FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGE PIER COLUMNS
SUBJECTED TO SEISMIS LOADING
By Benjamin M. Schlick
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
236 Marston Hall
Amherst, MA 01003
(413) 577-0142
ABSTRACT
Many reinforced concrete bridges in Massachusetts have
been constructed from the 1950's to the 1970's. These bridges
were designed by outdated building codes that did not account
for large seismic activities and were designed with typical
transverse reinforcement spacing that far exceed today's
standards and are therefore insufficient to resist the laterally
applied loads. This finite element analysis will involve
modeling a scaled version of a reinforced concrete bridge pier
column that is being used in Chelmsford Massachusetts. The
column will have an axial load applied at the top to simulate the
dead loads of the superstructure and will also be subjected to a
seismic loading. The cyclic loading will be controlled by the
yield displacement, which is calculated using the yield
curvature obtained from a computer analysis. The objective of
these tests will be to investigate the behavior of the reinforced
concrete column, particularly in the plastic hinge region where
the failure is predicted. Results will show that spalling of the
concrete will occur at the base of the column, which will
initiate failure with little energy dissipation.
Keywords: Reinforced Concrete, Plastic Hinge, Confinement,
Energy Dissipation
INTRODUCTION
Bridges constructed in the United States between the
1950's to the mid 70's where inadequately designed to resist
earthquake loading. After the damaged caused by the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake the design requirements have been
modified to accommodate the need for columns to achieve
sufficient strength and ductility during seismic activity.
However, the vulnerability of pre-1971 bridges has been
evident in the 1987 Whittier Narrows, the 1989 Loma Prieta,
and the 1994 Northridge earthquakes (1). Therefore, repairs to
existing bridge substructures must be considered to eliminate
further bridge pier failures.
There were two main deficiencies with bridge piers
designed before 1971: 1) insufficient lap splice length placed at
the base of the column and 2) widely spaced transverse
reinforcement. Before 1971 the lap splices were designed at
the footing of the columns and had a typical length equal to 20
bar diameters. In the existing Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete, ACI 318-02 (2), lap splices are required in
University of Massachusetts Amherst
the center half of the member length. The behavior of a
statically indeterminate structure subjected to earthquake
loading is such that after the moment strengths at one or more
points have been reached, discontinuities develop, commonly
known as "plastic hinges", in the elastic curve at those points,
which results in an inelastic analysis (2). With the insufficient
lap splice length at the base of the column in the plastic hinge
region and lack of confinement provided by the transverse
reinforcement, the longitudinal reinforcement is not able to
develop its desired strength and spalling of the concrete will
occur, which will result in debonding and initiate slippage.
Ultimately the base of the column can either experience a
brittle shear failure, or a brittle pullout failure.
BACKGROUND
The test specimens used to analyze the effects in the
bridge columns were typically designed to react as a cantilever
column with single bending. This will provide the largest
displacement at the top of the column and produce a linear
moment analysis, with the largest moment concentrated at the
base of the pier. In the elastic curve of the moment analysis
when the moment strengths are reached at one or more points,
discontinuities will develop and form plastic hinges, which will
result in an inelastic analysis. It is evident in the curvature
analysis that there is a plastic hinge region at the base of the
column in the inelastic range. The typical setup and diagrams
used to demonstrate the effects of cyclic loading on bridge
column substructures are shown in figure 1.
max
Lateral Force
Plastic
Hinge
Region
y
Mmax
u
Deflection Moment Curvature
Diagram Diagram Diagram
Figure 1 Reaction Diagrams
The bridge pier will be subjected to cyclic loading
until failure to determine the performance of the reinforced
1 Copyright #### by ASME
concrete column, specifically in the plastic hinge region. The
results determined from the previous experiments have shown
similar deficiencies within the plastic hinge region, which are
as follows:
1) Flexural strength short length of lapped
reinforcing bars in plastic hinge region.
2) Flexural ductility minimal confinement due to
large spacing of transverse reinforcement.
3) Shear strength low shear capacity in plastic
hinge region as a result of the reinforcement
details.
The poor performance of columns tested was a result
of insufficient concrete confinement around the base of the
column. Without the ability of the longitudinal steel to resist
debonding and slippage, the column was not be able to reach
sufficient flexural strength and react in a ductile manner.
Figure 2 displays the lap-splice in the plastic hinge region.
Lap-Splice of
Longitudinal Steel
Figure 2 Lap-Splice
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Specimen Geometry
The ANSYS finite element analysis program will be used
to develop the model geometry and properties designated by a
scaled version of a typical bridge built in Chelmsford,
Massachusetts. The longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
ratio of the bridge columns were approximately 2% and 0.5%
of the gross cross-sectional area, respectively and had yield
strength of 40 ksi. The cross sectional dimensions were scaled
to 1/4 of the originally dimensions to be an 8"x 8" square with a
depth of 36". The reinforced concrete column will be meshed
using a hexahedral volume element with a 1 in. side length.
Modeling Properties
The specimen will be modeled using the SOLID65
concrete element, which is used for modeling three-
dimensional solid models with or without rebar. The element is
capable of cracking, crushing, plastic deformation, and creep in
tension and compression using the non-linearity material
properties. The concrete material properties are as follows:
Density = 0.0868 lb/in3
Modulus of Elasticity E = 3.15x106 psi
Compressive Strength f'c = 3000 psi
Tensile Strength f't = 384 psi
Shear Coefficient Open Cracks = 0.7
Shear Coefficient Closed Cracks = 0.85
Tensile Stiffness Multiplier = 0.6 (default)
The SOLID65 element uses a smeared rebar capability,
which involves three different rebar materials orientated in any
direction relative to the global coordinate system. The rebar
was input to replicate the volumetric ratios and orientation of
the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the typical
bridge column. The material properties chosen for the rebar are
as shown:
Density = 0.2836 lb/in3
Modulus of Elasticity E = 29x106 psi
Yield Strength fy = 40x103 psi
The modeling of the non-linear properties of the 40 ksi
steel was accomplished by developing a stress-strain graph of
the multi-linear kinematic hardening properties. Figure 3
displays the stress-strain graph.
Figure 3 40 ksi Stress-Strain Graph
Modeling Assumptions
There are few assumptions that will be made with this
model due to the SOLID65 concrete element capabilities. One
assumption is that the base of the column will be fixed due to
the rigid foundation on the existing column. The model in this
analysis will not be used to accurately depict the results of the
displacement or applied forces to the existing column. This is a
consequence of not having any concept of the placement, size,
and number of reinforcing members of steel being used. The
reason we cannot predict the longitudinal or transverse steel
orientation is due to the smeared reinforcement associated with
the SOLID65 element. Figure 4 displays the different moment
capacities of the 8"x 8"column due to altered longitudinal steel
placement (4 - #4 bars).
2" 2.5"
#4 bar
Mu = 8 k-ft Mu = 7.5 k-ft
Figure 4 Ultimate Moment Capacities
2 Copyright #### by ASME
 Since there is no way of determining the arrangement of
the rebar placed in the column, this analysis will be used to
investigate the failure behavior of the reinforced concrete
column under cyclic loading rather than the maximum failure
loads and displacements. A lap-splice is not an option for this
analysis; therefore the model will be analyzed as continuous
longitudinal reinforcement.
Loading and Constraints
The model will have a zero degree of freedom constraint
placed at the base, to resemble the existing structure. An axial
load will be applied to the top of the column to represent the
superstructure dead load of the existing bridge. It is common
practice to take an axial load that is a percentage (20%) of the
compressive strength of the column. The axial load will be
applied as a surface pressure on the top of the column of 600
psi and the calculation is shown as follows:
The yield displacement was imposed onto the column to
test how it reacted and the model was found to fail just after 0.1
in. The failure displacement can now be used as a bench mark
when applying the cyclic displacements to the column.
Solution Analysis Type
A full transient dynamic analysis will be utilized to
perform a non-linear seismic analysis of the reinforced concrete
column. A small displacement transient analysis was required
when using a SOLID65 element to gain more accurate results.
Automatic time stepping was used and a minimum and
maximum time step was specified. The maximum time step
requirement is a function of the natural frequency of the
system. The column can be thought of as a single degree of
freedom model with a large mass at the top, the dead load of
600 psi, and the stiffness of the column. Figure 6 displays the
SDF model and the natural frequency calculation is as follows:

P = 0.2f'c = 600 psi

Where, M K
P = axial load n = = 14.57 rad/sec
f'c = 3000psi
M
Where,
The seismic loading will be controlled by fractions of the K 3EI
yield displacement. The yield displacement is calculated using K = column stiffness = 3
= 21.1 k/in
a computer program called SEQMC by extracting the yield Fixed L
curvature and applying that to the displacement equation. This EI = EIeff = 2.28x103 k-ft2 (from moment-
however, will not be an accurate yield displacement for the curvature analysis)
ANSYS model due to the unknown reinforcement arrangement
Figure 6 SDF 38.4kips
but it is still useful in determining an approximate magnitude of M = mass = 2
= .099k-s2/in
displacement for the model. Using a 2 in. cover to the 386in / s
longitudinal reinforcement a yield curvature was found to equal
5.92x10-41/in, which produced a yield displacement of 0.25 in.
The maximum time step is determined as follows:
Figure 5 displays the moment curvature plot and the yield
displacement is calculated as follows: 2
t < tcr = = 0.137 sec
n
2
yL A maximum and minimum time step was specified to
y = = 0.25 in. equal 0.1 sec to ensure a more accurate solution. The load
3 steps were determined by knowing the failure displacement of
Where, the reinforced concrete column to be approximately 0.1 in. The
y = yield displacement load steps were ramped starting from 0.02 in. loaded cyclically
y = yield curvature = 5.92x10-4 1/in to 0.14 in. Figure 7 and 8 display the loading scheme and the
L = length of column = 36 in. applied loads and constraints to the model, respectively.

Displacement vs. Time

0.2

0.15

0.1
Displacement (in.)

0.05

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

Time

Figure 5 Moment-Curvature Plot Figure 7 Loading Pattern

3 Copyright #### by ASME

 Axial Load (600 psi)

Integration
Points of the
Cracks
Lateral Deflection

Figure 9 Initial Cracking

The cracking had occurred at a moment that was greater

than the cracking moment therefore the results show good
accuracy. The column ultimately failed at time equal to 20.8
Fixed Base where the displacement had reached 0.1in., which is were the
expected failure would occur due to previous testing earlier in
the report. The cracking at failure indicates loss of structural
integrity in the plastic hinge region. This is where the cover
concrete would begin to spall away from the longitudinal steel.
This will ultimately cause the longitudinal steel to buckle due
Figure 8 Loading and Constraints to the slippage between the concrete and steel. The cracking of
the concrete is a result from the large stresses imposed in the
TEST RESULTS plastic hinge region. These stresses can be seen exceeding the
concrete compressive strength and therefore causing failure at
Confinement the base of the column. Figures 10 and 11 display the stresses
The expected region of failure is in the plastic hinge and cracking in the plastic hinge region at failure, respectively.
region, which is located at the base of the column up to
approximately 1.5 times the diameter of the column (12 in.).
This has been experimentally validated through previous
research and they are where discontinuities will begin to form
and develop hinges, which will result in an inelastic analysis.
Using the ANSYS finite element program with a SOLID65
element there are crushing and cracking capabilities. The first
cracks started to occur at time equal to 3.6, the reaction at the
base of the column was determined and then the moment at
which the crack had occurred was compared to the cracking
moment of the model. Figure 9 shows the initial cracks in the
plastic hinge region and the moments were calculated as
follows:

M = PL = 3.98 k-ft
Where,
M = moment at initial crack Plastic
P = reaction at time 3.6 = 1.326 kips Hinge
L = distance to crack = 36 in Region

' I
Mcr = 7.5 fc = 2.93 k-ft
y
Where,
Mcr = cracking moment
1 4 Figure 10 Stress at Failure
I = moment of inertia = 8 = 341 in4
12
y = distance to extreme fiber = 4 in.

4 Copyright #### by ASME

 Loading CONCLUSION
The objective of this research was to indicate the failure
mode of a reinforced concrete column during seismic activity.
The modeling of the bridge column did not replicate the exact
structural integrity of the existing column due to the smeared
rebar application that was utilized. Therefore, the results will
not be used to calculate the moment or ductility capacity of the
member; instead the results will be used to determine the
triggering effects which caused the column to fail.
The results of the full transient analysis indicate that the
column experienced significant cracking and crushing in the
plastic hinge region, which can be viewed on figures 11. This
will lead to spalling of the concrete around the base of the
column and ultimately cause the longitudinal steel to debond
with the concrete and initiate slippage. This is further
investigated by the lack of energy dissipated into the column
during the cyclic loading, which can be seen in figure 12. As a
final result of this analysis it is evident that the column is
deficient in confinement of the reinforcement in the plastic
Plastic Hinge hinge region leading to either a brittle shear failure, or a brittle
Region pullout failure.

Figure 11 Cracking at Failure
Energy Dissipation
A reinforced concrete bridge pier must be able to absorb
energy into the column during seismic activity to ensure that
there is bonding between the concrete and steel reinforcement.
The more energy that is dissipated into column will be evidence
to show that there is interaction between the steel and concrete
and the column is not losing its structural integrity due to
debonding and spalling of the concrete.
From the results of the finite element model there shows
very little energy dissipation, which is a good indicator that the
column is forming large cracks in the plastic hinge region and
the longitudinal steel is slipping in the concrete. This shows
that the concrete is spalling at the base and the column will
experience a brittle failure. The energy dissipated is shown by
the area in the hysteresis loops, which can be viewed in load vs.
displacement figure 12.
FURTHER INVESTIGATION
The results of this research were used only to determine the
failure mode of the column and not the actual capacity of a
reinforced concrete column subjected to lateral loading.
Therefore research should be done using the SOLID65 element
for concrete non-linear behavior without the rebar capability.
The reinforcement must be modeled separately with the
original steel characteristics and placement in the concrete
volume. This could be done with using a three-dimensional
structural contact element, which will provide useful
information on the slippage effects during the transient loading
and can also be used for splices at the base of the column to
simulate existing structures.
It would also be useful to apply a confining element in the
plastic hinge region to further investigate the reinforced
concrete column confinement and determine the effectiveness
of using a retrofit. A retrofitting scheme that is currently being
taken used involves the use of either a steel shell filled with a
cement based grout or a fiber reinforcing polymer wrapped
around the plastic hinge region. The information collected
from the use of these two structural enhancements will be very
useful in the future for seismic retrofitting.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Load vs. Displacement
Prof. Ian. R. Grosse
4.5
Prof. Sergio F. Brea
3.5

2.5 REFERENCES
1.5

1. Jaradat, Omar A.; McLean, David I.; Marsh, M. Lee

Load (kips)

0.5

-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
(1998) "Performance of Existing Bridge Columns Under
Cyclic Loading Part 1: Experimental Results and Observed
-0.5

-1.5
Behavior"; ACI Structural Journal, v95, n6, Nov-Dec, 1998, p
-2.5
695-704
-3.5

-4.5 2. "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete

Displacement (in.) and Commentary (American Concrete Institute ACI 318-02),
Figure 12 Energy Dissipated Farmington Hills, Michigan, August 2002

5 Copyright #### by ASME