Due to the fast construction and low interference, precast segmental bridge columns have gained increasing attention for use in non-seismic regions. However, their applications in seismic areas remain scarce due to their ambiguous dynamic performance. To estimate the seismic performance of PSBCs, existing quasi-static cyclic tests and shaking table tests are gathered and reviewed in this study. According to the structural details and material property at the joints, the PSBCs are categorized as 11 types based on the connection type, namely grouted splice sleeve couplers (GSSCs), grouted corrugated duct connections (GCDCs), wet joint connections (WJCs), mechanical bar splice connections, socket connections (SCs), unbonded post-tensioned tendon connections (UPTCs), partial precast columns (PPCs), hybrid connections (HCs), high-strength steel bars (HSBs), high-performance concrete (HPC), and external dissipators (EXDs). Based on the experimental results, the failure reason of each connection types are discussed and the effective structural details are suggested. And also, the PSBCs are divided into those with ductile and resilient connections according to the damage levels, residual drift ratios, displacement ductility coefficients, equivalent viscous damping ratios and effective stiffness parameters. With the achievements in this research, the application of PSBCs is expected to be promoted in medium-to-high seismic regions.
AmeliMParksJEBrownDN, et al. (2015). Seismic evaluation of grouted splice sleeve connections for reinforced precast concrete column-to-cap beam joints in accelerated bridge construction. PCI Journal60: 80–103. March-April.
2.
AndishehKLiuRPalermoA, et al. (2018). Cyclic behavior of corroded fuse-type dissipaters for posttensioned rocking bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering23(4): 04018008.
3.
BaoLZhangYSangZ, et al. (2018). Quasi-static and numerical analysis for seismic performance of fabricated assemble bridge piers base on bellows connection. China, Journal of Highway and Transport31(12):243-249.
4.
BuZDingYLiY, et al. (2012). Earthquake resistant design for cross-sea bridge segmental assembly abutments. Port Engineering Technology49(2): 36–40.
5.
BuZYOuYCSongJW, et al. (2016). Cyclic loading test of unbonded and bonded posttensioned precast segmental bridge columns with circular section. Journal of Bridge Engineering21(2): 04015043.
6.
CaiZKWangZYYangTY (2018). Experimental testing and modeling of precast segmental bridge columns with hybrid normal- and high-strength steel bars. Construction and Building Materials166: 945–955.
7.
CaiZKWangZYYangTY (2019). Cyclic load tests on precast segmental bridge columns with both steel and basalt FRP reinforcement. Journal of Composites for Construction23(3): 04019014.
8.
ChenJZhaoCDingF, et al. (2019). Experimental study on the seismic behavior of precast concrete column with grouted corrugated sleeves and debonded longitudinal reinforcements. Advances in Structural Engineering22(15): 3277–3289.
9.
ChenXMiaoQSYangCT, et al. (2020). Experimental study on tensile performance of defect detectable and reparable half grouted sleeve connection. Engineering Mechanics37(9): 199–207.
10.
ElGawadyMBookerAJDawoodHM (2010). Seismic behavior of posttensioned concrete-filled fiber tubes. Journal of Composites for Construction14(5): 616–628.
11.
ElGawadyMASha’lanA (2011). Seismic behavior of self-centering precast segmental bridge bents. Journal of Bridge Engineering16(3): 328–339.
12.
ElsayedMNehdiML (2017). Experimental and analytical study on grouted duct connections in precast concrete construction. Materials and Structures50: 198–213.
13.
FanJJFengDCWuG, et al. (2020). Experimental study of prefabricated RC column-foundation assemblies with two different connection methods and using large-diameter reinforcing bars. Engineering Structure205: 110075.
14.
GeJPWangZQ (2011). Shake table tests of segmental bridge columns with match-cast dry joints. Engineering Mechanics28(9): 122–128.
15.
GeJPXiaZHJiangH (2018). Biaxial quasi-static experiment of precast segmental bridge piers with grouting corrugated pipe connection. China, Journal of Highway and Transport31(12): 222–230.
16.
GuoTCaoZXuZ, et al., (2016). Cyclic load tests on self-centering concrete pier with external dissipators and enhanced durability. Journal of Structural Engineering142(1): 04015088.
17.
HaberZBSaiidiMSSandersDH (2013). Precast Column-Footing Connections for Accelerated Bridge Construction in Seismic Zones. Reno, NV: Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada. p. 502. Report No.CCEER-13-08.
18.
HaberZBMackieKRAl-JelawyHM (2017). Testing and analysis of precast columns with grouted sleeve connections and shifted plastic hinging. Journal of Bridge Engineering22(10): 04017078.
19.
HanWLZhaoZQianJ, et al. (2018). Seismic behavior of precast columns with large-spacing and high-strength longitudinal rebars spliced by epoxy mortar-filled threaded couplers. Engineering Structures176: 349–360.
20.
HaraldssonOSJanesTMEberhardMO, et al. (2013). Seismic resistance of socket connection between footing and precast column. Journal of Bridge Engineering18(9): 910–919.
21.
HashimotoSFujinoYAbeM (2005). Damage analysis of Hanshin expressway viaducts during 1995 Kobe earthquake. Ⅱ:Damage mode of single reinforced concrete piers. Journal of Bridge Engineering10(1): 54–60.
22.
HoseYSilvaPSeibleF (2000). Development of a performance evaluation database for concrete bridge components and systems under simulated seismic loads. Earthquake Spectra16(2): 413–442.
23.
HungHHSungYCLinKC, et al. (2017). Experimental study and numerical simulation of precast segmental bridge columns with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures136: 12–25.
24.
IchikawaSMatsuzakiHMoustafaA, et al. (2016). Seismic-resistant bridge columns with ultrahigh-performance concrete segments. Journal of Bridge Engineering21(9): 04016049.
25.
JiaJFGuoYSongNH, et al. (2018). Seismic testing of precast RC bridge pier columns anchored by grouted corrugated ducts, China, Journal of Highway and Transport31(12): 212–220.
26.
JiaJFZhangKDSaiidiMS, et al. (2020). Seismic evaluation of precast bridge columns with built-in elastometric pads. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering128: 105868.
27.
JiaYZhaoRDLiaoP, et al. (2019).Experimental investigation on seismic behavior of bridge piers with polypropylene-engineered cementitious composite in plastic hinge regions. China Journal of Highway and Transport32(7): 101–110.
28.
KimDHMoonDYKimMK, et al. (2019). Experimental test and seismic performance of partial precast concrete segmental bridge column with cast-in-place base. Engineering Structures100: 178–188.
29.
KimTHLeeHMKimYJ, et al. (2010). Performance assessment of precast concrete segmental bridge columns with a shear resistant connecting structure. Engineering Structure32: 1292–1303.
30.
LiCBiKHaoH (2019a).Seismic performance of precast segmental column under bidirectional earthquake motions: shake table test and numerical simulation. Engineering Structures187: 314–328.
31.
LiCHaoHZhangX, et al. (2018a).Experimental study of precast segmental columns with unbonded tendons under cyclic loading. Advances in Structural Engineering21(3): 319–344.
32.
LiCBiKHaoH, et al. (2019b). Cyclic test and numerical study of precast segmental concrete columns with BFRP and TEED. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17: 3475–3494.
33.
LiNShiWXieLL (2018b) Research on post-earthquake resilience and sustainability performance of bridge considering bridge retrofit schemes. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics38(1): 2–9.
34.
LiXBYangXYLiDS, et al. (2022). Experimental study on shear bearing capacity of shear key and epoxied joint. China Civil Engineering Journal55(1): 101–108.
35.
LiuHHanQBaiY, et al. (2018).Connection performance of restrained deformed grouted sleeve splice. Advances in Structural Engineering21(3): 488–499.
36.
LiuXXLiJZTsangHH, et al. (2019). Experimental evaluation of seismic performance of unbonded prestressed reinforced concrete column. Engineering Structure. DOI: 10.1016/j.109913.
37.
MadhusudhananSSiderisP (2018). Capacity spectrum seismic design methodology for bridges with hybrid sliding-rocking columns. Journal of Bridge Engineering23: 04018052.
38.
MantawyIMThonstadTSandersDH, et al. (2016). Seismic performance of precast, pretensioned, and cast-in-place bridges: shake table test comparison. Journal of Bridge Engineering21(10): 04016071.
39.
MashalMPalermoA (2019). Emulative seismic resistant technology for accelerated bridge construction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering124: 197–211.
40.
MashalMPalermoAKeatsG (2019). Innovative metallic dissipaters for earthquake protection of structural and non-structural components. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 116: 31–42.
41.
MohebbiASaiidiMSItaniAM (2018a). Shake table studies and analysis of a precast two-column bent with advanced materials and pocket connections. Journal of Bridge Engineering23(7): 04018046.
42.
MohebbiASaiidiMSItaniAM (2018b). Shake table studies and analysis of a PT-UHPC bridge column with pocket connection. Journal of Structural Engineering144(4): 04018021.
43.
MoonDYRohHCimellaroGP (2015). Seismic performance of segmental rocking columns connected with NiTi martensitic SMA bars. Advances in Structural Engineering18(4): 571–584.
44.
MotarefSSalidiMSSandersD (2014). Shake table studies of energy-dissipating segmental bridge columns. Journal of Bridge Engineering19(2): 186–199.
45.
MoustafaAElGawadyMA (2018). Shaking table testing of segmental hollow-core FRP-concrete-steel bridge columns. Journal of Bridge Engineering23(5): 04018020.
46.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2018). Recommended AASHTO Guide Specifications for ABC Design and Construction. NCHRP.
47.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2011). Development of a Precast Bent Cap System for Seismic Region. NCHRP.
48.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2020). Proposed AASHTO Seismic Specifications for ABC Column Connection. NCHRP.
49.
NikoukalamMTSiderisP (2017). Resilient bridge rocking columns with polyurethane damage-resistant end segments and replaceable energy-dissipating links. Journal of Bridge Engineering22(10): 04017064.
50.
OuYCOktavianusYTsaiMS (2013). An emulative precast segmental concrete bridge column for seismic regions. Earthquake Spectra29(4): 1441–1457.
51.
OuYCPratiwiAYSongJ (2018). Pseudodynamic testing and inelastic displacement ratios of self-centering precast concrete segmental bridge columns. Journal of Structural Engineering144(9): 04018158.
52.
OuYCWangPHTsaiMS, et al. (2010). Large-scale experimental study of precast segmental unbonded posttensioned concrete bridge columns for seismic regions. Journal of Structural Engineering136(3): 255–264.
53.
PalermoAPampaninSMarriottD (2007). Design, modeling, and experimental response of seismic resistant bridge piers with posttensioned dissipating connections. Journal of Structural Engineering133(1): 1648–1661.
54.
PangJBKEberhardMOStantonJF (2010). Large-bar connection for precast bridge bents in seismic regions. Journal of Bridge Engineering15(3): 231–239.
55.
PadgettJEGhoshJDennemannK (2009). Sustainable infrastructure subjected to multiple threats. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering Conference. 1–11.
56.
QuHLiTWangZ, et al. (2018). Investigation and verification on seismic behavior of precast concrete frame piers used in real bridge structures: experimental and numerical Study. Engineering structure154: 1–9.
57.
RohHReinhornAM (2010). Hysteretic behavior of precast segmental bridge piers with superelastic shape memory alloy bars. Engineering Structures32: 3394–3403.
58.
RowellSPGreyCEWoodsonSCHagerKP (2009). High strain-rate testing of mechanical couplers. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. 74. Report No. ERDC TR-09-8.
59.
SaiidiMSWangH (2006). Exploratory study of seismic response of concrete columns with shape memory alloys reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal103(3): 436–443.
60.
SaiidiMSO’BrienMSadrossadatZM (2009). Cyclic response of concrete bridge columns using superelastic Nitinol and bendable concrete. ACI Structural Journal106(1): 69–77.
61.
SariraMSalidiMSSandersD (2014). Shake table studies of energy-dissipating segmental bridge columns. Journal of Bridge Engineering19(2): 186–199.
62.
SartiFPalermoAPampaninS (2016). Fuse-type external replaceable dissipaters: experimental program and numerical modeling. Journal of Structural Engineering142(12): 04016134.
63.
ShoushtariESaiidiMSItaniA, et al. (2019). Design, construction, and shake table testing of a steel girder bridge system with ABC connections. Journal of Bridge Engineering24(9): 04019088.
64.
ShimCSChungCHKimHH (2008). Experimental evaluation of seismic performance of precast segmental bridge piers with a circular solid section. Engineering Structures30: 3782–3792.
65.
ShimCLeeSParkS, et al. (2017). Experiments on prefabricated bridge piers with continuous longitudinal reinforcing bars. Engineering Structure132: 671–683.
66.
SiderisPArefAJFiliatraultA (2014a). Large-scale seismic testing of a hybrid sliding-rocking posttensioned segmental bridge system. Journal of Structural Engineering140(6): 04014025.
67.
SiderisPArefAJFiliatraultA (2014b). Quasi-static cyclic testing of a large-scale hybrid sliding-rocking segmental column with slip-dominant joints. Journal of Bridge Engineering19(10): 04014036.
68.
SiderisPArefAJFiliatraultA (2015). Experimental seismic performance of a hybrid sliding-rocking bridge for various specimen configurations and seismic loading conditions. Journal of Bridge Engineering20(11): 04015009.
69.
StephensMTLehmanDERoederCW (2019). Design of CFST column-to- foundation/cap beam connections for moderate and high seismic region. Engineering Structures195: 210–222.
70.
SungYCHungHHLinKC, et al. (2017). Experimental testing and numerical simulation of precast segmental bridge piers constructed with a modular methodology. Journal of Bridge Engineering22(11): 04017087.
71.
TazarvMSaiidiMS (2015). UHPC-filled duct connections for accelerated bridge construction of RC columns in high seismic zones. Engineering Structures99: 413–422.
72.
TazarvMSaiidiMS (2016a). Seismic design of bridge columns incorporating mechanical bar splices in plastic hinge regions. Engineering Structures124: 507–520.
73.
TazarvMSaiidiMS (2016b). Low-damage precast columns for accelerated bridge construction in high seismic zones. Journal of Bridge Engineering21(3): 04015056.
74.
TongTZhuoWJiangX, et al. (2019). Research on seismic resilience of prestressed precast segmental bridge piers reinforced with high-strength bars through experimental testing and numerical modelling. Engineering Structures197: 109335.
75.
VarelaSSaiidiMS (2014). Dynamic performance of novel bridge columns with shape memory alloy and ECC. Int J Bridge Eng, 2(3):29–58.
76.
WangJQWangZTangY, et al. (2018a). Cyclic loading test of self-centering precast segmental unbonded posttensioned UHPFRC bridge columns. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering16: 5227–5255.
77.
WangYYuJLiuJ, et al. (2019a). Shear behavior of shear stud groups in precast concrete decks. Engineering Structures187: 73–84.
78.
WangZWeiZWeiH, et al. (2017). Influence of precast segmental connector forms on seismic performance of bridge pier. China Journal of Highway and Transport30(5): 75–80.
79.
WangZWangJLiuJ, et al. (2019b). Large-scale quasi-static testing of precast bridge column with pocket connections using noncontact lap-spliced bars and UHPC grout. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17: 5021–5044.
80.
WangZWangJQZhaoGT, et al. (2019c). Design criterion for the self-centering capacity of precast segmental UHPC bridge columns with unbonded post-tensioning tendons. Engineering Structures200: 109706.
81.
WangZWangJQTangYC, et al. (2018b).Seismic behavior of precast segmental UHPC bridge columns with replaceable external cover plates and internal dissipaters. Engineering structure177: 540–555.
82.
WangZQuHLiT, et al. (2018c).Quasi-static cyclic tests of precast bridge columns with different connection details for high seismic zones. Engineering Structure158: 13–27.
83.
WeiHYXiaoWWangZQ, et al. (2016). Experimental study on seismic performance of precast bridge pier with grouted splice sleeve. Journal of Tongji University44(7): 1011–1016.
84.
WhiteSPalermoA (2016). Quasi-static testing of posttensioned nonemulative column-footing connections for bridge piers. Journal of Bridge Engineering21(6): 04016025.
85.
YangCOkumusPDias-da-CostaD (2017). Ultrahigh-performance concrete for posttensioned precast bridge piers for seismic resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering143(12): 04017161–6163.
86.
ZhangALZhangHJiangZQ, et al. (2020). Low cycle reciprocating tests of earthquake-resilient prefabricated column-flange beam-column joints with different connection forms. Journal of Constructional Steel Research164: 105771.
87.
ZhangYWuGDias-da-CostaD (2019a). Cyclic Loading Tests and Analyses of Posttensioned Concrete Bridge Columns Combining Cast-In-Place and Precast Segments.
88.
ZhangRMengQShuiQ, et al. (2019b). Cyclic response of RC composite bridge columns with precast PP-ECC jackets in the region of plastic hinges. Composite Structures221: 110844.
89.
ZhengGKuangZXiaoJ, et al. (2020). Mechanical performance for defective and repaired grouted sleeve connections under uniaxial and cyclic loadings. Construction and Building Materials233: 117233.
90.
ZhouMLuWSongJ, et al.(2018).Application of ultra-high performance concrete in bridge engineering. Construction and Building Materical. 186: 1256–1267.
91.
ZhuZAhmadIMirmiranA (2006). Seismic performance of concrete-filled FRP tube columns for bridge substructure. Journal of Bridge Engineering11(3): 359–370.
92.
ZhuoWDTongTLiuZ (2019). Analytical pushover method and hysteretic modeling of precast segmental bridge piers with high-strength bars based on cyclic loading test. Journal of Structural Engineering145(7): 04019050.
93.
ZohrevandPMirmiranA (2013). Seismic response of ultra-high performance concrete-filled FRP tube columns, Journal of Earthquake Engineering17(1): 155–170.
