Unbonded Posttensioned Concrete Bridge Piers.

I: Monotonic and Cyclic Analyses

Wing-Pin Kwan, A.M.ASCE,1 and Sarah L. Billington, A.M.ASCE2

Abstract: The monotonic and cyclic behavior of a proposed unbonded, posttensioned concrete bridge pier system is studied using
finite-element analyses. A procedure to evaluate seismic capacities based on results from the monotonic and cyclic analyses is described
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 07/02/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the framework of a two-level approach considering functional- and survival-performance limits. A set of criteria to define functional-
and survival-level displacement capacities for the system is developed. The proposed criteria represent improvements over existing criteria
in that they are applicable to both conventional reinforced concrete structures and unbonded posttensioned structures. The monotonic and
cyclic behavior of prototype single-column pier and two-column bent designs is presented. Monotonic analyses are performed to char-
acterize the stiffness, strength, ductility, and limit-state behavior of these systems. Cyclic analyses are carried out to estimate energy
dissipation capacity, residual displacements, and general hysteretic behavior. The influence of the degree of unbonded posttensioning on
bridge pier behavior is examined. Using the finite-element results and the proposed criteria, seismic capacities of the prototype bridge pier
systems are established.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2003兲8:2共92兲
CE Database keywords: Post tensioning; Bridge piers; Bridges, concrete; Finite element method; Cyclic loads.

Introduction extension in the member is distributed equally throughout the

The bridge pier system investigated in this research is a segmen-
tally precast concrete system with unbonded posttensioning. Fig.
1 shows a schematic design of a two-column bent for the pro-
posed system, which is composed of three basic segment types:
column segments, cap beam segments, and a template segment
that connects the column to the cap beam. This system, similar to
one originally developed for a nonseismic region 共Billington et al.
2001兲, uses vertical posttensioning through the column shaft con-
necting the cap to the column. Horizontal posttensioning is used
to connect cap beam segments when necessary.
The proposed system uses both bonded and unbonded rein-
forcement. Unbonded vertical posttensioning is used to minimize
residual displacements, and bonded mild reinforcement is used to
provide energy dissipation capacity and to control cracking. This
combination of bonded and unbonded reinforcement is applied to
the segmentally precast bridge pier systems in the form of both
single-column piers and two-column bents. Single-column piers
would simply be one-half of the bent shown in Fig. 1. The
adopted concept for reinforcement combinations is similar to that
of Ikeda 共1998兲 and Ito et al. 共1997兲, who studied this combina-
tion through physical experiments with bridge column models.
Unlike bonded posttensioning, unbonded posttensioning gen-
erally does not yield even at high ductility levels, since strain
1
Design Engineer, Leslie E. Robertson Associates, 30 Broad St., 47/F,
New York, NY 10004.
2
Assistant Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2003. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on July 17, 2001; approved on January 15, 2002. This
paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2, March
1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2003/2-92–101/$18.00.
length of the tendon. As a result, unbonded posttensioned systems
typically exhibit nonlinear elastic load-deflection behavior under
cyclic loading. The residual displacement is hence minimal upon
unloading. However, the lack of yielding also means there is little
opportunity for energy dissipation as compared to bonded post-
tensioning. Therefore, with unbonded posttensioning there is re-
duced hysteretic damping in the structure, which is expected to
lead to increased displacement response during an earthquake.
As Priestley 共1997兲 pointed out, given the difficulty of repair
after an earthquake, it is arguable that residual displacements are
ultimately more important than maximum displacements. In the
proposed bridge pier system, unbonded posttensioning is adopted
in the columns to minimize residual displacements. Additional
mild reinforcement is adopted for hysteretic energy dissipation as
well as for controlling crack widths.
The main advantage of the proposed system is that the propor-
tion of unbonded posttensioning to mild reinforcement can be
adjusted according to the emphasis placed on the control of maxi-
mum displacement versus the control of residual displacement.
This can be achieved through performance-based seismic design
procedures 共Kwan 2001兲. Other advantages of the proposed sys-
tem include on-site construction efficiency 共reduced disruption of
traffic and the environment as compared with cast-in-place con-
struction兲, increased durability of concrete through controlled
conditions of precast facilities, and potential economy through
standardization of precast segments.
The main disadvantage of an unbonded posttensioned system
in seismic regions is its low energy-dissipation capacity. Other
potential disadvantages are issues with construction efficiency in-
volved with including continuous, bonded mild reinforcement
across precast segments, as well as issues of serviceability and
durability associated with the lack of a protective bonding agent
around the posttensioning steel against corrosion, and a lack of
crack control where minimal bonded mild reinforcement is used.
The scope of this research is limited to seismic issues.

92 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003

J. Bridge Eng., 2003, 8(2): 92-101


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 07/02/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Segmentally precast, posttensioned bridge pier system
The main objective of the research presented here is to assess
the seismic behavior of the proposed unbonded posttensioned sys-
tem based on numerical simulations. Finite-element analyses are
carried out using a set of material models that have been cali-
brated and verified against numerous experiments 共Kwan and
Billington 2001兲. Monotonic analyses 共where the model is sub-
jected to a unidirectional load or displacement of an increasing
magnitude兲 are carried out to characterize the stiffness, strength,
ductility, and limit-state behavior of these systems. Cyclic analy-
ses 共where the model is subjected to a load or displacement in
reversing directions without dynamic effects兲 are carried out to
obtain the energy-dissipation capacity, residual displacements,
and general hysteretic behavior of these systems. Seismic capaci-
ties of prototype designs of bridge pier systems, which vary in the
ratio of unbonded posttensioning to mild reinforcement, are thus
evaluated. The predicted capacities are compared with the ex-
pected demands on such systems in a companion paper 共Kwan
and Billington 2003兲 using a performance-based seismic design
approach.
To assess the seismic capacities of the proposed system, a
procedure to evaluate seismic capacities based on results from the
monotonic and cyclic analyses is developed. Seismic performance
is evaluated based on a two-level framework, in which the func-
tional and the survival performance of the bridge pier system are
considered.
A secondary objective of this paper is to propose a set of
criteria to define the functional-and survival-level displacement
capacities of the proposed structural system. The proposed criteria
represent improvements over existing criteria in that they are ap-
plicable to both conventional mildly reinforced concrete struc-
tures and unbonded posttensioned structures.
Background
The use of unbonded posttensioning in precast concrete building
systems for seismic resistance has been investigated in a number
of recent studies 关summary in Stanton et al. 共1991兲 and Priestley
共1996兲兴. Experimental studies on precast beam-to-column joint
subassemblages with unbonded posttensioning were conducted by
Priestley and MacRae 共1996兲. Another design concept utilizing
both unbonded posttensioning and mild steel in hybrid moment-
resisting precast connections was tested by Stanton et al. 共1997兲.
Both of these studies showed that the use of unbonded postten-
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003 / 93
J. Bridge Eng., 2003, 8(2): 92-101
sioning greatly reduced residual drift. In addition, the loss of pre-
stress was reduced due to the delay in yielding of the unbonded
posttensioning steel.
Analytical studies investigating the seismic response of un-
bonded posttensioned systems include time-history analyses of
single-degree-of-freedom models with idealized hysteretic behav-
ior 共Priestley and Tao 1993兲 and time-history analyses of frame
models of precast concrete frames with hybrid connections
共Cheok et al. 1998兲. Static and seismic analyses of unbonded
posttensioned precast concrete walls were carried out by Kurama
et al. 共1999a,b兲 using fiber models. El-Sheikh et al. 共1999, 2000兲
analyzed unbonded posttensioned precast concrete frames also
using fiber models.
Less research has been performed on the seismic application
of precast posttensioned concrete systems for bridges. One pro-
posed concept uses both unbonded posttensioning and mild rein-
forcement in bridge piers for moment capacity 共Ito et al. 1997;
Ikeda 1998兲. Another concept studied by Mander and Cheng
共1997b兲 involves a pier designed to have the columns rock back
and forth as a rigid body. The longitudinal mild reinforcement is
terminated at the beam-column interface to enable the rocking of
the column, and the unbonded posttensioning acts mainly to re-
strain lateral displacement. Mander and Cheng 共1997a兲 also tested
a precast, pretensioned concrete bridge column that had cast-in-
place ‘‘replaceable hinge zones’’ at each end. The concept was to
localize damage where it would be repairable after cyclic loading.
The column was repaired and retested twice. Both studies by
Mander and Cheng were based on physical experiments under
cyclic loading.
The use of horizontal bonded posttensioning along precast cap
beam segments of bridge bents has been studied by Sritharan
et al. 共1999, 2000兲. Cyclic loading experiments showed that the
horizontal posttensioning along the cap beam resulted in lower
joint damage and better anchorage of the longitudinal column
reinforcement.
Estimating Seismic Capacity from Monotonic and
Cyclic Analysis
Functional- and Survival-Performance Levels
A systematic approach to assess the seismic behavior of a struc-
ture is through the consideration of performance objectives in
association with specified seismic hazard levels. This approach
forms the basis of performance-based design criteria in seismic
codes such as those of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduc-
tion Program 共FEMA 1997兲. In the evaluation of the proposed
bridge pier system, performance objectives are considered for a
functional-level and a survival-level earthquake. At the
functional-level earthquake 共which is associated with a higher
probability of occurrence兲, the performance objective is to keep
the structure operational without major repairs. At the survival-
level earthquake 共which is associated with a lower probability of
occurrence兲, the performance objective is to prevent structural
collapse while allowing for major but repairable damage.
Specification of the seismic performance levels requires con-
sideration of the limit states of the proposed bridge pier system.
The limit states of an unbonded posttensioned structure are shown
schematically in Fig. 2 关based on Kurama 共1997兲兴. In contrast to
mildly reinforced concrete structures, the apparent yielding of the
structure 共signified by the major change in stiffness of the load-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 07/02/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Limit states of structural system with unbonded
posttensioning
displacement curve兲 occurs well in advance of the yielding of the
unbonded posttensioning. The decrease in the stiffness of the
structure is mostly due to cracking of the concrete in tension and
partly due to the nonlinear stress-strain behavior of the concrete
in compression.
As proposed by Kurama 共1997兲, the functional-performance
level is associated with the yielding of the unbonded posttension-
ing. The yielding of the unbonded posttensioning leads to a loss
in prestress, which would cause a decrease in the stiffness and
load-carrying capacity of the structure, hence affecting its func-
tional performance. The survival-performance level is associated
with the crushing of the concrete and/or the buckling of longitu-
dinal reinforcement. Both events lead to a decrease in the load-
carrying capacity of the structure, which would ultimately lead to
collapse.
The above specifications of performance levels based on
Kurama 共1997兲 are generalized here for systems with or without
unbonded posttensioning. For concrete structures with conven-
tional mild reinforcement, different limit states need to be consid-
ered for the functional-performance level. Hose et al. 共2000兲 pro-
posed specific damage criteria corresponding to a range of
performance levels for conventional concrete structures. Their cri-
teria are dependent on quantitative measurements of localized be-
havior such as crack widths and dimensions of spalling regions.
As a result, these criteria are more suitable to be applied to field
observations or experimental studies. The use of these criteria
with results from finite-element analyses would require accurate
prediction of localized damage from the finite-element models. As
demonstrated in Kwan and Billington 共2001兲, the material models
to be used here are sufficiently accurate for predicting global
hysteretic response. However, reliable local damage predictions
such as crack widths and spalled regions would require further
improvements in the material models to be accurate and compu-
tationally efficient for the relatively large-scale analyses per-
formed here.
Therefore, a set of criteria is proposed herein to define the
functional- and survival-performance levels applicable to con-
crete structures with bonded and/or unbonded reinforcement. The
proposed criteria are not dependent on quantification of localized
behavior and are therefore suitable for use with results from
finite-element analyses.
94 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003
J. Bridge Eng., 2003, 8(2): 92-101
Fig. 3. Definition of functional-performance level considering
residual displacements
Proposed Criteria for Functional- and Survival-Level
Displacements
The functional-level displacement capacity of the unbonded post-
tensioned bridge pier systems is defined as the minimum of
1. Displacement at yielding of unbonded posttensioning;
2. Displacement leading to 1% residual drift; and
3. 0.7 times survival-level displacement.
Criterion 1 is adopted from Kurama 共1997兲 for the functional
capacity of unbonded posttensioned systems. Because prestress-
ing steel does not have a well-defined yield point, a reasonable
definition of yield stress is adopted in accordance with Nilson
共1987兲. For the posttensioning bars, the yield strain is defined as
0.007. For the posttensioning strand, the yield strain is defined as
0.01.
Criterion 2 is proposed to assess if a structure is functional
based on its residual displacements. Criterion 2 refers to the dis-
placement on the monotonic load-displacement curve that would
give rise to a residual drift of 1% 共Fig. 3兲. The load-displacement
curves can be taken from the envelope of the cyclic load-
displacement curves.
Criterion 3 is proposed to ensure a sufficient margin of safety
for structures that exhibit brittle behavior near a functional-level
earthquake. For structures with brittle behavior, the displacements
corresponding to criterion 1 or 2 may occur very close to 共or even
after兲 the survival-level displacement of the structure.
The survival-level displacement is the displacement signaling
the onset of collapse of the structure, which is commonly referred
to as the ultimate displacement, x u . The criterion proposed for the
survival-level displacement is the displacement at which the ca-
pacity drops to 90% of the peak load, F u .
The drop in the capacity considered in the criterion for
survival-level displacement is caused by limit states such as
crushing of concrete and buckling of longitudinal reinforcement.
In this research, concrete crushing is modeled but reinforcement
buckling is not. Instead, the prototype designs are all detailed to
avoid buckling of longitudinal reinforcement.
The functional- and survival-level performance of the proto-
type designs may also be described in terms of ductility. The
ductility ␮, corresponding to a given displacement level x, is de-
fined as
x
␮⫽ (1)
xy
where x y ⫽system yield displacement. To define the system yield
displacements, the nonlinear load-displacement behavior of each
design is approximated by a bilinear model wherein discrepancies
 Table 1. Input and Design Loads of Prototype Bridge Pier Systems The single-column pier and the two-column bent are respec-
Single-column Two-column tively designed for a peak ground acceleration 共PGA兲 of 0.3 and
Input piers bents 0.5g. The adopted PGAs of the designs correspond to seismic
zone SPC D in AASHTO classifications, which represents regions
PGA 共g兲 0.3 0.5
with severe seismicity. The PGAs considered in AASHTO corre-
Mass, m 共ton兲 409 421
spond to accelerations with a 10% probably of exceedance in 50
Natural period, T n 共s兲 0.754 0.446
years, or a return period of 475 years. The prototype substructures
Seismic response coefficient, C s 共g兲 0.434 0.822
are designed to be located on rock or stiff soils; hence a site
Force-reduction factor, R 3 5
coefficient of S⫽1 is adopted.
Lateral seismic load, F x 共kN兲 580 679 The bridge piers are designed for a multispan bridge with 40 m
Design moment, M n 共kN•m兲 783 1,029 spans. The height of the bridge is 8 m from the top of the footing
to the center of gravity of the superstructure. The dimensions of
in energy dissipated between the model and actual behavior are the single-column pier and the two-column bent are shown in Fig.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 07/02/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

equated. Details of this approximation are given in Kwan 共2001兲. 4.

Prototype Bridge Pier Designs
The prototype bridge piers considered are a single-column pier
and a two-column bent. The prototype bridge piers are designed
for a steel-stringer superstructure system according to the seismic
provisions in the AASHTO 共1996兲 Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges, which are based on the use of the elastic ac-
celeration response spectrum. Design loads for the prototype de-
signs of the single-column pier and the two-column bent deter-
mined according to this procedure are outlined in Table 1.
For the superstructure, the width of the bridge deck is 11.5 m
for the single-column piers and 12.5 m for the two-column bents.
The weight per unit area of the superstructure consisting of a
concrete deck slab and steel girders is estimated to be 7.5 kPa.
The unconfined compressive strength of the concrete, f ⬘c , is taken
as 35 MPa. Grade 60 steel ( f y ⫽420 MPa) is used for both lon-
gitudinal and transverse mild reinforcement. Two types of post-
tensioning are used in the designs: Dywidag bars with an ultimate
strength of f pu ⫽1,100 MPa, and tendons of 7-wire strand with an
ultimate strength of f pu ⫽1,860 MPa.
Based on the design loads in Table 1, four designs are consid-
ered for each of the substructure systems. The four designs differ

Fig. 4. Prototype design model dimensions and reinforcement details

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003 / 95

J. Bridge Eng., 2003, 8(2): 92-101

 in the amount of unbonded posttensioning in the pier-columns.
On one extreme are designs reinforced with only unbonded post-
tensioning, and on the other extreme are designs reinforced with
only mild steel. The designs are named according to the following
convention:
P⫽Unbonded posttensioning only;
PM⫽Mostly unbonded posttensioning with some mild steel;
MP⫽Mostly mild steel with some unbonded posttensioning;
and
M⫽Mild steel only.
The number following each designation denotes the type of
bridge pier system, where 1 refers to single-column piers and 2
refers to two-column bents.
The reinforcing details of the column sections in the prototype
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 07/02/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
designs are also shown in Fig. 4. The reinforcement ratio for the
mild steel, ␳ s , and for the unbonded posttensioning, ␳ ps , are
defined as the area of each type of steel divided by the gross
cross-sectional area of the column. The four designs for each pier
system are detailed to have similar strengths.
Coupled posttensioning bars are used in all of the prototype
designs with posttensioning. For prototype design P-1, postten-
sioning strands are used in addition to posttensioning bars. Post-
tensioning strands would be placed as a U-loop to keep all an-
chorages at the top of the column for ease of installation. The
U-looped ducts would be grouted within the footing only.
The prototype designs are detailed according to the require-
ments for confinement and transverse reinforcement in AASHTO
共1996兲. In addition, the diameter and spacing of the transverse
reinforcement are selected to prevent buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcement. An effective prestress of f pe ⫽0.45f pu is assumed
for the posttensioning bars and strands for the single-column
piers. For the two-column bents, f pe ⫽0.45f pu and f pe ⫽0.55f pu
are respectively assumed for the posttensioning in the columns
and the cap beam. The cap beams in the two-column bents are
detailed to yield after yielding of the columns.
Finite-Element Models
The finite-element models of the single-column piers and the two-
column bents are shown in Fig. 5. In both cases, the models use
Fig. 5. Finite-element meshes for prototype design models
96 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003
J. Bridge Eng., 2003, 8(2): 92-101
eight-noded isoparametric plane-stress elements with a 3 by 3
integration scheme. Mild steel is modeled by embedded subele-
ments. The unbonded posttensioned bars 共PT on the figure兲 are
modeled as single-truss elements with end nodes attached to the
nodes of the concrete elements at the anchorage locations. This
representation allows for the change in strain in the concrete to be
evenly distributed along the full length of the tendons.
The superstructure is modeled by a lumped mass located at its
center of gravity and connected to the substructure through a rigid
beam element. The rigid beam element is connected to the con-
tinuum elements through tyings, which impose linear dependen-
cies between the end node of the beam and the nodes of the
continuum elements across the top of the pier. The modeling of
the superstructure approximates a bearing-supported structure that
imposes little constraint on the top of the piers. The match-cast,
epoxy-filled joints of the precast segments are not explicitly mod-
eled. Shear slip at these joints is not expected.
The column-footing connection region is modeled to accom-
modate the unbonded posttensioning, which extends into the foot-
ing. The base regions of the substructure system are fixed on the
sides. While the influence of soil-structure interaction may be
taken into account via the use of soil springs, this effect is not
considered here.
An elasticity-based constitutive model with a total strain for-
mulation 共Feenstra et al. 1998兲 and secant unloading/reloading is
adopted for the concrete. A smeared rotating crack model with
linear softening is used in tension to represent cracking, and a
confined concrete model according to Mander et al. 共1988兲 is
used for compression to represent crushing. The influence of lat-
eral stresses on the constitutive behavior is accounted for using
the modified compression field theory 共Vecchio and Collins 1986,
1993兲 in the adopted model. A steel model based on Su and Zhu
共1994兲 capable of representing the Bauschinger effect of steel
under cyclic load is implemented and used for the reinforcement.
This set of models for concrete and steel has been calibrated and
verified against numerous experiments and was found to simulate
well the cyclic behavior of components similar to the bridge piers
investigated herein 共Kwan and Billington 2001兲.
 For the monotonic analyses 共pushover analyses兲, a lateral load
is applied to the center of gravity of the superstructure system. In
the cyclic analyses, the finite-element models are subjected to
displacement cycles with increments of 70 mm, which is equal to
1% of the height from the base to the top of the substructure
system. For both the monotonic and cyclic analyses, a distributed
axial load equal to the weight of the superstructure system is
applied to the top of the substructure.

Analysis of Single-Column Piers

Monotonic Analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 07/02/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The monotonic load-displacement behavior for the prototype de-

signs of the single-column pier from the analyses is shown in Fig.
6. Indicated on the load-displacement curves are 共1兲 the propor-
tional limit of the posttensioning; 共2兲 the yielding of the postten-
sioning; and 共3兲 the ultimate limit state defined as the point at
which the load drops to 90% of the peak load. Note that M-1 is
reinforced with only mild steel; hence only limit state 共3兲 is indi-
cated.
The most notable difference in the behavior of the four designs
is their ultimate displacement capacity. The displacement capacity
of M-1 is more than twice that of P-1. As expected, designs with
a higher degree of unbonded posttensioning have lower displace-
ment capacities. This trend is directly related to the high compres-
sive stresses associated with the higher level of posttensioning,
which leads to earlier crushing of concrete.
Yielding of the posttensioning occurs only in PM-1 and MP-1.
Both the proportional limit and the yielding of the posttensioning
occur slightly sooner in MP-1 than in PM-1. For P-1, the postten-
sioning bars and strands remain elastic until the ultimate displace-
ment is reached.
Although the four designs were detailed to have similar
strengths, the strengths and cracked stiffnesses are not identical
due to constraints on available sizes of reinforcement and the ease
of maintaining a symmetrical layout of reinforcement. Before the
strength of P-1 drops off due to crushing of concrete, P-1 main-
tains a higher strength and has a higher cracked stiffness than the
other designs. As expected, a design with a higher degree of post-
tensioning has a higher cracked stiffness.
Fig. 6. Monotonic analyses of single-column designs
end of the first cycle in Table 3 is more a result of the difference
in strength and stiffness between the designs than a result of dif-
ferences in hysteretic behavior. Except for the first cycle, the hys-
teretic energy dissipation of MP-1 is on average 84% that of M-1,
and the hysteretic energy dissipation of PM-1 is on average 67%
that of M-1. The hysteretic energy dissipation of P-1 increases
from 27 to 50% that of M-1. The observed increase in energy
dissipation is associated with extensive crushing of concrete in
the fourth cycle 共Fig. 7兲. The crushing of concrete also leads to
shortening of the column and hence a loss of prestress in the bars
and strand. The self-centering ability of the column is then lost, as
is seen with the increased residual displacement 共Table 2兲. This
phenomenon has been observed in the posttensioned column ex-
periments of Ito et al. 共1997兲, which were also simulated by
Kwan and Billington 共2001兲 using the same set of constitutive
models as are used here. Crushing is also observed in PM-1 at the
sixth cycle, where there is a notable increase in the residual dis-
placement accompanied by a decrease in the strength of the struc-
ture.

Cyclic Analysis
The cyclic behavior for the prototype designs of the single-
column pier from the analyses is shown in Fig. 7. The averages of
the positive and negative residual displacements occurring at each
cycle are listed in Table 2. These residual displacements are later
used to determine the functional level displacement according to
proposed limit-state criterion 2. Table 3 gives the hysteretic en-
ergy dissipation at the end of each cycle normalized by the hys-
teretic energy dissipation of M-1 at the end of the corresponding
cycle. Hysteretic energy dissipation is computed as the area en-
closed by the hysteretic curves.
The hysteretic response of the designs differs significantly. As
expected, P-1 has the least energy dissipation and the lowest re-
sidual displacements, whereas M-1 has the highest energy dissi-
pation and the highest residual displacements. The cyclic analyses
correspond to the monotonic analyses in showing that P-1 has the
most brittle behavior of the designs, and that PM-1 has the next
lowest ultimate displacement capacity.
All of the prototype designs remain largely elastic at the end of
Fig. 7. Cyclic analysis of single-column pier designs
the first cycle. Hence the difference in the energy values at the

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003 / 97

J. Bridge Eng., 2003, 8(2): 92-101

 Table 2. Average Residual Displacements
Average Residual Displacement 共mm兲
Cycle number P-1 PM-1 MP-1 M-1 P-2 PM-2 MP-2 M-2
Cycle 1 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.8 1.7 3.0 5.3
Cycle 2 0.8 2.3 5.1 11 0.9 3.6 10 50
Cycle 3 0.5 3.2 11 53 6.3 7.0 26 101
Cycle 4 8.8 6.1 32 113 88 31 76 152
Cycle 5 — 8.6 68 157 — — — —
Cycle 6 — 48 126 225 — — — —
Cycle 7 — 204 180 267 — — — —
Cycle 8 — 323 278 339 — — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 07/02/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Functional- and Survival-Level Displacement
Capacities
A summary of the displacements at a number of limit states for
the prototype designs of the single-column pier is given in Table
4, along with the functional and survival displacement capacities
and ductility capacities of the prototype designs. The survival
displacement capacity is taken as the displacement corresponding
to item 共1兲 in Table 4, and the functional displacement capacity is
determined by the minimum of the displacements corresponding
to items 共3兲, 共4兲, and 共5兲, as underlined in Table 4. Item 共2兲 is
included for reference. Item 共3兲 corresponds to proposed criterion
2, where the displacement corresponding to 1% residual drift is
obtained by interpolation using the maximum displacements at
the end of each cycle and the average residual displacements in
the corresponding cycle 共Fig. 3兲. The ductility capacities are
evaluated using Eq. 共1兲, which utilizes a system yield displace-
ment 共also listed in Table 4兲 as previously defined.
The functional ductility capacity for M-1 is controlled by the
limit state associated with residual displacements. The use of un-
bonded posttensioning substantially decreases the residual dis-
placements of P-1, PM-1, and MP-1. The functional ductility ca-
pacity of PM-1 and MP-1 is controlled by the yielding of the
unbonded posttensioning. The unbonded posttensioning does not
yield in P-1, and the residual displacements remain minimal.
Therefore the functional ductility capacity of P-1 is controlled by
the limit state associated with 0.7 times the ultimate displacement
关item 共5兲兴. The behavior of a predominantly prestressed member
such as P-1 illustrates the importance of having a limit-state cri-
terion that ensures a sufficient margin of safety for structures with
potentially brittle behavior under a functional-level earthquake.
The functional ductility capacity ranges from 4.0 for M-1 to
5.6 for PM-1. The functional ductility capacity is higher for the
partially prestressed designs 共PM-1, MP-1兲 than both the fully
prestressed design 共P-1兲 and the mildly reinforced design 共M-1兲.
The self-centering ability of the unbonded posttensioning leads to
lower residual displacements, hence giving them an advantage in
their functional-level performance. Despite the low residual dis-
placements of P-1, its functional ductility capacity is lower than
that of PM-1 and MP-1 because of premature crushing of con-
crete. The results indicate that the effectiveness of using un-
bonded posttensioning to increase functional ductility capacity
共by reducing residual displacements兲 may be limited by problems
with premature crushing of concrete.
The survival ductility capacity ranges from 5.9 for P-1 to 12.4
for M-1. The survival ductility capacity is lower in the designs
with a higher degree of unbonded posttensioning. This is expected
because the higher compressive stresses from the posttensioning
lead to early failure by crushing of concrete. The use of unbonded
posttensioning may warrant the use of higher-strength concrete in
the proposed bridge-pier system.
Analysis of Two-Column Bents
Monotonic Analysis
The monotonic load-displacement behavior for the prototype de-
signs of the two-column bent from the analyses is shown in Fig.
8. Yielding of the cap beams is not observed in any of the proto-
type designs before yielding of the columns. There is a notable
difference in the ultimate displacement capacities of the four de-
signs similar to that of the single-column pier designs. The dis-
placement capacity of M-2 is about twice that of P-2. Designs
with a higher proportion of unbonded posttensioning correspond
to lower displacement capacities due to earlier concrete crushing.
The proportional limit of the posttensioning occurs slightly
sooner in PM-2 than MP-2. However, yielding of the posttension-

Table 3. Normalized Hysteretic Energy Dissipation

Normalized Hysteretic Energy Dissipation
Cycle number P-1 PM-1 MP-1 M-1 PT-2 PM-2 MP-2 M-2
Cycle 1 0.91 0.69 1.01 1.00 0.25 0.80 0.94 1.00
Cycle 2 0.27 0.71 0.87 1.00 0.17 0.59 0.78 1.00
Cycle 3 0.29 0.63 0.85 1.00 0.31 0.58 0.77 1.00
Cycle 4 0.43 0.64 0.83 1.00 — 0.64 0.78 1.00
Cycle 5 0.50 0.62 0.83 1.00 — — — —
Cycle 6 — 0.69 0.82 1.00 — — — —
Cycle 7 — 0.72 0.83 1.00 — — — —
Cycle 8 — 0.71 0.84 1.00 — — — —

98 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003

J. Bridge Eng., 2003, 8(2): 92-101

 Table 4. Displacement and Ductility Capacities at Considered Limit States
Displacement P-1 PM-1 MP-1 M-1 P-2 PM-2 MP-2 M-2
共1兲 Ultimate displacement 共at 0.9F u ) 共mm兲 321 484 542 743 221 287 319 394
共2兲 Displacement at proportional limit of posttensioning 共mm兲 — 206 194 — — 200 185 —
共3兲 Displacement at yielding of posttensioning 共mm兲 — 314 290 — — — 275 —
共4兲 displacement leading to 1% residual drift 共mm兲 — 435 365 241 — — — 182
共5兲 0.7 Ultimate displacement 共mm兲 225 339 379 520 155 201 223 276
Yield displacement 共mm兲 55 56 56 60 34 34 34 38
Functional ductility capacity 4.1 5.6 5.2 4.0 4.6 5.9 6.6 4.8
Survival ductility capacity 5.9 8.6 9.6 12.4 6.5 8.5 9.4 10.5

ing only occurs in MP-2. The variation in strength of the designs istics of their hysteretic behavior become more prominent. Except
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 07/02/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is again a result of the design constraints of using existing discrete
bar sizes.
Cyclic Analysis
The cyclic behavior of the prototype designs of the two-column
bent from the analyses is shown in Fig. 9. The average of the
positive and negative residual displacements is given in Table 2,
and values of the normalized hysteretic energy dissipation with
respect to M-2 are given in Table 3.
Similar to the single-column pier designs, P-2 has the least
energy dissipation and the lowest residual displacements, whereas
M-2 has the highest energy dissipation and the highest residual
displacements. As with the monotonic analyses, the cyclic analy-
ses show that P-2 has the most brittle behavior of each of the
designs. The next most brittle design according to the monotonic
analyses, PM-2, shows considerable strength and stiffness degra-
dation that is absent in MP-2 and M-2 at the same maximum
displacement level considered in the cyclic analyses. The strength
of MP-2 begins to degrade at the end of the cyclic analyses. This
drop in strength 共at a displacement of roughly 250 mm兲 corre-
sponds roughly to the displacement at which yielding of the un-
bonded posttensioning occurs in the monotonic analyses 共Fig. 8兲.
The bent designs exhibit a certain degree of inelastic behavior
at the end of the first cycle. Hence some differences in the hys-
teretic energy dissipation of the designs already exist at the end of
the first cycle 共Table 3兲. The differences in hysteretic energy dis-
sipation increase in subsequent cycles as the individual character-
for the first cycle, the hysteretic energy dissipation of MP-2 is on
average 78% that of M-2, and the hysteretic energy dissipation of
PM-2 is on average 60% that of M-2. The hysteretic energy dis-
sipation of P-2 increases from 17% that of M-2 at the end of the
second cycle to 31% that of M-2 at the end of the third cycle, at
which point there is an abrupt drop in strength of P-2. The in-
creasing hysteretic energy dissipation of P-2 is again associated
with the crushing of concrete and the resulting loss of prestress.
During the fourth cycle, PM-2 also begins to fail by concrete
crushing.
Functional- and Survival-Level Displacements
The displacements at the considered limit states for the prototype
designs of the two-column bent are listed in Table 4. Also listed
are the determined functional and survival displacement and duc-
tility capacities. The controlling limit state for the functional duc-
tility capacity of each design is underlined. The functional ductil-
ity capacity of M-2 is controlled by residual displacements.
Yielding of the unbonded posttensioning does not occur in P-2 or
PM-2 before the ultimate limit state, and it only occurs in MP-2
very close to its ultimate limit state. As a result, the functional
ductility capacities of P-2, PM-2, and MP-2 are all controlled by
the limit state defined by 0.7 times the ultimate displacement.
The functional ductility capacity ranges from 4.6 共for P-2兲 to
6.6 共for MP-2兲. As in the case of the single-column pier designs,
the functional ductility capacity is higher for the designs with
partial posttensioning 共PM-2, MP-2兲 than for the fully postten-
sioned design 共P-2兲 or the mildly reinforced design 共M-2兲. The
higher functional capacities of PM-2 and MP-2 over M-2 result

Fig. 8. Monotonic analyses of two-column bent designs Fig. 9. Cyclic analysis of two-column bent designs

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003 / 99

J. Bridge Eng., 2003, 8(2): 92-101

 from the self-centering ability of the unbonded posttensioning. In
this case, the functional ductility capacity of MP-2 is almost 40%
higher than that of M-2. While P-2 has the lowest residual dis-
placements, its functional ductility capacity is still lower than that
of the other designs because of early crushing of concrete.
The survival ductility capacity ranges from 6.5 共for P-2兲 to
10.5 共for M-2兲. Again, the survival ductility capacity is lower in
the designs with a higher degree of unbonded posttensioning due
to the crushing of concrete.
Comparison of Single-Column Piers and
Two-Column Bents
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 07/02/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
For both types of bridge pier, the all posttensioned designs have
very low functional and survival ductility capacities, while all the
mildly reinforced designs have low functional ductility capacities
and high survival ductility capacities 共Table 4兲. Designs with both
unbonded posttensioning and mild reinforcement have high func-
tional ductility capacities and moderate survival ductility capaci-
ties. The functional and survival displacement capacities of the
single-column piers are higher than the capacities of the two-
column bents. This difference is due to the development of a
higher moment in the columns of the two-column bent for the
same deflection in both systems. Although the two-column bents
have a somewhat higher design strength, as they are designed for
a higher hazard level, the strength is not high enough to make the
displacement capacities higher than in the single-column piers.
The functional and survival ductility capacities are similar in
the two types of bridge-pier systems. The single-column piers are
considerably more flexible than the two-column bents. Despite
the weaker strength of the single-column piers 共due to their being
designed for a lower hazard level兲, their flexibility results in
higher yield displacements. Combining the influences of the
higher yield displacements with the higher displacement capaci-
ties, the resulting ductility capacities of the single-column piers
are similar to those of the two-column bents considered here.
The similarity in the functional and survival ductility capaci-
ties of the two systems has important implications for seismic
design criteria. The ductility response of a structure is directly
related to the R-factor used in conventional seismic design proce-
dures. The similar ductility capacities of the single-column piers
and two-column bents in this study contradict the R-factors rec-
ommended by AASHTO wherein R is taken as three for single-
column piers and five for multicolumn bents. Higher R-factors are
introduced in AASHTO to account for the superior redundancy of
multicolumn bents. The effect of redundancy is expected to be
more prominent in bents with more than two columns. Evaluation
of the capacities of more designs 共including experimental evalu-
ations兲 is required to verify the ductility capacities expected in
single-column piers and multicolumn bents with unbonded post-
tensioning. Due consideration should be given to bents with more
than two columns to better study the influence of redundancy.
Verified ductility capacities can then be used to recommend
R-factor values for these systems.
Conclusions
The monotonic and cyclic behavior of a proposed unbonded post-
tensioned substructure system has been investigated. From the
monotonic analyses, designs with a higher proportion of un-
bonded posttensioning are found to have lower ultimate displace-
100 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003
J. Bridge Eng., 2003, 8(2): 92-101
ment capacities due to high compressive stresses, leading to ear-
lier crushing of concrete. From the cyclic analyses, designs with a
higher proportion of unbonded posttensioning are found to have
lower energy dissipation and lower residual displacements. This
trend results directly from the elastic behavior of the unbonded
posttensioning up to high system ductility levels.
From the monotonic and cyclic analyses, the bridge piers are
evaluated for functional-level and survival-level seismic perfor-
mance. A set of criteria for the definition of functional-and
survival- level displacement capacities has been developed. The
proposed functional displacement criterion based on residual dis-
placements is particularly useful for weighing the advantage of
unbonded posttensioned systems versus conventional mildly rein-
forced structural systems. The proposed functional displacement
criterion based on the crushing of concrete is important for ensur-
ing a sufficient margin of safety for structures with potentially
brittle behavior.
The proposed criteria are more dependent on global response
than on quantification of localized behavior such as crack widths.
This makes the proposed criteria suitable for use with finite-
element analyses for which the prediction of detailed local re-
sponse is usually less reliable. The criteria are also simple to use
with measurement or observation, both in the laboratory and in
the field.
Based on the developed criteria, the prototype designs with a
combination of unbonded posttensioning and mild reinforcement
have the highest functional-level displacement capacities. The
prototype designs with only mild reinforcement have the highest
survival-level displacement capacities. The results indicate that an
unbonded posttensioned system has the advantage of superior
functional-level performance but the disadvantage of inferior
survival-level performance, as compared to a conventional mildly
reinforced system.
Depending on the relative importance attributed to the
functional- or the survival-level performance 共through the speci-
fications of corresponding seismic hazard levels兲, there may be
cases where it would be advantageous to adopt an unbonded post-
tensioned system. By varying the ratio of unbonded posttension-
ing to mild reinforcement, different levels of functional ductility
capacity relative to survival ductility capacity can be achieved.
The tailoring of optimal designs according to desired functional-
and survival-performance levels can be realized through the use
of performance-based design procedures 共Kwan 2001兲.
The obtained functional and survival ductility capacities of the
prototype designs are dependent on the adopted performance cri-
teria. Further studies should be conducted to verify the proposed
criteria of the functional- and survival-level displacements as
more experimental and numerical data become available. Never-
theless, the proposed criteria provide a rational and systematic
framework in evaluating the seismic behavior of unbonded post-
tensioned concrete bridge pier systems.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted as part of Dr. Wing-Pin Kwan’s PhD
dissertation at Cornell University. The writers gratefully acknowl-
edge Sashi Kunnath of University of Central Florida and M. Ger-
aldine Cheok of the National Institute of Science and Technology
for their assistance with the analysis program IDARC employed
in the research. The finite-element analyses in the research were
carried out using the program DIANA, Release 7.1 共developed by
TNO Building and Construction Research in The Netherlands兲.
 References
AASHTO. 共1996兲. Standard specifications for highway bridges, 16th Ed.,
Washington, D.C.
Billington, S. L., Barnes, R. W., and Breen, J. E. 共2001兲. ‘‘Alternate
substructure systems for standard highway bridges.’’ J. Bridge Eng.,
6共2兲, 87–94.
Cheok, G. S., Stone, W. C., and Kunnath, S. K. 共1998兲. ‘‘Seismic re-
sponse of precast concrete frames with hybrid connections.’’ ACI
Struct. J., 95共5兲, 527–539.
El-Sheikh, M., Pessiki, S., Sause, R., and Lu, L.-W. 共2000兲. ‘‘Moment
rotation behavior of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete beam-
column connections.’’ ACI Struct. J., 97共1兲, 122–131.
El-Sheikh, M., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., and Lu, L.-W. 共1999兲. ‘‘Seismic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chung-Ang University on 07/02/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
behavior and design of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete
frames.’’ PCI J., 44共3兲, 54 –71.
Feenstra, P. H., Rots, J. G., Arnesen, A., Teigen, J. G., and Hoiseth, K. V.
共1998兲. ‘‘A 3D constitutive model for concrete based on a co-
rotational concept.’’ Proc., Euro-C 1998 Conf. on Computational
Modelling of Concrete Structures, R. de Borst, N. Bićanić, H. Mang,
and G. Meschke, eds., Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
13–22.
FEMA. 共1997兲. ‘‘NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings,’’ FEMA-273, Washington, D.C.
Hose, Y., Silva, P., and Seible, F. 共2000兲. ‘‘Development of a performance
evaluation database for concrete bridge components and systems
under simulated seismic loads.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 16共2兲, 412– 442.
Ikeda, S. 共1998兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete columns and
improvement by vertical prestressing.’’ Challenges for Concrete in the
Next Millennium, Proc., XIIIth FIP Congress, D. Stoelhorst and G. P.
L. den Boer, eds., Vol. 1, Balkema Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 879–
884.
Ito, T., Yamaguchi, T., and Ikeda, S. 共1997兲. ‘‘Seismic performance of
concrete piers prestressed in vertical direction.’’ Proc., Japan Con-
crete Institute, 19共2兲, 1197–1202 共in Japanese兲.
Kurama, Y. C. 共1997兲. ‘‘Seismic analysis, behavior, and design of un-
bonded post-tensioned precast concrete walls.’’ PhD dissertation,
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, Pa.
Kurama, Y. C., Pessiki, S., Sause, R., and Lu, L.-W. 共1999a兲. ‘‘Seismic
behavior and design of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete
walls.’’ PCI J., 44共3兲, 72– 89.
Kurama, Y. C., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., and Lu, L.-W. 共1999b兲. ‘‘Lateral
behavior and seismic design of unbonded post-tensioned precast con-
crete walls.’’ ACI Struct. J., 96共4兲, 622– 632.
Kwan, W.-P. 共2001兲. ‘‘Seismic analysis, behavior and performance-based
design of unbonded post-tensioned concrete substructure systems.’’
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003 / 101
J. Bridge Eng., 2003, 8(2): 92-101
PhD dissertation, Research Rep. No. 01-01, Cornell University, Ithaca,
N.Y.
Kwan, W.-P., and Billington, S. L. 共2001兲. ‘‘Simulation of structural con-
crete under cyclic load.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 127共12兲, 1391–1401.
Kwan, W.-P., and Billington, S. L. 共2003兲. ‘‘Unbonded posttensioned con-
crete bridge piers. II: Seismic analyses.’’ J. Bridge Eng., 8共2兲, 102–
111.
Mander, J. B., and Cheng, C.-T. 共1997a兲. ‘‘Seismic design of bridge col-
umns based on control and repairability of damage.’’ Technical Rep.
NCEER-97-0013, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Re-
search, State Univ. of New York, at Buffalo, N. Y.
Mander, J. B., and Cheng, C.-T. 共1997b兲. ‘‘Seismic resistance of bridge
piers based on damage avoidance design.’’ Technical Rep. NCEER-
97-0014, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
Univ. of New York at Buffalo, N.Y.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. 共1988兲. ‘‘Theoretical
stress-strain model for confined concrete.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 114共8兲,
1804 –1826.
Nilson, A. H. 共1987兲. Design of prestressed concrete, 2nd Ed., Wiley,
New York.
Priestley, M. J. N. 共1996兲. ‘‘The PRESSS program—Current status and
proposed plans for phase III.’’ PCI J., 41共2兲, 22– 40.
Priestley, M. J. N. 共1997兲. ‘‘Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineer-
ing.’’ Concr. Int., 19共2兲, 54 – 63.
Priestley, M. J. N., and MacRae, G. A. 共1996兲. ‘‘Seismic tests of precast
beam-to-column joint subassemblages with unbonded tendons.’’ PCI
J., 41共1兲, 64 – 80.
Priestley, M. J. N., and Tao, J. R. 共1993兲. ‘‘Seismic response of precast
prestressed concrete frames with partially debonded tendons.’’ PCI J.,
38共1兲, 58 – 69.
Sritharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. 共1999兲. ‘‘Enhancing seis-
mic performance of bridge cap beam-to-column joints using prestress-
ing.’’ PCI J., 44共4兲, 74 –91.
Sritharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. 共2000兲. ‘‘Nonlinear finite
element analyses of concrete bridge joint systems subjected to seismic
actions.’’ Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 36共3– 4兲, 215–233.
Stanton, J. F., Hawkins, N. M., and Hicks, T. R. 共1991兲. ‘‘PRESSS project
1.3: Connection classification and evaluation.’’ PCI J., 36共5兲,
62–71.
Stanton, J. F., Stone, W., and Cheok, G. S. 共1997兲. ‘‘A hybrid reinforced
precast frame for seismic regions.’’ PCI J., 42共2兲, 20–32.
Su, X., and Zhu, B. 共1994兲. ‘‘Algorithm for hysteresis analysis of
prestressed-concrete frames.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 120共6兲, 1732–1744.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. 共1986兲. ‘‘The modified compression-
field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear.’’ ACI
Struct. J., 83共2兲, 219–231.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. 共1993兲. ‘‘Compression response of
cracked reinforced concrete.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 119共12兲, 3590–3610.