39.62mm
-17.53nun
t.=+52.83mm
-35.05nun
t.=+78.74mm
-52.07nun
t.= +92.46mm
-82.04mm
t.= + 105.92mm
-116.84mm
t.=
-143.26rnm
1500
1500
Push
---Push
Pull
--Pull
1000
'-l
=
.1::1
;;;
Pull
---->-- v =+82kN
-39kN
500
----<!&-- v = +16ikN
--+-- v = +238kN
-l27kN
-83kN
'-l
-+-
V=+317kN
-l72kN
-+-
t>= +26.42mm
-11.68mm
::t.
0
Push
Initial Axial Load li',= +860kN
1000
500
::t.
--e-
"
<Zl
<Zl
-500
-500
-1000
-1000
-1500
-1500
0
90
ISO
270
360
90
180
270
360

(a) Circumferential Strain Prot1les
Initial Stages ofTesting- Horizontal Line 7

(c) Circumferential Strain Prot1les
3000-.---------------------------------------,
---Push
--Pull
3000,----------------------------------------.
---Push
----Pull
2000
2000
Yield
---------Yield ___ _
~ 1000
-~
.1::1
<Zl
-+-a-
-1000
-1000
--~
Yield
-20001---------.--------,~-------,---------1
90
180
270
360

(b) Circumferential Strain Prot1les
-2000
..........__
0
90
180
270
360--M--

(d) Circumferential Strain Pronles
Push
Pull
l>: +26.42mm
-ll.68mm
<l.= +39.62rnm
-17.53mm
<l.= +52.83mm
<l.=+78.74nun
-52.07mm
<l.: +92.46mm
-82.04mm
"'= +105.92mm
-ll6.84mm
- - - "'=
-35.05mm
-143.26nun
7.6

36. Similar to test unit CORJ,strain readings were obtained during fabrication of the precast
prestressed concrete shell while at Utility Vault, and the gages were disconnected between
fabrication and testing at UCSD. Then, before testing, these same gages were reconnected
to the data acquisition system and balanced to zero. Then, the final strains recorded during
the fabrication process were added to the strains obtained during testing.
A large number of strain gages were malfunctioning after manufacturing of the
concrete shell for test unit COR3, and during zeroing of the gages for the testing procedure,
many gages were not connected. Along strand C al1 strain gages were functioning and vertical
profiles along this strand are presented in Fig. 7-35. In the final stages of the testing
procedure, strain profiles presented in this figure indicate that maximum strains were achieved
between positions 3 and 7. This indicates a much smaller development length for the
prestressing strands than that observed for test unit CORJ. This observation will be discussed
in greater detailed in Chapter 8 when comparing behavior of these two test units.
-282-
2133.60
1828.80
b/l
-~
--4--
V=+82kN
-39kN
V=+l6lkN
-83kN
V=+238kN
-127kN
-+--+-
51219.20
~
Pull
Initial Axial Load~~ +860kN
-+-
1524.00
Push
-e-
+317kN
6: +26.42mrn
-172kN
-11.68mrn
i:I:
. 914.40
~
Pull
3
609.60
2
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
---0.00
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Strain f.U;
Push
3
--+-
-a-
2
Soffit Slab Line
------er-
__..._
6~
+26.42mrn
6: + 39. 62mrn
-17.53mrn
11: +52.83mm
-35.05mrn
6: +78.74rnm
-52.07mm
6:+92.46mm
~ 6=+105.92mm
0
4000
6000
8000
11:
10000
Strain J.LE:

-283-
Pull
-11.68mrn
-82.04mm
-l16.84mm
-143.26mm
2133.60
Push
--e-
----4---
1828.80
V= +82kN
~ V=+l61kN
--+--
1524.00
e.
Pull
Initial Axial Load{\= +860kN

-39kN
-83kN
V= +238kN
-127kN
-+-
V= +317kN
-172kN
-+-
tl: +26.42mm
-11.68mm
.,1219.20
~
<U
::I:
~
914.40
ii:
Pull
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
0.00
Push
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Strain f..U:;
_ _ _ Push
2133.60
--Pull
1828.80
6
1524.00
11219.20
fn
.;
~
914.40
ii:
-+-e-
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
-----
---
2000
4000
6000
8000
Pull
-11.68mrn
A=+39.62mm
-17.53mm
A:+52.83mm
-35.05mm
---A-
.........__
ll: +78.74mm
-52.07mm
ll:+92.46mm
-82.04mm
--M-
ll=+l05.92mm
-116.84mm
ll=
-143.26mm
........
0
Push
ll: +26.42mm
10000
Strain f..t:
(b) Vertical Strain ProtUes- Final Stages of Testing

-284-
2133.60
Push
1828.80
lniti!ll Axi!ll Load Ji!,= +860kN
v = +82kN
-39kN
----&-----
V=+161kN
-83kN
-+-
v = +238kN
v = +317kN
-127kN
11: +26.42mm
-11.68mm
-+--+-
1524.00
,-..
Pull
-172kN
51219.20
:con
;:;
::t:
..!:! 914.40
i:i:
Pull
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
0.00
Push
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Strain J..U;
2133.60
---Push
--Pull
1828.80
1524.00
e
51219.20
..Eb.tJ
'Oj
:r:..,
914.40
~
609.60
304.80
-----2000
4000
6000
Pull
!!.= +26.42mm
-11.68mm
-&
l!.=+39.62mm
-17.53mm
-------
l!.=+52.83mm
-35.05mm
!!.= +78.74mm
-52.07mm
ll= +92.46mm
-82.04mm
----6:--Soffit Slab Line -A-
-M-
o.oo
0
Push
-1-
8000
!!.= +10S.92mm
-116.84mm
!!.=
-143.26mm
10000
Strain J-lC
-285-
2133.60
1828.80
Push
V=+B2kN
-39kN
V=+l61kN
-83k!"'
-+--
V=+238kN
-127kN
V=+317kN
-172kN
ll:+26.42mm
-11.68mm
-+--+-
1524.00
Pull
-e-
Initial Axial Load V,= +860kN
I1219.20
:;::;
;:;<>0
:I:
914.40
ii:
Pull
3
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
0.00
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Strain f.U:
---Push
Pull
2JJ3.60
1828.80
6
1524.00
!1219.20
914.40
ii:
-+-
-e-
609.60
2
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
------
2000
4000
6000
----
8000
---
Push
Pull
ll:+26.42mm
-11.68mm
ll:+39.62mm
-17.53mm
fl= +52.83mm
-35.05nun
---6---
_........._
ll:+78.74mm
-52.07mm
ll:+92.46mm
-82.04mm
-M--
ll: +105.92mm
-116.84mm
----
ll:
-143.26mm
10000
Strain f.LC

-286-
7.7

longitudinal reinforcement. Strain gages above position 5 for this test unit are not shown
because cutting of the artificial cracks through the concrete sheJI also cut the strain gages
cables. For completeness, in this section only, pile transverse reinforcement vertical strain
profiles are shown.

through Fig. 7-40. The sttain profiles along longitudinal line A (seeFig. 7-37) and along
longitudinal line C (see Fig. 7-39) indicate the level of confinement strain developed in the
pile section as a result of the applied axial load and deformations. Strain profiles along
longitudinal line B (see Fig. 7-38) and along longitudinal lineD (see Fig. 7-40) indicate the
level of shear-induced strain as a result of the applied lateral load. Observation of these figures
is similar to test unit CORJ.
287-
2133.60
---Push
--Pull
-e-
Push
~ V=+82kN
1828.80
--+---+---
1524.00
-+-
Pull
Initial Axial Load Vf= +860kN

-39kN
v = +161kN
v = +238kN
-127kN
V=+317kN
-172kN
ll:
+26.42mrn
-83kN
-11.68mrn
11219.20
:g
..!::! 914.40
Pull
c:
3
609.60
2
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
0.00 -t---,-,----,-r-.-,---.----.-,-t---.-r-.-,---.----.-,-,----,--l
-1000
-500
Push
1000
500
Strain j ..u;
2133.60
---Push
--Pull
1828.80
1524.00
s
51219.20
:g
..!::! 914.40
c:
--+-B--
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line

--~-----~-
-1000
1000
2000
3000
Push
Pull
ll:+26.42mm
-11.68mrn
+39.62mm
-17.53mrn
ll:
ll::+52.83mm
-35.05mm
~ ll:+78.74mm
-52.07mrn
-82.04mrn
----............._
ll:
+92.46mm
--M-
ll:
+105.92mm
----
6..,
4000
Strain J.Le
-288-
-ll6.84mm
-l43.26mm
2133.60
Push
---Push
--Pull
1828.80
11219.20
~
:I!.., 914.40
Initial Axial Load %= +860kN
-39kN
-83kN
---+---
V=+238kN
-127kN
-112kN
+317kN
fl.:+26.42mm
-11.68mm
Pull
+82kN
~ V=+16IkN
-+--+-
1524.00
Pull
t-
3
609.60
2
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
Push
-500
-1000
500
1000
Strain JU:;
2133.60
---Push
--Pull
1828.80
1524.00
---Ei
.1219.20
.:<:!
bll
~
~
914.40
-+--e-
609.60
304.80
0.00
--~
Soffit Slab Line
i
-1000
1000
2000
3000
Push
Pull
fl.=+26.42mm
-11.68mm
fl.=+39.62mm
-17.53mm
tJ.=+52.83mm
-35.01mm
.......,_
fl.=+78.74mm
-52.07mm
fl.: +92.46mm
-82.04mm
"""*""
fl.: +I 05.92mm
-116.84mm
fl.:
-143.26mm
----
4000
Strain JU:;

-289-
2133.60
---Push
--Pull
-e-
1828.80
6
1524.00
51219.20
~
o
Push
Pull
Initial Axial Load !if +860kN
V=+82kN
-39kN
v = +161Iu"'
-B3kN
---+---
V = +23Bl<N
-127kN
--+--
v~+3I7kN
-172kN
--+-
t.:+26.42mm
-11.6Bmm
;I:
. 914.40
Pull
c:
609.60
2
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
-1000
-500
500
1000
Strain ;.u;
2133.60
1828.80
6
1524.00
..--.,
51219.20
....
..c
blJ
:;:;
;I:
... 914.40
i5::
Push
Pull
t.= +26.42mm
-1L6Bmm
---
6:+39.62mm
-17.53mm
t.=+52.83mm
-35.05mm
___.._..
t.=+78.74mm
-S2.07mm
t.=+92.46mm
-B2.04mm
-M-
t.~+105.92mm
-116.84mm
t.:
-143.26mm
-+-a-
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
----
0.00
-1000
1000
2000
3000
-ft-
----
4000
Strain ;.u:

-290-
---Push
--Pull
-e-
-e-
V=+82kN
V=+l6JkN
-83kN
--+--
+238kN
-127kN
V=+317kN
-172kN
A:+26.42mm
-11.68mm
-+--+-
Pull
Push

-39kN
Pull
Soffit Slab Line

0.00 -1---,---,-,.--.,----,--,--,---,,--....--+--r--,---r-.--....--.,--,--,---,---l
-1000
-500
1000
500
Strain 1-.u;
2133.60
---Push
--Pull
1828.80
1524.00
8
5
1219.20
J
OJ
)(
914.40
it
-+-a-
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
-------
------...------fr-
--M-
-1000
1000
2000
3000
Push
Pull
A=+26.42mm
-11.68mm
A: +39.62mm
-17.53mm
t:.= +52.83mm
-35.05mm
A= +78.74mm
-S2.07rnm
A:+92.46mm
-8204mm
A: +105.92mm
-JJ6.84mm
A:
-143.26mm
4000
Strain JU
Fig. 7-40 Pile Transverse Reinforcement Strain Profiles Along Line D

-291-
7.8

Maximum strains in the pile cap top and bottom reinforcement, positioned in the
gage Bottom 3-C. Note that bottom reinforcement refers to position of reinforcement as it
illustrated in Fig. 7-41 indicate minimum strains recorded in this reinforcement. Thus, as in
test unit CORJ, strain profiles for the pile cap top and bottom reinforcement are not shown
since strain levels were always considerably below yielding.
127.00
101.60
76.20
,....._
'-'
50.80
25.40
Compression
d0
s
0
Branch
0.00
Tension Loading
oj
Branch
'a
"'
-25.40
<a.....
-50.80
...
0
oj
...J
-76.20
-101.60
-127.00
-152.40
-200.00
-100.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Strain J.L<:

Strain Gage Pile Cap Bottom Reinforcement Bottom 3-C
-292-
600.00
3-B. For strain gage location, refer to Fig. 3-39. As in test unit CORJ, strain readings
profiles for the pile vertical reinforcement are not shown since strain levels were always
considerably below yielding. Strain levels recorded in this reinforcement can be taken as an
indication of joint performance. Levels of principal tensile stress computed in Chapter 2 and
presented in Fig. 2-27 indicate that no joint shear failure was expected as a result of
minimum
0.16
level
of
J1: < 0.29 J1:
expected
[MPa]
stress
in
and 0.27
the
JOint
J1: < 0.29 J1:
region,
which
were
[MPa]. These values
corroborate observed test results in which negligible strains were recorded in the pile cap
vertical reinforcement indicating that no joint cracking occurred. Note, that these values are
the same for all the three test units.
101.60
76.20
50.80
-"""
!..
=
~
25.40
Compression
Loading Branch
Tension Loading
Branch
0.00
8
~
(.)
oj
0..
5"'
-25.40
-a
-50.80
..:I
-76.20
<ll
'iii
-101.60
-127.00

-152.40 -=1-r-r-.-r-,--,-.--r-r-.,--r-,----,rr-r-r-,--r-,-r-r...-r-,-J-.--.-r-,-f..,-,rr-'T-.-r-,--,-.-r-,-;r--r-,-,-_,..,-1
-250.00
-200.00
-150.00
-100.00
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
Strain ;.tr:

-293-
200.00
250.00
7.9
Pile Cap Rotation

Similar to test units CORJ and COR2, uplift of the pile cap from the strong floor was
monitored by linear potentiometers positioned at the base of the pile cap, as illustrated in Fig.
3-41 and Fig. 3-42. Rotation of the pile cap was then computed based on equation (5.5).
Contribution of pile cap rotation to pile lateral deflection may then be estimated according to
equation (5.6). Based on the values presented in Fig. 7-43, the maximum pile cap rotation,
IJ!cap'
was 0.000024 rad- 1 and it was computed when the lateral deflection was +78.74 mm.
This rotation of the pile cap will contribute 0.14 mm to the pile lateral deflection at peak
response, which is rather small and, as a result, no correction to the pile lateral deflection was
computed.
76.20
50.80
25.40
Compression
Loading Branch
Tension Loading
Branch
/'~
-50.80
~-
-76.20 --=1
'
-101.60
-&-
.1.
I
I
Pile Cap Uplift Line A

Pile Cap Uplift Line B
-127.00
J.
-0.04
-0.03
0.02
-0.01
0.00
O.Dl
-294-
O.D2
8.
Discussion of Experimental Test Results

In this section a brief discussion of key experimental test results and post test analyses
investigated for the three test units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 are presented.
8.1

Development of the pre-test analysis for test unit CORJ and COR2 force displacement
response outlined in Chapter 2 include the contribution of the following terms to the pile
lateral deflection:
A.
Confined concrete model proposed by Mander [15] was employed in the

moment curvature analysis to compute forces present in the concrete.
B.
The column height, Hpile was used for lateral deflection calculations.
Section 5.2 and 6.2 present the force-deformation characteristics for test units CORJ
and COR2. Comparison of the pre-test analysis curve with the experimental test results
indicates a lower flexural strength than initially predicted. In lieu of this difference, a post-test
analysis was carried out to evaluate the response oftest unit CORJ and COR2. Development
of the post-test analysis for test unit CORJ and COR2 is presented in the next section and the
force-displacement response includes the contribution of the following terms to the pile fixed
base lateral deflection:
C.
Confined concrete model proposed by Bjerkeli [24] and modified by Ibrahim

[25] was employed in the moment curvature analysis to compute forces
present in the concrete.
D.
The effective column height, Heift was used for lateral deflection calculations
[26].
-295-
8.1.1
Test Unit CORI and COR2 - Post-Test Analysis Concrete Models

Pre-test analysis predicted within an acceptable margin of error the behavior of the
test unit while in the tension loading branch, as illustrated in Fig. 5-12. However, within the
compression loading branch, the structure achieved a lower flexural strength than initially
predicted. Experimental test results suggest that the concrete model used in the pre-test
analysis, which was the Mander model for confined and unconfined concrete, predicts a
structure with a lower flexural strength under high levels of axial load.
Nawy [27] classifies a concrete with a compressive strength of at least 41MPa as
high- strength concrete. Chemical and mineral admixtures are used in the production of
concrete to achieve concrete with this level of strength. Values for the high strength concrete
compressive strength utilized in casting of the concrete shells are presented in Table 3-1,
which shows that the minimum concrete compressive strength at 28 days was !~=5 8MPa and,
at the day of the test mark, the concrete compressive strength was f'c=68MPa for test unit
COR2. This indicates that the concrete utilized in the manufacturing of test units CORJ,
COR2 and COR3 may be classified as high-strength concrete. The day of the test concrete
compressive strength was utilized in the development of the post-test analysis for all three test
units.
Stress-Strain relationships for high-strength concrete proposed by Ibrahim [24],
Muguruma [28], and Yong [29] were investigated to develop the post-test analysis of test
units CORJ and COR2. The Bjerkeli concrete model modified by Ibrahim was implemented
into the moment curvature analysis for post-test investigation because it gave the closest
agreement with the experimental test results. In this section, a brief description of the Mander
and modified-Bjerkeli model are presented.
-296-
_,_
8.1.1.1
Mander Model
The model proposed by Mander was developed for concrete subjected to uniaxial
compressive loading and confined by transverse reinforcement. In
the~Mander
confined compressive strength is given by the expression:
J:C =!:0 (
-1.254 + 2.254
1 + 7. 94/
feo
1'
l
J.
----7feo
model the
(8.1)
where the effective lateral confining pressure, f'1, is given by the expression:
I'll
J'
In equation (8.2)
k e JI'l
(8.2)
ft is the lateral confining pressure provided by the transverse
reinforcement [8], and ke is the confinement effectiveness coefficient which for a circular
section confined with circular spirals is detennined according to the following expression:
s;
1 --2 ds
ke = - - - - 1 -Pee
(8.3)
where s' is the vertical clear distance between spirals and ds is the spirals center to center
diameter. The peak stress, f'cc as shown in Fig. 8-1, is reached at a strain, sw given by:
(1
ece =eco
+5( f:C1 -1 ))
(8.4)
feo
where E:co is the strain at the peak unconfined concrete compression stress generally assumed
as 0.002. In the Mander model, for any given concrete strain s the corresponding concrete
stress is given by the expression:
fc
f:C x r
=-----
r -1 +xr
(8.5)
where x=scflcc and r=E/(Ec~Esec). The tangent modulus of elasticity of concrete is obtained
by the relation:
Ee
= 5000 Vf:0 [MPa]
(8.6)
and the secant modulus of elasticity of concrete by the relation:
(8.7)
-297-
Based on the unconfined concrete compressive strength f'c=69MPa at the 28 day

mark, and the equations presented above, the stress-strain relationships for test unit COR1
concrete model were determined and are presented in Fig. 8-1 for a transverse reinforcement
ratio of 0.40%, which corresponds to the section above the pile cap interface reinforcement
with #3 spirals at 84 mm on centers.
8.1.1.2
Modified Bjerkeli Model
The empirical model developed by Bjerkeli et al. and modified by Ibrahim was used
in the development of the post-test analysis moment curvature analysis for test unit COR1 and
COR2. Test unit COR3 pre-test analysis was developed with the modified Bjerkeli concrete
model for high strength concrete. The empirical models developed by Bjerkeli were based on
test of concentrically loaded circular and rectangular high-strength concrete columns confined
with by means of transverse reinforcement. Unlike the Mander model, which is described by
a single curve, in this model different curves are defined to fully describe the stress-strain
relationships.
The ascending branch in the concrete model is in the form:
fc =
Ec ec
1
* ( Ec I Esec
-2 ) ( ec I ecc) ( ec I ecc
J2
'
ec<ecc
(8.8)
where the tangent modulus of elasticity of concrete is obtained by the relation:
Ec = 9500 (
f:0
J0 3
(8.9)
[MPa]
which is different than the tangent modulus of elasticity of concrete presented in the Mander
model and the secant modulus of elasticity of concrete is defined as in the Mander model.
In the Bjerkeli model, the confined compressive strength is given by the expression:
(8.10)
where Kg is the section geometry factor and, as the name suggests, is developed based on the
section geometry and is similar to kein the Mander model. Kg is a modified variable by lbahim
[25] and is given by the following expression:
K
g
(1-.!.!._](
ds
1-
5.5 ds
where c is the distance between laterally supported longitudinal bars.

-298-
(8.11)
Similar to the Mander model, the peak stress f~c as shown in Fig. 8-2, is reached at
a strain, t:cc given by:
ecc = 0.025
+ 0.0250 Kg -
fl
!:0
(8.12)
This variable was modified from the original model according to a similar model
proposed by Ibrahim et al [25].
The second curve in the Bjerkeli model describes the unloading branch in the form:
I
(8.13)
fc =fcc
where t:0. 85 is given by the equation:
(8.14)
and the variables t:'0. 85 and Fare given by the expressions:
.:..5
0.025 [ (
J;~T
I]
(8.15)
and the variable F is taken as:
(8.16)
Similar to the Mander model, the stress-strain relationships for test unit COR]
concrete model were determined and are presented in Fig. 8-2 for the pile section bottom
layer.
Stress-strain relationships proposed by Mander [15] and modified Bjerkeli model [25]
were investigated. Referring to Fig. 8-1 and Fig. 8-2, it can deduced from the numerical
values presented in these figures that the modified Bjerkeli model leads to a model with a
higher maximum compressive strength for confined concrete for the levels of confinement
used in the construction of the test unit, which explains higher flexural strength obtained in
test results.
-299-
100
Confined Concrete
Ps =0.40%
80
.--..
u
f 'co
4-o
'-'
Cl:l
Cl:l
60
til
Q.)
......
40
g
0
E:co= 0.002
f'co= 69MPa
E:cc= 0.0048
f'cc=98MPa
E:cu= 0.0094
E = 41,593MPa
c
I
f'cu= 83MPa
Esec= 20,417MPa
20
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.000
E: co
0.002 E: cc
0.004
0.008
0.006
0.010
E:cu
Concrete Strain ( s c )
Fig. 8-1 Stress-Strain Curve for Confined and Unconfined Concrete Mander Model
,.-..._
u
4-o
80
'-'
Cl:l
Cl:l
til
60
Q.)
......
c::i
0
40
t:c 0 = 0.0023
f'co= 69MPa
E:cc= 0.0074
f 'cc= 107MPa
E:cu= 0.0094
Ec= 33,835MPa
f 'cu= 103MPa
Esec= 14,459MPa
Unconfined Concrete
p s = o.oo%
20
0.000
E:co
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
Concrete Strain ( c )
Fig. 8-2 Stress-Strain Curve for Confined and Unconfined ConcreteModified Bjerkeli Model
-300-
For example, for a transverse reinforcement ratio of 0.40%, the maximum confined
concrete compressive strength predicted by the Mander model was 98 MPa and 1071v1Pa for
the modified Bjerkeli model, which represents a difference of approximately 10%. For test
unit CORJ, the maximum pre-test analysis predicted lateral load was +425 kN and maximum
achieved lateral load was +520 kN, which indicates a difference of approximately 18%. For
test unit COR2, the maximum pre-test analysis predicted lateral load was +921 kN and
maximum achieved lateral load was+ 1,009 kN, which indicates a difference of approximately
9%. It is important to recognize that a direct comparison between predicted and achieved
lateral load is somewhat misleading because at the base of the pile section, the section is
confined by the soffit slab, which will lead to a different strength ratio.
The model proposed by Bjerkeli was then implemented into the moment curvature
analysis to develop the post-test analysis for test units CORJ and COR2. As previously
indicated, the model proposed by Bjerkeli was implemented into the moment curvature
analysis to develop the pre-test analysis for test unit COR3 and COR2. Fig. 8-3 presents
these two models for a direct comparison of the tangent modulus of elasticity and maximum
achieved confmed concrete compressive strength. Stress-Strain relationships based on the
Mander model and the modified Bjerkeli model for confined concrete were investigated for
different levels of horizontal confmement encountered along the length of the pile and are
presented in Fig. 8-3. Near the pile cap and in the region confined by the concrete soffit slab,
a horizontal volumetric reinforcement ratio of approximately 3.5% was used, which reflects
a section with a tie spacing of one tie diameter. It can be seen that for low levels of horizontal
confinement the three models yield similar results. However, for large confinement ratios,
there is a great difference between the three models.
p
150
=0.0%
= 0.08%'
= 0.16%
= 0.40%
=3.50%
Mander Model
,-..,
'.._,.
Modified Bjerkeli et al. Model
"' 100
~
en
2
50
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.005
0.000
Concrete Strain (s)
Fig. 8-3 Concrete Models Stress-Strain Characteristics

-301-
0.005
0.010
8.1.2 Test Units CORl, COR2 and COR3- Post-Test Analysis Tensile Strain
Penetration Contribution to Pile Lateral Deflection
Contribution of tensile strain penetration to top lateral deflection was effected by
considering the pile effective cantilever length for lateral deflection according to the
expression:
[MPa]
(8.17)
where db is the pile main bar diameter and!, is the pile main bar stress obtain from the moment
curvature analysis.
Equation (8.17) indicates the pile effective cantilever length increases as the extreme
bar stress increases. The effective cantilever length was introduced into the computation of
z(
the lateral deflection employing the second moment area theorem according to the expression:
.-1 =
q~1
+ q>1 _1 )
X )
(8.18)
where which 'Pi and 'Pi-I are the curvatures in the pile section within the segment L1x and X is
the distance from the center of the respective segment to the center ofthe load stub as shown
in Fig. 8-4. Curvature profiles along pile height for post-test analysis are presented in Fig.
8-4, where La is computed according to the second term presented in equation (8.17). Refer
to Fig. 5-12, Fig. 6-18 and Fig. 7-18 for test
units CORJ, COR2 and COR3 post-analysis
results.
X
According
to
equation
(8.18)
Hpile
contribution of strain penetration into fixed

base equation may be computed based on:
91..,. L. ( n,.. +
~)
(8.19)
(a} Peak Load (b) Ultimate
Curvature
Curvature
Profile
Profile
Fig. 8-4 Curvature Profiles
-302-
8.2
Comparison of Test Results

In this section a brief comparison between the structural response of test units CORJ,
COR2 and COR3 is presented. The performance of these test units may be formulated in
terms of load versus deformation characteristics and damage states based on cracking
patterns, first yielding of inner core longitudinal reinforcement, peak loads and ultimate state.
8.2.1
Test Units CORl and COR3

The hysteretic lateral load versus lateral deflection diagrams for test units CORJ and
COR3 presented in Fig.
5~12
and Fig.
7~18,
respectively, suggest a behavior essentially
ductile because there is no excessive strength degradation with successive cycling or

increasing displacement, and the hysteretic loops are stable with good energy
/
absorption~
slight pinching of the loops in the transition between the compression and tension loading
branch is observed for higher levels of displacement because of the variations in the axial load,
as previously described in Chapter 5.
The total area inside the hysteretic envelope shown in Fig. 8-5 is approximately the
same for test units CORJ and COR3. The area inside the hysteresis envelope is a measure of
the amount of energy that can be dissipated by the section because of plastic deformations in
the plastic hinge region. Thus, the amount of energy dissipated by test unit CORJ pile section
was approximately the same as test unit COR3 pile section.
One of the first damage states that may be formulated from visual observations is the
cracking limit state, which corresponds to the onset of cracking of the concrete. In test unit
CORJ, onset of cracking was observed at a displacement ductility of Jl!l=+ L5x3 in the
compression loading branch, accompanied by a vertical splitting crack as recorded in Fig.
8-6. At this stage the horizontal peak load was +415 kN, with a corresponding axial load of
2630 kN and a lateral deflection of +25.65 mm. Comparatively, onset of cracking of test unit
COR3 occurred at a lower stage when the lateral load was recorded at +317 kN, which
corresponds to first section yielding. The axial load and lateral deflection corresponding to
this stage are, respectively, +2,311 kN and +18.44 mm, as shown in Fig. 8-7.
Another limit state that may be formulated is the limit in which yielding of the inner
core longitudinal reinforcement is first recorded, which corresponds to the reinforcement fust
yielding state. Fig. 8- 8 suggests that yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement along inner
core bar A was not reached until displacement ductility of Jlll=-1.5 (-20.57 mm) for test unit
-303-
CORJ and Jlt.=-3.0 (-35.05 mm) for test unit COR3. Fig. 8-10 suggests that yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcement along inner core bar C was not reached until displacement ductility
of Jlt.=+2.0 (34.04 mm) for test unit CORJ and Jlt.=+l.5 (+39.62 mm) for test unit COR3.
Furthermore, referring to Fig. 8-8 through Fig. 8-11, it is clear that the strain profiles for
test unit CORJ and COR3 have approximately the same shape.
Previously, it was shown that the energy absorption for test units CORJ and COR3
was approximately the same, which suggests that the maximum plastic hinge length for both
test units should be approximately the same. Based on the curvature profiles for both test
units shown in Fig. 8-12, two regions of plastic deformations were observed in both loading
branches for each test unit. The plastic hinge reached a maximum height of approximately 356
mm near the pile cap interface and 609 mm in the region near the termination of the
longitudinal reinforcement for both test units.
In the compression loading branch, a maximum lateral force of +520 kN was recorded
at approximately Jlt.=3 in test unit CORJ, and in test unit COR3, the peak lateral load was
reached at about the same ductility level Jlt.=3xl at 495 kN. In the tension loading branch, a
maximum lateral force of- 227 kN was recorded during cycle Jlt.=-6xl for test unit CORJ,
and in test unit COR3, the pile section achieved a higher flexural strength than test unit
CORJ. At peak response, the maximum lateral force of-248 kN was recorded in the tension
loading branch during cycle Jlt.=-9xl for test unit COR3.
Fig. 8-13 and Fig. 8-14 indicate that in both test units a second region of plastic
deformations was achieved in the region where the inner core longitudinal reinforcement
terminates implied by the extent of spalling of the cover concrete during the final stages of the
testing procedure. In addition, test unit CORJ cracking pattern below this second plastic
hinge region exhibits a significantly higher amount of horizontal and vertical splitting cracks
than observed in test unit COR3. In test unit CORJ, the cracking pattern shows that at most
' of the prestressing strands location vertical splitting cracks occurred and in test unit COR3
fewer and less extensive vertical splitting cracks are visible. This could be a result of the
earlier cracking of test unit COR3 at the termination of the longitudinal reinforcement with
a single horizontal cracking at this level dominating the response of the section. Thus, with
fewer cracks, bonding of the prestressing strands was more effective in test unit COR3 than
in test unit CORJ, and higher forces could be developed in the prestressing strands of test unit
COR3 in the development length region, which confirms the higher achieved peak loads in
test unit COR3 in the tension loading branch.
-304-
500
Test Unit CORl -Experimental Test Results Envelope
__.__
Test Unit COR3 - Experimental Test Results Envelope
400
300
Area CORl
-----=0.93
AreaCOR3
I
~
'w
'I
0.
Ul !1
I
il
'l
I,
0
-100
-200
-300
-177.8 -152.4 -127.0 -101.6 -76.2
-50.8
-25.4
0.0
25.4
50.8
76.2
101.6 127.0
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 8-5 Test Units CORl and COR3- Lateral Load versus Lateral Deflection Envelope
Fig. 8-6 Onset of Flexural Cracking at JlJ 1.5x3 -Test Unit CORJ
Fig. 8-7 Onset of Flexural Cracking at First Section Yielding -Test Unit COR3
-306-
:Yield
1219.20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
914.40
609.60
.:<:0.0
304.80
0.00
:g
Po.
- - COR1-ll=+17.02mm
- - COR! - t>: +34.04mm
--+--
COR3- t>
+26.42mm
- - - COR3 t>: +105.92mm
Soffit Slab Limit
---------Pile Cap Limit
Direction Tension
Loading Branch
Pull
-304.80
-609.60
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
Strain J.LE:
(a) Vertical Strain Profiles- Compression Loading Branch
Push
Loading Branch
Yield I
I
1219.20
I
I
914.40
I
I
609.60
I
I
14
304.80
----J:l
p:;
0.00
;, I
_I __ _
-----
-304.80
31
I
I
I
I
-609.60
Pile Cap Limit
- - COR1-ll=-13.72mm
--
--+--
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
Strain J.LE:
(b) Vertical Strain Profiles - Tension Loading Branch

-307-
COR3 - 11 = -11.68mm
- - - COR3 -11 = -35.05mm
-2000
COR! - t> = -20.57mm
.
I
Y1eld I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1219.20
914.40
:0OJ]
609.60
304.80
COR1-t.=+17.02mm
--
COR!- t. = +85.09mm
-+__.__
COR3 - t.
COR3 -
+26.42mm
t. = + 105.92mm
I
I
Soffit Slab Limit
"<l
-1
:I:
I.)
b:
--
0.00
_j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----
: Pile Cap Limit
-304.80
-609.60
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
Direction Tension
Loading Branch
Pull
2000
Strain ;.u:
(a) Vertical Strain Profiles - Compression Loading Branch
Push
Loading Branch
Yield I
I
I
1219.20
I
I
914.40
8
e
...
tr
:I:
I
I
I
I
I
609.60
'-'
..c
.!:l
i:i::
304.80
.4
1r--
------~
_/+--
0.00
13
I
I
I
-304.80
--
CORJ-t.,.l3.72mm
--
-+-
COR! -!:1." -82.30mm
__.__
COR3-
I
I
I
-609.60
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
Strain ;.u;

-308-
COR3 - t.
=-11.68mm
t. =-143.26mm
Yield
1219.20
914.40
I.<:
OJ)
0:::
609.60
5\.
CORI-ll=+l7.02mm
--
--+--
COR! -ll = +34.04mm

CORJ -ll
+26.42mm
----
COR3 ll
=+39.62mm
304.80
'i:J
:I:
!!
--
0.00
___4)__
Soffit Slab Limit
---------
3 I
---+-I
------Pile Cap Limit
Direction Tension
Loading Branch
Pull
-304.80
-609.60
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
Strain P,
Push
Loading Branch
1219.20
914.40
609.60
....
..<::
00
304.80
Soffit Slab Limit
----
::r::
2
0:::
0.00
Pile Cap Limit
--+--
-304.80
---
-609.60
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
Strain p,
(b) Vertical Strain Profiles- Tension Loading Branch

309-
COR! ll
-13.72mm
COR I -ll = -82.30mm

CORJ -ll = -11.68mm
COR3 -ll = -82.04mm
. I
Y1eld 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
_j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1219.20
914.40
I:c
609.60
.~
304.80
0.00
.,
:I:
.,
Soffit Slab Limit

-----------
Pile Cap Limit
-304.80
-609.60
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
--
CORI-t..=+17.02mm
--
--+--
COR I-t..= +85.09mm
-----
COR3-
COR3 - t.. = +26.42rnrn
t..
+105.92rnm
Direction Tension
Loading Branch
Pull
2000
Strain Jkf:
Push
Loading Branch
1219.20
914.40
I:c
.,
.~
:I:
~
Q.;
609.60
304.80
0.00
--
COR! h.=-13.72mm
- - COR! - t.. = -8230rnm
--+--
COR3 - t.. = -11.68rnm
----- COR3-h.=-143.26mm
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
Strain f..LE:

-310-

1524.00
:ao:;
::t1
--
COR!-{).= +17.02mm
--
-+-
COR! - {). = +85.09mm

COR3 - {).
+26.42mm
__._
COR3 {).
+105.92mm
1219.20
Pull
914.40
g;
609.60
304.80
Soffit Slab Line
2.00
0.00
4.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
Push
(a) Curvature Vertical Profiles - Compression Loading Branch
1828.80
I
1524.00
---~-=-
---
e::::--
,.......1219.20
6 I
~ 914.40
::t1
.
\
\
i:i:
609.60
--
COR1-{).=-13.72mm
--
COR! - {). = -137.!6mm
__._
COR3- {). = -143.26mm
-+--
304.80
COR3 -{).=-I L68mm
0.00 -J--.,--,--.--,-,.,-.....,-.,-,.,--,......,--,-,--,--,-.....--.-.-.--,-.--.-r..-...--r-r-~
-16.00
-14.00
-12.00
-10.00
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
(b) Curvature Vertical Profiles - Tension Loading Branch
Fig. 8-12 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Curvature Vertical Profiles
-311-
Fig. 8-13 Extent of Spalling of Cover Concrete - Test Unit CORJ
Fig. 8-14 Extent of Spalling of Cover Concrete- Test Unit COR3
- 312-
8.2.2 Test Units CORJ, COR2 and COR3

In this section a brief comparison between the structural response of test units CORJ,
COR2 and COR3 are presented.
The measured Moment versus Curvature envelopes presented in Fig. 8-15 indicate
that all the three test units displayed a ductile response, because there is no excessive strength
degradation in succeeding cycles or increasing curvature. The envelopes depicted in Fig.
8-15 indicate that the structural stiffness of test unit COR2 was the highest and test unit
COR3 the lowest and, in the tension loading branch, there is a good agreement between the
behavior of the three test units.
-313-
2500
2000
CORl- Experimental Test Results
COR2 Experimental Test Results
)(
COR3 -Experimental Test Results
1500
UJ
-+:>.
~
.......,
.....
s::
M' yield
1000
500
0
-500
M' yield
-1000
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Curvature (1/mm x E5)
Fig. 8-15 Test Units CORI, COR2 and COR3- Moment versus Curvature Envelopes
9.
Conclusions
Response of the Coronado Bay Bridge piles and their connection to the pile cap were
investigated under simulated seismic loading. Test results indicate test unit CORJ reached its
theoretical flexural capacity under compressive and tensile axial loading. The test unit
performed in a very ductile manner in both loading directions and significantly exceeded
design assumptions initially used for the retrofit design of the Coronado Bay Bridge. In
addition, test results show that in the early stages of the testing procedure, regions of plastic
deformations occurred first at the pile cap interface. However, at later stages, as the transfer
length ofthe prestressing steel increased due to damage of the cover concrete and/or slipping
of the prestressing strands, a second region of inelastic deformations began to form around
the termination of the pile inner core longitudinal reinforcement.
Test unit COR2 flexural strength under compressive axial loading exceeded the
capacity determined during the pre-test analysis. This test unit displayed a more predominant
flexural-shear response
d~e
to fracture of the spiral cage under large displacements along an
inclined crack. Thus, observed fracture of the spiral cage indicates that there is the propensity
for a shear failure. Similarly to test unit CORJ, test unit COR2 pile significantly exceeded the
design displacement ductility capacity.
Investigation of test unit COR3 test results suggests that the imposed cracks and
cutting of the spiral and prestressing reinforcement did not have great influence in the overall
response of the structure. In comparison with the test results for test unit CORJ, test unit
COR3 structure achieved approximately the same flexural strength under axial compressive
loads and even exceeded the flexural strength oftest unit CORJ pile under axial tensile loads,
as discussed in Chapter 8.
Test unit CORJ reached a maximum lateral load of +520 kN at a displacement
ductility of ~~=+3 in the compression loading branch and achieved a maximum displacement
ductility of ~=+5. The lateral load at this stage was +457 kN, a reduction of 13% from the
registered peak lateral load. Under tensile axial loads, the maximum lateral load was
registered at -229 kN when the displacement ductility was
displacement ductility
~~=-10
J.l~=-4.
The maximum
was reached when the lateral load was -192 kN, a reduction
of approximately 16%. Table 9-1 presents a summary of key experimental test results for test
unit CORJ.
- 315-
~,
Test unit COR2 maximum lateral loads were registered in the compression and tension
loading branches at + 1,009 kN and -506 kN when the displacement ductility was 1-1,.,=+2.5 and
!-1,.,=-4, respectively. In the compression loading branch, the lateral load remained essentially
constant up to 1-1,.,=+6. In the tension loading branch a decrease of approximately 7% was
registered when the lateral load was approximately -473 kN at the maximum displacement
ductility of!-1,.,=-7. Table 9-2 presents a summary of key experimental test results for test unit
COR2.
Test results presented in Chapter 7 indicate that test unit COR3 maximum flexural
strength in the compression loading branch occurred when the lateral load was +495 kN at
!-1,.,=+3. In the tension loading branch, the maximum lateral load was -248 kN when the
displacement ductility was !-1,.,=-9. Maximum displacement ductility achieved before
conclusion of the testing procedure were !-1,.,=+4 in the compression loading branch and
!-1,.,=-12 in the tension loading branch, when the lateral load was respectively +488 kN and
-248 kN. Table 9-3 presents a summary of key experimental test results for test unit COR3.
Table 9-1 Test Unit CORJ- Experimental Test Results

First
Ideal
Maximum
Maximum
Section
Yielding
Lateral
Lateral
Load
Deflection
+520 kN
+457 kN
+51.05 mm
+85.09 mm
!-1,.,=+3
!-1,.,=+5
-229 kN
-192 kN
-54.86 mm
-137.16 mm
!-1,.,=-4
!J.,.,=-10
Yielding
Lateral
Compression
Load
Branch
Fixed Base
Deflection
Lateral
Tension
Load
Branch
Fixed Base
Deflection
+302 kN
+403 kN 1
+12.75 mm
+17.02 mm
-173 kN
-204 kN 1
-11.64 mm
-13.72 mm
Lateralload corresponds to ideal flexural strength at
- 316-
Be =0.005.
Table 9-2 Test Unit COR2 - Experimental Test Results

First
Ideal
Maximum
Maximum
Section
Yielding
Lateral
Lateral
Load
Deflection
+1009 kN
+1055 kN
+22.35 mm
+53.34 mm
ll6=+2.5
ll6=+6
-506 kN
-473 kN
-34.54 mm
-60.45 mm
IJ.A=-4
IJ.A=-7
Yielding
Lateral
Compression
Load
Branch
Total
Deflection
Lateral
Tension
Load
Branch
Fixed Base
Deflection
+676 kN
+899 kN 1
+6.68 mm
+8.89 mm
-334 kN
-511 kN 1
-5.63 mm
-8.63 mm
Lateralload corresponds to ideal flexural strength at G.: =0.005.
Table 9-3 Test Unit COR3 - Experimental Test Results

First
Ideal
Maximum
Maximum
Section
Yielding
Lateral
Lateral
Load
Deflection
+495 kN
+488 kN
Yielding
Compression
Branch
Tension
Branch
Lateral
Load
. Fixed Base
Deflection
Lateral
Load
Fixed Base
Deflection
+454kN 1
+317 kN
+18.44 mm
+26.42 mm
-172 kN
-186 kN1
-10.83 mm
-11.68 mm
Lateralload corresponds to ideal flexural strength at G.: =0.005.
317-
+78.74mm
!l~=+3
+105.92
mm
!la=+4
-248 kN
-248 kN
-143.26 mm
-143.26 mm
IJ.A=-12
IJ.A=-12
References
[1]
R. A Dameron, R. R. Parker, and L. Zhang, "Supplemental Capacity Analysis of
the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge", Report to Caltrans and McDaniel/JMI, October 1995.
[2]
Memorandum to Consultant Contract Management Branch - Caltrans, Condition
Survey of the San Diego-Coronado Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofi Project Piles File # 11021901, December 1996,
[3]
McDaniel Engineering I J. Muller International Memorandum
"San-Diego
Coronado Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit," File No. 61.05, Excerpt from a Geotechnical
Report by Earth Mechanics, September 1995.
[4]
American Concrete Institute, "Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete," ACI318-95, October 1995.
[5]
Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., "Prestressed Concrete Structures,"Response
Publications, Canada, 1997, 766pages.
[6]
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., "Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings," John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1992, 744 pages.
[7]
Kowalsky, M.J., Priestley, M.J.N., and Seible, Frieder, "Shear Behavior of
Lightweight Concrete Columns Under Seismic Conditions, "Department of AMES, UCSD,

I
La Jolla, CA, July 1995.

Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, M., "Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Bridges," John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1995, 672 pages.
[8]
[9]
Priestley, M. J. N., "Assessment and Design of Joints for Single-Level Bridges with
Circular Columns," Department of AMES, University of California San Diego, La Jolla,

California, Report No. SSRP-93/02, February 1993.
Seible, F., Kurkchubasche, A, and Mazzoni, S., "CALSD Instructional Computer
Programs for Structural Engineering, " University of California San Diego, California,
[10]
January 1991.
- 318-
[ll]
ANATECH Memorandum "PY Data Used In Coronado Analysis," July 1996.
[12]
Priestley, M. J. N., Budek, A., and Benzoni, G., "An Analytical Study of the
Inelastic Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Pile-Columns in Conhesionless Soil,"

Department of AMES, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, Report No.
95/13, December 1995.
[13]
McDaniel Engineering I J. Mu11er International Memorandum
"San-Diego
Coronado Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit Mud Line Elevation Comparison," File No. 61.15.25,
Excerpt from a Summary Geotechnical Report, November 1995.
[14]
Pender, M. J., "Aseismic Pile Foundation Design Analysis," Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 11, No.2, June 1978, pp 49-160.
[15]
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R., "Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for
Confining Concrete," JournalofStructuralEngineering, ASCE, V. 114, No.8, August 1988,

pp. 1804-1826.
[16]
Structural Research and Analysis Corporation, "COSMOSIM Nonlinear Analysis, "
Santa Monica, California, June 1994.
[17]
Janney, J. R. , "Nature of Bond in Pre-Tensioned Prestresses Concrete", ACI
Structural Journal, V. 25, No.9, May 1954, pp. 717-736.
[18]
Naaman, A. E., "Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design Fundamentals,"
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1982, 672 pages.
[19]
Ang, A. H-S., and Tang, W. H., "Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning
and Design- Volume I- Basic Principles", John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1975,409
pages.
Ang, A. H-S., and Tang, W. H., "Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning

and Design - Volume II- Decision Risk and Reliability", John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
[20]
York, 1990, 562 pages.
-319-
[21]
Martin, L. D., and Scott, N. L., "Development of Prestressing Strands in
Pretensioned Members", ACI Structural Journal, V. 73, No. 8, August 1976, pp. 453-456.
[22]
Hanson, N. W., and Kaar, P. H., "Flexural Bond Tests ofPretensionedPrestressed
Beams ", ACI Structural Journal, V. 55, No.7, January 1959, pp. 783-803.
[23]
Russel, B. W., and Bums, N. H., "Measurement of Transfer Lengths on
Pretensioned Concrete Elements ", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 123, No.
5, May 1997, pp. 541-549.
[24]
Bjerkeli, L., Tomaszewicz, A., and Jensen, J. J., "Defonnation Properties and
Ductility of High-Strength Concrete, " Proceedings of the Second International Symposium

on Utilization of High-Strength Concrete, University of California, Berkeley, California, May
1990, pp 215-238.
[25]
Ibrahim, H. H. H., and MacGregor, J. G., "Flexural Behavior of Laterally
Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Sections ", ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6,
December 1996, pp. 674-684.
[26]
Benzoni, G., Ohtaki, T., Priestley, M.J.N., and Seible, F., "Seismic Peiformance
of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Varying Axial Load," Department of

AMES, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, Report No. SSRP-96/04,
August 1996.
[27]
Nawy,E., "Reinforced Concrete -A Fundamental Approach," 2nd Edition, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1985.

[28]
Muguruma, H., Watanabe, F., and Komuro, T., "Applicability of High-Strength
Concrete to Reinforced Concrete Ductile Column," Transactions of the Japan Concrete

Institute, V. 11, 1989, pp 309-316.
[29]
Yong, Y.K., Nour, M.G., and Nawy, E.G.,"Behavior of Laterally confined
High -Strength Concrete Under Axial Load," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V.
114, No.2, Feb. 1988, pp. 332-351.
-320-
[30]
Caltrans "Bridge Design Specifications I Seismic Design References,"
Sacramento, California, June 1990
[31]
King, D.J., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R., "Computer Program for Concrete
Column Design," Department of Civil Engineering, Report No. 86-12, University of

Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, May 1986.
[32]
Pyke, R., and Beikae, M., ''A New Solution for the Resistance of Singles Piles to
Lateral Loading," ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock, Kansas City, MO, June 1983,
pp3-20.
[33]
Bowles, J. E., "Foundation Analysis and Design," 5th Edition, McGraw Hill, 1996.
- 321 -
Appendix A - Test Unit COR3 - Concrete Core Data

A brief summary of the concrete core data from the condition survey of the Coronado
Bay Bridge [2] is presented in Fig. A 1 through Fig. A- 5. Data presented in these figures
indicate that in the plug region, no cracks were detected during the under water surveying of
the piles at Pier 19. Chapter 3 presents the modeling of test unit COR3 based on this
condition survey.
-322-
~I
"'
~
.;.J
t!l
Ill
>
N\.9r"'
Ul..;t.-1*1'1
c :j;j:
.9
-)--
e-I
'
'<!'
"
"tr
1:0
II
1'1
'<!'
"N
.;.J
t!l
0
.....
'
z:
-4--~I
I
--4--@
I
......
$
btZt
tt;Z\:
II)
II)
-e-
-G--G
tr
......
:j;j:
.;.J
--$---GI
I
I
I
G' -~ --$---$-
E
E
II)~
o.-.NI'i'<~'
I'/
E
E
"*
'51E1:Eii:1:E
51 I I I
E
E
N
II)
!t;Z\:
!t;l\:
btZ1
WW!btzt
Fig. A -1 Plan View Pier 19- Surveyed Pile Cap

-323-
.n
0.00
\Cl
Ul
1.57
....
(.;..._
(.;..._
>I
Ul
3:
0
""0
~
\\)
3.14
4.71
rrJ
\0
If)
L
\\)
~
\\)
L:
Cll
c:
:;!
'<
p..
-z
""0
......
~
c:
g.
~
'-1::1..
""'
G.2Cl
7.8G
....c
D...
Clock Position
1
\\)
11.00
:3A.:3B
4A.4B
I
I
I
---1----t
I
I
12
I
I
I
I
-t---+----1-----t----t
-==t::=
==I=
~---T-r
-,---~---~---,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I 5A.5B 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ _ _I_
..J ___ ~ ~~~eh'l Shel
_I_ _ _ _J _ _
__ J_ _ _ _ L __
_l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1----1----t+- --L---1----1 ---t-----1--- +-II
1
1 GA.GB 1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
llmm Wide Cn~ek. n Shell
I
I
I
I
I
I
I1
I
~ """"'
51;i>tly
Spirals. Dull
Gray eo~d<d
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
__ ___ -t
Cracl< Ete~s._!n~ /?-or:!:
-t ---t----rt- - - j - - 1
I
I
7A.7B
I
I
I
I
I
I
l.GOmm Wide Cr21ek. in Shell
Strand& Slightly Corroded
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Spiral& Dull Gray 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Crack. Extend& Into Core
1
Voids Around #11
imlb of Inner
Core Lonsltudimsl
Reinforcement
'?.:.
---~--
I
I
'1.43
-y---T---.--
II
II
I
I
I
I
~---~---
-~-
--,----y-
II
II
II
II
iA.m t-
--~---~-
3.16mm Wide Cnlck In SheD

Strand& Heavily Corroded
Splr!li& Completely Corroded
Mud In the Concrete Core
Pile No. 4
1
I
T
1
I
-~---~--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--~---,-Wide Sandy
'Veins' In Core
Legend
-
Indicates Concrete
Core Location l!nd
Core Number
Clock Position
0
I 1A.16
10
0.00
- - - l - - - -+---Voids
1.57
1.!-1.!--
U)
3:
0
q)
(()
--~---~
3.14
4.71
G.2'1
..c
..j..J
D..
I
I
1
1
I
I
~---J ___ J_
I
I
I
I
--:---~-
1 GA.GB I
G.35mm Wide Crack In &hell

&trand& Dull C.ray I
&plral,. &~ghtty corr~ded
---1---.3A..3B
B~t~lt~~~on.E:~e-{
I
I
q)
I
I
__
~---:---~--
I
I
I
I
--~--~--
2.A.2.6
I
I
~
I1
j----1-
t---~-
I
I
I
I
I
I
~---~---~
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
}---~---T_j~s~J ___ j __ ~
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
-~-
I
.I 5A.46
T___ T__ t ___ 1
1
I
I
I
lmlts of nner
Gore Longltudin
Renforc.ement
I
1
-:-
I
I
-~-1
1
-:--I
I
1
1
1
I
I
-1----+
I
I
I
I
r---~---
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
_!1~11~ ~~k_!!l &h~
I
I
I1
r---~
I
1
I
I
12
Void!> In Concrete Matrll<
1
I
---------r
llmm Wide Grllc.k In Shell
'1.43
__ _J _ _ _ j_
--~---~
---:-- -{ --+-- ;-I
1
I
#11-1---
Arolmd
T---~---r-
7.5G
11
+___ t _
11.00
Pile No. 12
Legend
elA.lB
Indicates Concrete
Gore Loc.t~tlon zmd
Gore Number
I
I
....
~
q,c
>
...
+J
44G
1.))
3.14
'"C
4.71
c::
"'1
G.29
:::!I
1.57
I
___I_
I
1
I
I
I
N
0\
C/.l
<
'<
0
p..
-:Y.z
7.BG
c
c::
30"
0
"'1
...c
+J
a...
\\)
'1.43
_j _ _ _ _l _ _
I
I
I
I
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ -j
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
---~---~
I
I
I
I
I
I
--,---~--
I
I
I
-:- -i---;
\0
I
I
I
---+----1----J......
I
~---
I
I
-t
I
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
_L
I
I
I
I
I
- - I - - - ---l----1--
--,---,---,
1
I
I
__ l___ _j _ _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
&trtmdsl Dull Grlly I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t-
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~
I
I
I
I
I
T- -- r
I
I
_ _
I
I
I
-~I
I
_ I_
I
I
I
I
I
-j _ _ _
I
I
I
--,-_ _
I
1
_I _
I
I
I
I
1
-tI
I
I
--~---~--
-j--- _
Limits of Inner
Core Longltvdi
Reinforcement
_.LT--=-!==4A=.4-B-
t---i---:- i---;---t
..,----TI
I
I
I
I
-+1A.i6
1
1
I 2A.2B"
1.5'1"f Wide Cra~ In ~h~l
I
I
I
I
I
I
__
<CA.GB
~;~nds ~h~:;cto:ro:
5plrlll,. &lightly Corroded
5A.5Bl
-r---
I
I
I
1
I
I 3A.3B
4.710mm Wide Crack in !>hell
_I _ _ _ L!>trands Dull Gray_
I &plrlll& Co~letely Corroded
I
I
I
I
I
I
25mm Wide crack in &hen

&trands Completely Corr
5plral& Completely Corro
~
""""
Pile No. 16
Legend
1A.1B
Indicates Concrete
Core Loclltlon and
Core Number
o_oo 0
lG
lf)
....
~
~
4-4--
)1;1-
lf)
!II
"'0
rs
[Q
en
<
('1)
'<
('1)
0.
-z
::s:1
1.57
3.14
Q)
1$1
L
Q)
-!--}
Q)
L::
7.5G
c:
( \)
r.::
r:::r
(\)
'"1
(,;,;
~
..c:
-!--}
CL
'1.43
Q)
--=--=-
---~---~--
_j_
I
I
I
4.71
G.2'1
I
I
---1----l---
I
I
3:
1-'
'-0
'"1
-!--}
Clock Position
c;
7
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_j
_L
I
I
.L
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-+----+
I
I
I
I
- -1--- - t - - - -t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--~----,
+tI
I
I
~---T
I
I
I
--T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
I
I
--j_-=I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ _j
_L
I
I
I
I
-1----l
I
I
I
I
r----1I
I
I
I
I
r
-~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---,---,
I
I
I
I
I
_I _
I
I
I
I
-j
I
I
I
I
I
I
-+
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
--,I
I
I
I
I
I
--+---+--~-- -~- 4f3A.3B
--~---:-
I
:j
I
_.L ___ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
-t----r
I
I
I
I
--,---,I
I
..l
I
I
I
tI
I
I
r-
1:
-I-
Dull Conly
~~
"Dull
CeO<>
Strand!>
GOrlll)l Shd
~tll,; Dull GOray
ZA
l:!lmm Wide Cr ado; In &hi5H

Strend"' Dull GOrflY
Splrlll& Slightly Corroded
-II
I
I
-~--
-L---t--I
lmlb of Inner
Care Langitvdinm
Reinforcement
Strand~
I
I
12
11
I
I
I
I
11.00
Pile No. 33
Legend
elAJB
lndlcate6 Concreh
Core LaGDtlon zmd
Core Number
Appendix B - Control Program Loading Path

B.l
Test Units CORl and COR3 -Flowchart

In Chapter 3 the control program loading path for test units CORJ and COR3 was
presented. In this appendix, a flowchart is presented to describe schematically the control

program. Fig. B-1 through Fig. B-4 present the control program loading path for the
different regions of the path described in Chapter 3. Region 1 is defined as the Compression
Loading Branch, Region 2 is defined as the Compression Unloading Branch, Region 3 is
defined as the Tension Loading Branch, and Region 4 is defined as the Compression
Unloading Branch
-328-
Region 4
Po= 863kN; H = Ho
Read!:.= t:.i
Force Control : Target is Hf

Displacement Control : Target is !if
NO
YES
NO
Fig. B-1 Test Units CORJ and COR3- Flowchart Region 1

-329-
Region 1
Region2
"COMPRESSION
UNLOADING"
Read P=Pi ; H=Hi
CURVE VII
p ;;:>: 863k

-330-
Region 2
Po= 863kN; H = Ho

Displacement Control : Target is llf
NO

-331-
Region 4
"TENSION
UNLOADING"
Read P=Pi ; H=Hi
-332-
B.2
Test Unit COR2 -Flowchart

In Chapter 3 the control program loading path for test unit COR2 was presented, and
in this appendix, a flowchart is presented to describe schematically the control program. Fig.
B-5 through Fig. B-8 present the control program loading path for the different regions of
the path described in Chapter 3. As before, Region 1 is defined as the Compression Loading
Branch, Region 2 is defined as the Compression Unloading Branch, Region 3 is defined as

the Tension Loading Branch, and Region 4 is defined as the Compression Unloading Branch
-333-
Region 4
Po= 667kN; H = Ho
Readll= .:li

Displacement Control : Target is llf
NO
YES
NO
Fig. B-5 Test Unit COR2- Flowchart Region 1

-334-
UNLOADING"
Read P=Pi; H=Hi
CURVE V
P ~ 667kN
Reached Target
Po= 667kN
ct
Fig. B-6 Test Unit COR2 -Flowchart Region 2

-335-
Region 2
Po= 667kN; H = Ho
Read!::..= l:li

Displacement Control : Target is l:lf
NO
P > -302kN
YES
NO
-336-
Region 3
UNLOADING"
Read P=Pi ; H=Hi

-337-

SSRP - 97 - 11 Pile To Pile Cap Connections in Seismic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRP - 97 - 11 Pile To Pile Cap Connections in Seismic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

RESPONSE OF THE CORONADO BAY

Report on a Research Project funded by Caltrans under Contract

Division of Structural Engineering

Structural Systems Research Project

Report No. SSRP-97/11

RESPONSE OF THE CORONADO BAY BRIDGE

M.J. Nigel Priestley

Report on a Research Project funded by

Technical Report Documentation PaQe

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

6. Perform111g Organization Code

6. Performing Organization Report No.

Pedro F. Silva, Frieder Seible, M. J. Nigel Priestley

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Division of Structural Engineering

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

California Department of Transportation

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementaty Notes

17. Key Words

Pile, Pile Connections, Seismic Response

20. Security C!ass~ication 10 tms page)

21. No. of !"ages

Response of the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge

Cross sectional area of a bar.

Gross section area.

Concrete shell section area.

Inner core section area.

Total longitudinal steel area.

Total prestressing steel area.

Prestressing steel area.

Transverse steel area.

Axial Load Ratio.

Effective joint width assuming a 45 spread in all directions.

Distance between laterally supported longitudinal bars.

Concrete compression force.

Pile diameter or width.

Nominal pile diameter.

Diameter of reinforcement bar.

Diameter of prestressing strand.

Circular spirals center to center diameter.

Young's modulus of concrete or tangent modulus of elasticity of concrete.

Young's modulus of prestressing strands.

Young's modulus of concrete at transfer.

Young's modulus of steel shell.

Prestressing force at jacking.

Prestressing force at day of test.

Concrete stress (compressive or tensile).

Concrete compressive strength at transfer of prestressing strands.

Concrete compressive strength of concrete shell.

Concrete compressive strength of inner core.

Unconfined concrete compressive strength.

Confined concrete compression strength.

Confined concrete compressive strength at ultimate concrete strain.

Lateral confining pressure from transverse reinforcement.

Modulus of rupture of concrete.

Horizontal axial stress in the joint region.

Effective prestressing stress after transfer and after losses.

Vertical axial stress in the joint region.