1. Introduction.....................................................................

1
2. System Description...........................................................2
2.1. Hybrid Sliding-Rocking Segmental Joints and Members. .2
3. Experimental Validation Shake Table Testing....................4
3.1. Specimen Description..................................................4
3.2. Test Execution and Results...........................................5
3.2.1. Results from a Single Test...........................................................................6
3.2.2. Effects of System / Excitation Parameters..................................................8
3.2.3. Post-Testing Inspection.............................................................................10

4. Conclusions....................................................................11
5. Acknowledgments...........................................................12
Seismic Test: S1_SC_M2_YZ

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE SEISMIC

PERFORMANCE OF HYBRID SLIDING-ROCKING
POST-TENSIONED SEGMENTAL BRIDGES
Petros Sideris1, Amjad J. Aref1, and Andre Filiatrault1
1

University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT:
In this paper, the novel concept of hybrid sliding-rocking (HSR) post-tensioned segmental members for seismic
applications in bridges is presented. Fundamental components of the HSR members are the HSR segmental joints
coupled with internal unbonded post-tensioning (PT). The HSR joints can potentially exhibit sliding and/or rocking
to mitigate the applied seismic loading. The joint response is controlled by the geometry of the PT system, which
can follow linear or nonlinear layouts along the member length. Two distinct types of HSR members are considered;
those with slip-dominant joints and linear PT geometry, intended for bridge substructures, and those with rockingdominant joints and nonlinear PT geometry, intended for bridge superstructures. A series of shake table tests
validated the seismic performance of the proposed system.
Keywords: segmental construction; seismic testing; bridges; post-tensioning; sliding; rocking

1. INTRODUCTION
Precast concrete segmental bridges are composed of members that consist of a number of
segments post-tensioned together by several, typically bonded, tendons. Shear keys and epoxy
adhesives are used at the segmental joints to provide resistance against shear (sliding) and
tension (opening/separation). This approach emulates the cast-in-place concrete systems and is
intended to make segmental bridges respond as if they were monolithic.
Over the past 30 years, the number of precast concrete segmental bridges has increased
substantially both in the United States and around the world, mainly due to the advantages that
segmental construction offers compared to the traditional cast-in-place techniques. These
advantages primarily relate to: (i) higher construction quality, since the segments are constructed
in precast plants under high quality control, and (ii) rapid construction, considering that as soon
as the segments are delivered to the construction site, only assembly and preparation of the joint
connections are required. The significant reduction of the on-site construction time gave this
method, over the years, the name Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC).
Despite the evident advantages that precast segmental bridge systems offer, their
application has been limited only to low seismicity areas, primarily due to the fact that their
seismic performance is largely unknown. In this paper, a novel segmental ABC system for
bridges, intended for moderate and high seismicity areas, is presented and its seismic
performance is validated experimentally. The proposed bridge system consists of hybrid slidingrocking (HSR) post-tensioned segmental members (Sideris 2012), which incorporate HSR
segmental joints and internal unbonded post-tensioning. The concept of HSR members is
validated through a series of shake table tests conducted in the Structural Engineering and
Earthquake Simulation Laboratory (SEESL) of the University at Buffalo (UB).

The objective of this paper is to provide only a brief presentation of the proposed HSR
members. A complete presentation of the HSR concepts and detailed description of their
experimental and numerical validation is provided in Sideris (2012).
2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
2.1. Hybrid Sliding-Rocking Segmental Joints and Members
The HSR members combine two fundamental components: (i) HSR segmental joints, and
(ii) Internal unbonded post-tensioning (PT) of linear or nonlinear geometry along the member
length. The HSR joints are simple friction-type connections defined by direct plane surface-tosurface contact between adjacent segments without shear keys. The HSR joints utilize relative
segment-to-segment sliding (joint sliding) and gap opening (joint rocking) to mitigate the applied
seismic loading. At the segment ends adjacent to the joints, the ducts accommodating the
unbonded PT system are substituted by duct adaptors, which are pieces of tubing of larger
diameter than that of the ducts. As discussed below, the duct adaptors control the amplitude of
joint sliding and the bearing tendon forces. The response mode of an HSR joint for a given
applied loading depends on the geometric properties of the joint and the frictional properties at
the joint interface. The shear resistance, VR,s, at the joint interface is given by:
VR ,s N a N PT

where is the coefficient of friction at the joint interface, Na is the applied axial force
(compressive), and NPT is the total applied PT force (compressive). The resisting moment against
joint rocking, MR,r, is given as:
d

ac dc , min N a N PT
2

M R ,r

where d is the cross-section depth, dc,min is the minimum depth of the contact interface and ac is a
parameter accounting for the stress distribution over the contact interface, with ac [1/3, 1/2].
The minimum depth is determined from damage control criteria under ultimate loading or elastic
response conditions. Similarly, ac = 1/3 represents the case of triangular stress distribution
(elastic response), while ac = 1/2 represents the case of the equivalent uniform stress distribution
at ultimate loading conditions. Both Na and NPT have been assumed to pass through the axis of
symmetry of the cross-section.
For a slip-dominant joint, the applied joint shear, Va, reaches the shear strength, VR,s,
before the corresponding applied moment, Ma, reaches the resisting moment, MR,r. The resulting
sliding may continue until the tendons come in bearing contact with both the top and bottom duct
adaptors at the joint interface (see Figure 1 (b)). In that case, the sliding capacity of the joint has
been reached and application of additional loading could only cause joint rocking, as shown in
Figure 1 (c). The sliding capacity of the joint is controlled by the difference in diameter between
the duct adaptors and the PT tendons. Due to the simulatemous application of moment, axial and
shear force (e.g., at a pier joint), partial gap opening (rocking) can occur during joint sliding.
For a rocking-dominant joint, the frictional resistance at the joint interface, VR,s, is never
reached. Thus, the response initiates and continues with rocking. If, during partial gap opening
(dc > dc,min, where dc is the contact depth), sliding initiates (i.e., transition from rocking to
sliding), the joint is considered to be slip-dominant. This phenomenon can occur in cases of
pressure-dependent coefficients of friction at the joint interface, as observed by Sideris (2012).
2

Joint sliding provides energy dissipation with small damage (through friction. Selfcentering during joint sliding is moderate, since re-centering forces are only provided by the
bearing contact of the tendons with the ducts and duct adaptors, which is activated after some
(prescribed) sliding has been reached. These forces are maximized when the joint sliding
capacity is reached (i.e., when the tendon comes in contact with the top and bottom duct adaptors
at the location of the joint, as shown in Figure 1 (b)).
Joint rocking provides high self-centering that deteriorates at larger rocking rotations due
to concrete crushing at the joint edges. The energy dissipation from joint rocking is low, since
concrete damage and tendon yielding are the only energy dissipative mechanisms of this
response mode.
The response of HSR joints is directly influenced by the geometric layout of the PT
tendons along the members length. Typically, straight tendons allow for some (prescribed) joint
sliding to occur before bearing forces are activated. On the contrary, curved tendons apply large
bearing forces, even for minor joint sliding. Thus, linear or nonlinear PT geometry can be used as
a design strategy to partially restrain joint sliding, such as in superstructures, for which joint
sliding is undesirable.
The HSR members may include several joints along their length. Based on the type of
HSR joints and the geometry of the PT system, two distinct types of HSR members are
considered herein: (i) HSR members with slip-dominant joints and linear PT geometry
(abbreviated as HSR-SD members), intended for substructures, and (ii) HSR members with
rocking-dominant joints and nonlinear PT geometry (abbreviated as HSR-RD members),
intended for superstructures. The seismic response characteristics of HSR members are dictated
by the response properties of the corresponding dominant joint response modes.
A major difference in the response of HSR-SD members over that of monolithic and
rocking-only segmental members is their inherent capability of providing energy dissipation
through joint sliding. For seismic applications, this is an attractive property that can eliminate the
need for supplemental energy dissipation, typically provided by external devices in rocking-only
members. Furthermore, potential residual joint sliding is not associated with structural damage
and could potentially be restored by various means (Sideris 2012).
It is noted that the rocking-dominant joints of HSR-RD members differ from
conventional rocking joints in that: (i) they do not include shear keys, and (ii) they are used in
superstructures (unlike rocking joints that have only been considered in substructures).

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. Slip-dominant HSR joint: (a) Undeformed configuration, (b) Sliding capacity reached, and (c) Rocking
response, after sliding capacity has been reached

3. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION SHAKE TABLE TESTING

The seismic performance of the proposed HSR members is evaluated through a series of
shake table tests on a large-scale single-span bridge specimen.
3.1. Specimen Description
The experimental specimen was a large-scale (~1:2.39) single-span single-cell box girder
precast concrete segmental bridge with both of its supports overhanging at equal lengths of 25%
of the length of the span. The test specimen represented the mid-span of the prototype five-span
single-cell box girder concrete bridge considered by Megally et al. (2002). The length of the
specimens superstructure was 61.9 ft (18.9 m) with a pier-to-pier distance of 41.9 ft (12.9 m).
The height of each pier (including the cap beam, but not the foundation block and the
superstructure) reached 11.9 ft (3.6 m). The specimen is shown mounted on the dual shake tables
of SEESL at UB in the photograph of Figure 2 (a).
The bridge specimen consisted of a HSR-RD superstructure and two single-column HSRSD piers. The superstructure consisted of eight hollow segments of trapezoidal cross-section
which were post-tensioned together by 12 internal unbonded tendons; 10 harped-shaped and two
straight (located at the top flange). Each pier consisted of five segments of hollow square crosssection that were post-tensioned together by eight straight internal unbonded tendons. The
superstructure cross-section is shown in Figure 2 (b), while the pier segment is illustrated in plan
and elevation view in Figure 2 (c) and (d), respectively. The PT system of the superstructure is
shown in elevation and plan view in Figure 3 (a) and (b), respectively, while the PT system of the
substructure is illustrated in Figure 3 (c). To facilitate support of the superstructure on the piers, a
cap beam of trapezoidal solid shape was placed on top of each pier. Moreover, a foundation
block was attached at the bottom of each pier to allow mounting of each pier on one of the two
relocatable shake tables of SEESL (see Figure 2 (a)). The foundation block, the cap beam and the
five pier segments shared the same PT tendons, as shown in Figure 3 (c). The superstructure was
simply supported on the cap beams, while no bearings or pads were considered at the
superstructure-to-cap beam interfaces.

(a)
Figure 2. Precast concrete segmental bridge specimen (1 = 12, 1 = 2.54 cm): (a) Mounted on the two relocatable
shake tables in SEESL at University at Buffalo, (b) Superstructure cross-section, (c) Pier segment Cross-section,
and (d) Pier segment Elevation view

Figure 3. Post-tensioning system (1 = 12, 1 = 2.54 cm): (a) Superstructure Elevation view, (b) Superstructure
Plan view, and (c) Pier Elevation view

The superstructure and substructure incorporated tendons of diameter of 0.5 (1.27 cm)
and 0.6 (1.52 cm), respectively. Ducts of the same interior diameter (0.9 - 2.29 cm) were
considered for tendons of both diameters. No duct adaptors were used in the superstructure to
further restrain potential joint sliding. On the contrary, duct adaptors of interior diameter of
1.375 (3.49 cm) and length of 1.5 (3.81 cm) were used at both ends of all pier segments, as
shown in Figure 2 (d). At full engagement of the tendons with the duct adaptors (or ducts) at both
sides of a joint, the resulting nominal joint sliding capacity was: (i) 0.4 (= 0.9 - 0.5) or 1.02
cm (= 2.29 cm - 1.27 cm) at the superstructure, and (ii) 0.775 (= 1.375 - 0.6) or 1.97 cm (=
3.49 cm - 1.52 cm) at the substructure. A thin layer of silicone material was applied to all pier
joints to provide uniform frictional properties over the joint interface and reduce the concrete-toconcrete coefficient of friction to the target range of 0.08 to 0.10. Silicone material was not
applied to the superstructure joints, where larger coefficients of friction were desired to prevent
sliding. To minimize stress concentration at the superstructure joints, all segments were
constructed with the match-cast method, according to which each segment was cast while in
contact with its adjacent one. To alleviate stress concentration at the pier joints, interface
treatment combined with application of the silicone material was considered.
The design of the bridge specimen was based on AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (2007) and partially assisted by the PCI Bridge Design Manual (2003). The
seismic hazard considered was associated with a site in the Western United States, while the
vertical hazard was taken as 2/3 of the horizontal hazard, which is a typical assumption in
practice, as stated in the ATC/MCEER Joint Venture (2003). Larger response modification
factors, R, than those recommended by AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2007 ),
were used for the force-based design of both the superstructure (R = 2.5 instead of 1) and the
substructure (R = 2.51.5 = 3.75 instead of 1.5) in order to challenge the ductility capacity,
energy dissipation and self-centering capabilities of the HSR bridge components.
3.2. Test Execution and Results
The test specimen was subjected to a large number of shake table tests (nearly 150) with
a far-field (F-F) and a near-fault (N-F) ground motion (GM) ensemble. The F-F ensemble
consisted of five motions, while the N-F ensemble consisted of six motions. These GM
ensembles were subsets of the FEMA P695 F-F and N-F GM sets (FEMA P695 2009). The
5

seismic tests evaluated the system seismic performance with respect to several seismic hazard
levels, site-to-source distance (F-F vs. N-F motions), and spatial variability of the ground motion
input. The considered seismic hazard levels included (but were not limited to) the Design
Earthquake (DE probability of exceedance (PoE): 10% in 50 years) given by the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2007) and the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE
PoE: 2% in 50 years) defined as 3/2 of the DE hazard as recommended by ASCE/SEI 7-05
(2006). Results from a single test are first employed to demonstrate key response characteristics
of the proposed HSR members, while the effects of the above mentioned excitation parameters
on the system response are presented later.
3.2.1. Results from a Single Test
In this test, the specimen was subjected to the lateral and vertical component of a motion
(ID No. 5 per FEMA P695 2009 Delta station, owned by UNAM / UCSD) recorded during the
1979 Imperial Valley earthquake. The lateral component of this motion was considered when the
F-F GM set was scaled to the MCE hazard, whereas the vertical component was considered
when the F-F GM set was scaled to approximately 2.4DE. The 5%-damped acceleration
response spectra of the horizontal and vertical components of the motions recorded at the
foundation blocks are compared with the corresponding DE and MCE spectra in Figure 4 (a) and
(b), respectively. At the fundamental periods of the system (approximately 0.44 sec and 0.14 sec
in the lateral and vertical direction, respectively, before that test), the MCE hazard was exceeded
by approximately 40% and 70% in the lateral and vertical direction, respectively.

(c)
Figure 4. (a) Response spectra (=5%) of lateral motions recorded at the foundation blocks versus DE (AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2007) and MCE (1.5DE) spectra, (b) Response spectra (=5%) of the vertical
motions recorded at the foundation blocks versus DE and MCE spectra (defined as 2/3 of corresponding horizontal
hazard), and (c) Base shear versus top displacement for both piers

The hysteretic response of both HSR-SD piers (i.e., base shear force versus lateral
displacement on top) is presented in Figure 4 (c). As shown, both piers provide energy
dissipation and self-centering capabilities. The energy dissipation is more pronounced at smaller
displacement amplitudes, as indicated by the fatter hysteresis loop, particularly for the east
pier. In contrast, the self-centering capabilities become more dominant at larger displacement
amplitudes. Such response characteristics result from the fact that HSR-SD members initially

(i.e., at smaller displacements) respond with joint sliding at several joints, while as the
displacement demand increases, joint rocking is initiated, primarily at the bottom joints. As a
result of the initial joint sliding, HSR-SD members exhibit higher energy dissipation capabilities
at smaller displacements, but moderate self-centering capacity. In contrast, the subsequent joint
rocking response reduces the energy dissipation capacity of the HSR-SD members, but
considerably enhances their self-centering capabilities. The joint sliding hysteresis (i.e., joint
shear versus joint sliding) and joint rocking hysteresis (i.e., joint moment versus joint rocking) at
the two lower joints of both piers are presented in Figure 5 (a) and (b), respectively. The joint
identification, JE0 and JE1, represents the bottom joint and the second joint from the bottom of
the east pier, respectively. Similarly, the nomenclature, JW0 and JW1, refers to the corresponding
joints of the west pier. Substantial sliding is observed at the joints JE1 and JW1, while sliding is
small at the two bottom joints, JE0 and JW0. In contrast, considerable rocking is observed at the
two bottom joints, JE0 and JW0, whereas rocking is negligible at the joint JE1 and JW1. These
hysteresis plots also demonstrate the energy dissipation characteristics of joint sliding as well as
the self-centering properties of joint rocking.

(b)

(a)

(c)
Figure 5. HSR joint response (1 kip= 4.45 kN, 1 in = 2.54 cm): (a) Joint shear force vs. joint sliding, and (b) Joint
moment vs. joint rocking

The response of the HSR-RD superstructure in the vertical direction was dominated by
the first mode, which resulted in considerable joint rocking at mid-span. According to the

rocking hysteresis at mid-span, shown in Figure 5 (c), the rocking mode exhibited high selfcentering capacity, which resulted in negligible residual deformations, as well as low energy
dissipation properties.
3.2.2. Effects of Excitation Parameters
The effect of some excitation parameters on the system response was identified through
the series of shake table tests. In the plots that will be presented in this section, the index I
refers to initialized (from zero) displacement histories (at a single test), while the index AD
refers to displacement signals incorporating the accumulated deformations from all preceding
tests.

Effect of Seismic Hazard Level

Four seismic hazard levels were considered, namely Low DE (PoE: 25% in 50 years),
DE, MCE (= 1.5DE), Amplified DE-1 (= 2.4DE) and Amplified DE-2 (= 3.6DE). A mixed
hazard level was also considered and was referred to as SC. The SC hazard incorporated the
horizontal components of the input motions when the GM ensembles were scaled to the MCE
hazard, and the vertical component of the input motions when the GM ensembles were scaled to
2.4DE hazard. This combination represented the dynamic capacities of the shake tables in the
horizontal and vertical directions simultaneously.
For the substructure, the peak displacement response of the system increased with the
seismic intensity, whereas the residual displacement response maintained very low values, as
shown in Figure 6, which presents peak and residual displacement values from the five motions
of the far-field ensemble. The lateral response of the east pier reached a maximum peak value
that exceeded 6.5 (~16.5 cm, ~5% drift ratio), while the residual deformation was
approximately 1 (~2.54 cm, ~0.8% drift ratio).

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. Peak and residual relative lateral displacement of the piers when the specimen was subjected to the farfield ground motion ensemble: (a) East pier, and (b) West pier

Figure 7. Peak (upward and downward) and residual relative displacement of the superstructure at mid-span when
the specimen was subjected to the far-field ground motion ensemble

Similarly, for the superstructure, the peak upward and downward displacements at midspan increased with the seismic intensity; however, the residual deformations were negligible, as
demonstrated in Figure 7. The increasing seismic intensity resulted in loss of vertical contact
between the superstructure and the cap beams. Despite the fact that the impact (at reconnection)
was a violent phenomenon, the moment strength of the HSR joint at mid-span controlled the
maximum seismic force applied to the system.

Effect of FarField vs. NearFault Motions

To identify differences in the response of the HSR bridge specimen subjected to F-F and
N-F base exciation, tests were conducted with the F-F and N-F GM ensembles scaled to the DE
seismic hazard level. Based on the acceleration response spectra of the recorded input
excitations, similar seismic forces were applied to the specimen in the transverse direction (with
respect to the fundamental mode) by both GM ensemble. However, in the vertical direction, the
seismic forces applied by the N-F GM ensemble were much larger.
Both the substructure and the superstructure experienced larger displacements when the
specimen was subjected to the N-F GM ensemble (see Figures Figure 8 and Figure 9). The
residual displacements were small for the substructure and negligible for the superstructure.

Effect of Asynchronous Base Excitations

Spatial variability of the ground motion input was considered in the form of a time lag
between the time instants of initiation of shaking at each foundation block. Three cases were
considered with time lags of zero, 0.05 seconds and 0.5 seconds, and tests were conducted with
the F-F GM ensemble scaled to the Low DE seismic hazard level.
In the transverse direction, the pier displacements decreased with the time lag as shown
in Figure 10. This behavior is attributed to the asynchronous inertial forces applied to the
specimen. Specifically, the time lag reduces the total inertial force applied to the specimen at a
given time instant, since the inertial forces applied by the shake tables in the east and the west
side of the specimen are not in phase. The same response characteristics were observed for the
superstructure in the vertical direction, albeit, the corresponding reduction was not as evident
(see Figure 11). In the longitudinal direction, the response of the system was quite different,
primarily due to the fact that relative displacement between the shake tables in that direction

could generate high base reactions even if the applied inertial forces to the system remain small.
As a result of this behavior, the displacement response was almost insensitive to the time lag.

(a)

(b)

Figure 8. Peak and residual relative lateral displacement of the piers when the specimen was subjected to the farfield and near-fault ground motion ensembles scaled to the DE seismic hazard: (a) East pier, and (b) West pier.

Figure 9. Peak (upward and downward) and residual relative displacement of the superstructure at mid-span when
the specimen was subjected to the far-field and near-fault ground motion ensembles scaled to the DE seismic hazard.

3.2.3. Post-Testing Inspection

Inspection of the bridge specimen at the end of this test revealed that the HSR-SD piers
sustained only small damage, albeit the input excitation significantly exceeded the MCE hazard
level and the piers were designed for R=3.75. Larger damage was prevented by the considerable
joint sliding as demonstrated by the measured data. The observed damage was in the form of
spalling of the concrete reinforcement cover in the vicinity of the second from the bottom joint as
a result of sliding, and limited concrete crushing at the bottom joint due to the high moment
demand. For the HSR-RD superstructure, the damage was insignificant, while negligible joint
sliding was also observed at all jointseven those close to the supports, which were subjected to
the largest shear forces. This response is attributed to the combined effect of nonlinear PT
geometry, dry friction, and small allowable joint sliding capacity.
10

(a)

(b)

Figure 10. Peak and residual relative lateral displacement of the piers when the specimen was subjected to the farfield ground motion ensemble scaled to the Low DE seismic hazard: (a) East pier, and (b) West pier.

Figure 11. Peak (upward and downward) and residual relative displacement of the superstructure at mid-span when
the specimen was subjected the far-field ground motion ensemble scaled to the Low DE seismic hazard.

4. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the concept of hybrid sliding-rocking (HSR) post-tensioned segmental
members for bridge systems in seismic regions was presented and evaluated experimentally. The
HSR members consist of HSR joints coupled with internal unbonded post-tensioning (PT) of
linear on nonlinear geometric layout along the member length. Two distinct HSR member types
were considered; those with slip-dominant joints and linear PT geometry (abbreviated as HSRSD members), intended for substructures, and those with rocking-dominant joints and non-linear
PT geometry (abbreviated as HSR-RD members), intended for superstructures.
The proposed system was evaluated through a series of shake table tests with a largescale bridge specimen incorporating a HSR-RD superstructure and two single-column HSR-SD
piers. The HSR-SD piers exhibited substantial energy dissipation, large deformation capacity and
moderate self-centering capabilities. Small damage was observed in the form of concrete
11

crushing at the bottom and spalling in the vicinity of the lower HSR joints, while joint sliding
was found to be a low-damage response mode. The HSR-RD superstructure exhibited low
energy dissipation, high self-centering and negligible damage. Both HSR member types
demonstrated the ability to control of the applied seismic loading by modifying their stiffness
and strength.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S.
Department of Transportation for providing funding for this research through the
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) of the University at
Buffalo The State University of New York. The Bodossaki Foundation and the Alexander S.
Onassis Public Benefit Foundation are also acknowledged for providing partial financial support
to the first author.
REFERENCES
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2007). "AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, 4th Edition." American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001.
ASCE/SEI 7-05 (2006). " Minimum design loads for buildings and others Structures." American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.
ATC/MCEER Joint Venture (2003). "MCEER/ATC-49: Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the
Seismic Design of Highway Bridges." Part I: Specifications and Part II: Commentary
and Appendices, MCEER-03-SP03, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (MCEER) / Applied Technology Council (ATC).
FEMA P695 (2009). "Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors." Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Megally, S. H., Garg, M., Seible, F., Dowell, R. K. (2002). "Seismic Performance of Precast
Segmental Bridge Superstructures." Report No. SSRP2001/24, Department of Structural
Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0085.
PCI Bridge Design Manual (2003). "Precast/Prestressed Concrete Bridge Design Manual, 2nd
Edition." Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), 209 W. Jackson Blvd. #500,
Chicago, IL 60606 - 312.786.0300.
Sideris, P. (2012). "Seismic Analysis and Design of Precast Concrete Segmental Bridges." Ph.D.
Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, U.S.A.

12