Seismic Evaluation of Grouted Splice Sleeve Connections for
Reinforced Precast Concrete Bridge Piers
Chris P. Pantelides, PhD, PE, SEM.J. Ameli, PhD Candidate
Saratoga Springs, NYApril 2015
Introduction 2
Accelerated Bridge Construction
ABC Connections Modified for High-Seismic Regions
Khaleghi et al. (2012)
Utah Transit Authority (2012)
Introduction 3
GGSSFGSS
Air Tests 4
GGSS FGSS
Air Tests 5
• Rebar fracture• 169%fy on average• Type 2 (Building)• FMC (Bridge)
• Pull-out failure• 145%fy on average• Type 1 (Building)• FMC (Bridge)
fy = 76 ksi
FGSS
GGSS
Tests 6
• Prototype bridges in Utah considered• Capacity-based design procedure • AASHTO LRFD and AASHTO Seismic for detailing• Sectional and Pushover analyses conducted
–•
GGSS
FGSS
Half-Scale Tests 7
Construction of Specimens1 2
3 4
8
Half-Scale Tests/GGSS-1 Construction 9
Half-Scale Tests/GGSS-2 Construction 10
Half-Scale Tests/GGSS-3 Construction 11
Half-Scale Tests/GGSS-CIP Construction 12
Half-Scale Test/FGSS-1 Construction 13
Half-Scale Test/FGSS-2 Construction 14
Half-Scale Test/FGSS-CIP Construction 15
Test Procedure 16
GGSS-2 Construction and Installation
POT#1
Strain Gauges
String Potentiometers
LVDTs
Test Procedure 17
GGSS-2 Construction and Installation
-12-10-8-6-4-202468
1012
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Drif
t (%
)
Cycles
Test Results 18
Column-to-Footing Connections: Hysteretic Response
GGSS-2
GGSS-3 GGSS-CIP
GGSS-1
Test Results/GGSS-2 19
Column-to-Footing Connections: Observations
Test Results/GGSS-3 20
Column-to-Footing Connections: Observations
@ 3% Drift @ 6% Drift (Peak)
@ 8% Drift
Test Results 21
Column-to-Footing Connections: Comparison
Column-to-Footing Connections: Curvature ProfileGGSS-2 GGSS-3
Test Results 22
Column-to-Cap Beam Connections: Hysteretic ResponseFGSS-1 FGSS-2
FGSS-CIP
Test Results/FGSS-1 23
Test Results/FGSS-2 24
Test Results 25
Column-to-Cap Beam Connections: Comparison
Column-to-Cap Beam Connections: Curvature ProfileFGSS-1 FGSS-2
26
Repairability CFRP composite doughnut with headed steel bars
27
Repairability CFRP composite doughnut with headed steel bars
Repaired specimenperformed as good or better than the precast GSS specimen
18% larger ultimate load capacity18% larger ultimate displacement
capacity5% larger displacement ductility
15% larger energy dissipation capacity at 6% drift ratio
GSS
Conclusions 28
Column-to-Cap Beam Connections [FGSS]
Column-to-Footing Connections [GGSS]
General Findingso Desirable ductile performance of the CIP specimens o Failure of CIP specimens was rebar fracture due to low cycle fatigue o Localized damage for precast specimens with GSS in column baseo Similar damage state, strength capacity, curvature distribution, and hysteretic
performance to CIP specimens when GSS located in footing or cap beam, BUT different termination point and displacement ductility capacity for all precast specimens
o Repairable ABC Connections
o Failure of all precast specimens due to premature rebar fractureo Improved displacement ductility capacity when GGSS in the footing – harder to buildo Superior displacement ductility capacity when debonding implemented
o Pull-out failure for FGSS-1 due to excessive bond-slipo Pull-out failure and premature rebar fracture occurred for FGSS-2o Improved overall performance when FGSS located in the cap beam – harder to build
29
o University of Utaho Joel Parkso Dylan Browno Prof. Lawrence D. Reaveleyo Mark Bryant
o Utah Department of Transportationo Carmen Swanwicko Joshua Sletten
o New York State Department of Transportationo Harry White
o Texas Department of Transportationo Mountain Plains Consortiumo NMB Splice Sleeve North America & Erico
Acknowledgements
Top Related