SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF HIGH-STRENGTH-CONCRETE HOLLOW BRIDGE

PIERS UNDER MULTI-DIRECTIONAL LOADING

R. Burgueño1, X. Liu2 and E. M. Hines3

ABSTRACT

High-strength-concrete (HSC) offers the potential of transforming the design of

structural elements under seismic loads by harnessing the enhanced capacities
associated with axial load, flexural compression zone confinement and web shear
crushing of wall webs. However, the limits to which such performance features
can be reliably taken into account require careful exploration, in particular, when
considering multi-directional seismic loads. Of the noted aspects enhanced by
HSC, that associated with the inelastic web crushing capacity of hollow
rectangular bridge piers is still unresolved in view of the guidance of capacity
design philosophy which suppresses possible shear failures. Nonetheless, recent
research has demonstrated that structural walls can exhibit dependable ductile
behavior before being ultimately limited by web crushing shear failures. And that
this inelastic capacity can be further improved with HSC. However, the three-
densional demands and damage accumulation of HSC structural walls under
multi-directional loading needs to be properly evaluated to establish reliable
limits that satisfy the noted inelastic performance requirements.

The seismic performance of HSC bridge piers under multi-directional loading was
evaluated through tests on two 1/4-scale hollow rectangular units subjected to
diagonal and multi-directional cyclic loading with design concrete strengths of 34
and 138 MPa (5 and 20 ksi), respectively. The three-dimensional inelastic web
crushing behavior was evaluated based on the test observations and the hysteretic
force-displacement behavior along various directions. To evaluate the loading
path effect on the inelastic web crushing specifically, the degradation of shear
stiffness and energy dissipating capacity were quantified and compared with the
in-plane single wall test. Results indicate that the mixed flexure-shear cracking
mode under multi-directional loading causes rapid shear stiffness degradation and
accelerates the subsequent web crushing failure. The tests provide valuable
experimental data in calibrating analytical models on three-dimensional web
crushing capacity of bridge piers.

1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Eng., Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
2
Graduate Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Eng., Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
3
Professor of Practice, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Eng., Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155
 Introduction

The seismic performance of bridge structures is highly dependent on the ductile behavior
and energy dissipating capacity of piers in plastic hinge regions. According to capacity design
principles, inelastic shear damage mechanisms are not to be relied upon due to their inferior
energy dissipating capacity. However, recent research (Liu 2009) has expanded prior evidence to
demonstrate that pier walls under shear demands considerably above current design limits can
exhibit stable ductile behavior before experiencing web crushing shear failures; and that their
inelastic deformation capacity can be further improved by using high-strength-concrete (HSC).
Such facts thus lead to the suggestion that inelastic flexure-shear behavior with subsequent
inelastic shear failure can satisfy seismic performance requirements on bridge piers. However, it
also has to be recognized that the use of HSC entails careful damage assessment for to meet
serviceability objectives and explicit criteria on performance limits to ensure meeting safety.

The vulnerability of bridges subjected to earthquake motions along random directions

makes the performance evaluation of piers under multi-directional loading necessary. Although
noteworthy research has been done on the behavior of hollow bridge piers under biaxial loading,
most of it was focused on assessing biaxial flexural behavior and slenderness limits (Maria
2006). Mo et al (Mo 2003) studied the seismic performance of hollow bridge columns under uni-
directional cyclic loading. Takizawa et al (Takizawa 1976) and Bousias et al (Bousias 1995)
studied the biaxial flexural behavior of pier columns under various loading patterns with the aim
of establishing the interaction, or coupling, effects between the two perpendicular directions.
Hines et al. (Hines 2006) conducted two proof-of-concept tests on a typical hollow rectangular
skyway pier of the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB), which focused on
evaluating a pier design with highly-reinforced boundary elements and connecting walls
subjected to uni-directional and bi-directional cyclic loading. All of the noted efforts were
related to the flexural behavior of the hollow rectangular piers and none considered shear
demands and failure modes under multi-directional loading. A related investigation related to
shear behavior is the work by Wong et al. (Wong 1993) who studied the ductility level and
different failure modes of circular columns with an aspect ratio of 2. Test results revealed that
biaxial displacement patterns led to severe strength and stiffness degradation compared to
uniaxial displacement and that shear failures with moderate ductility could be achieved. Thus,
even though the mechanisms behind inelastic plane shear web crushing has been reported for
some time (Oesterle 1979, Vallenas 1979, Hines 2004) the three-dimensional shear resistance
and failure mechanism of hollow rectangular bridge piers is still not fully investigated.

To address the knowledge gap and evaluate the potential of HSC to allow for ductile
shear failures as an acceptable inelastic failure mechanism, two 1/4-scale hollow rectangular
bridge piers subjected to multi-directional cyclic loading with design concrete strengths of 34
and 138 MPa (5 and 20 ksi) were tested. The three-dimensional inelastic web crushing behavior
was evaluated from observations and measured hysteretic force-displacement behavior. Loading
path effects on web crushing capacity and the degradation of shear stiffness and energy
dissipating capacity were quantified. Test results support that HSC can delay web crushing shear
failures, thus allowing for the dependable inelastic response of hollow bridge piers. However, the
mixed flexure-shear cracking mode under multi-directional loading causes rapid shear stiffness
degradation, an effect that is amplified for HSC due to its lower fracture toughness.
 Experimental Investigation

To verify the above-noted hypothesis and establish rational performance levels on the
inelastic web crushing limits for HSC pier walls, two bridge piers were constructed and tested at
the NEES MAST laboratory at the University of Minnesota (Liu 2009). The 34 MPa (5 ksi) pier,
identified as the diagonal pier test (DPT) unit, was subjected to a standard, incrementally
increasing, fully-reversed cyclic pattern, with constant axial load increasing about the section’s
diagonal axis with two cycles at each ductility level. The 138 MPa (20 ksi) pier, identified as
biaxial pier test (BPT) unit, was loaded using the biaxial loading protocol proposed by Hines et
al (Hines 2006) which subjected the pier to deformations along their principal and diagonal (bi-
directional) axes and in a sweeping motion from one principal axis to another. The loading
protocol was developed based on non-linear time-history analyses of the SFOBB Skyway for six
different earthquake time histories. The biaxial loading protocol allows for comparison of
damage and performance at specified displacement ductility levels for four major axes of
rotation. The loading patterns for both DPT and BPT are shown in Fig. 1. For both tests,
displacement ductility was regularly increased according to the sequence of 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
5 10
East South East South
4 A 8
A
3 6 C
D
µ ∆ Longitudinal Direction

µ ∆ Longitudinal Direction

2 4

1 2
F
0 0
E

-1 -2

-2 -4
G
-3 -6 H
B

-4 -8
B
North West North West
-5 -10

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10
µ ∆ Transverse Direction µ ∆ Transverse Direction

Figure 1. (a) DPT diagonal loading protocol; and (b) BPT biaxial loading protocol.

An elevation of the pier test units and the cross section and reinforcement details of the
DPT test unit are shown in Fig. 2 and 3. The overall dimensions of the test units were dictated by
construction and test setup constraints. The test unit featured highly-reinforced and well-
confined boundary corner elements with thin connecting walls arranged symmetrically in the
form of a hollow square. The concrete confining effect of the boundary elements was provided
by a steel spiral, the interval of which was 50 mm (2 in.) within the plastic hinge length and 76
mm (3 in.) outside of it. Both test units shared the same cross-sectional geometrical dimensions
as well as the longitudinal and confining steel configurations. Other than the concrete
compressive strength the only difference between the test units was on the vertical spacing of the
wall transverse steel. The DPT unit had its wall transverse steel uniformly distributed at 102 mm
(4 in.) along the height, while the spacing was 76 mm (3 in.) for the BPT unit in order to provide
greater diagonal tension resistance under shear.
 81" 12" 24" 12"
[2057]
[305] [610] [305]
3" 6" 3"
[76] [152] [76] 4"
[102]
30" 3"
[762] [76]
6"
[152]
12 #6 bars 4 1/2" 3"
[114] [76]
#3 spiral @ 2" o.c.
O.D. = 11"
4 1/2"
2#3 @ 5" o.c. [114]
23" 24"
144" [584] [610]
[3658] 4"
[102]
2#3 @ 4" o.c.
4 1/2" 4"
[114] [102]
12"
1/2" cover
[305]
4"
[102]

48"
[1219]
Figure 2. Elevation of the pier test units
(Left).
Figure 3. Cross section of DPT unit with
28 1/2"
[724]
66"
[1676]
28 1/2"
[724] reinforcement details (Above).

Fig. 4 shows an overview test setup at the MAST laboratory at the University of
Minnesota. The MAST facility operates by controlling the six degrees of freedom of a stiff
crossbeam, to which the test unit is attached, by means of eight servo-controlled actuators (two
under each principal horizontal direction and four vertical actuators at the ends of the crossbeam.
A flexure/shear aspect ratio of 2.5 was maintained by controlling the loading such as to create an
inflection point 3 m (120 in.) above the top of the footing (Fig. 5). All displacement related
results and parameters (e.g., displacement ductility) reported in the next sections are with respect
to the measured lateral deformations at the inflection point. Both units were tested under a
constant axial load of 434 kips, corresponding to 0.10f’cAg for the 34 MPa (5 ksi) test unit.

Fz' ω'

Fx' My' Mx' u'

Mx' θ x'
∆T θ y' ∆T
My'
Fy' v'
y l
l
∆I ∆I
y'
l = 1372mm (54")
x
45°

x'

Figure 4. BPT test setup overview (Left).

Figure 5. Loading components and moment

diagram (Above).
 Experimental Results

Both pier test units behave in a ductile manner before web crushing failure accompanied
by the spalling of wall concrete and gradual loss of load-carrying capacity. The DPT unit failed
on the second excursion to point A at displacement ductility (µ∆) 4 and the BPT unit failed on
the excursion to point B at µ∆ = 6 (see Fig. 1). Figure 6 shows the cracking pattern and the web
crushing failure mode of DPT unit. The flexural demands on the pier led to concrete spalling on
compression boundary elements and the NE wall, which mainly concentrated at the bottom of
the specimen. The inelastic flexure-shear cracking effects can be observed on all walls and the
critical damage and concrete spalling in the SW wall led to the ultimate failure of the test unit.
The gradual loss of the load-carrying capacity demonstrated a ductile web crushing failure.

N NW wall W SW wall S SE wall E NE wall N

Figure 6. DPT web crushing failure at µ∆ = 4 x 2 loading toward A.

Figure 7 shows the cracking pattern and the web crushing failure mode of BPT unit. Web
crushing on this unit took place initiated at the region next to the compression boundary element,
which was severely degraded due to the multi-directional loading demands. The failure,
however, was limited to the plastic hinge region of the walls. Spalling of the wall cover concrete
was observed on NW side at the interface of the wall and boundary element. Ultimate failure of
the test unit was due to rupture of the transverse reinforcement immediately above the critical
section and subsequent longitudinal bar buckling on the compression boundary element when
loading toward A at µ∆ = 8 upon completing a full cycle at µ∆ = 6.

E NE wall N NW wall W SW wall S SE wall E

Figure 7. BPT web crushing failure at µ∆ = 6 loading toward B.

 The hysteretic force-displacement response of the DPT and BPT units along their
principal axes is shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, respectively. The hysteretic loops of the BPT unit at
µ∆ = 4 are isolated and shown in Fig. 10, which shows the distinct feature from unloading effects
while transitioning from G to H in the longitudinal direction and D to E in the transverse
direction. This phenomenon illustrates the interactions of the flexural behavior of the test unit
under biaxial loading, which leads to what are considered important effects of unloading and
reloading of the longitudinal steel and the change of the stress state in the compression zone.
Drift at the inflection point Drift at the inflection point
(a) (b)
-3% h -2% h -1% h 0% h 1% h 2% h 3% h -3% h -2% h -1% h 0% h 1% h 2% h 3% h
400 400
1600 1600
Fyy 4x2A 300 Fy 300
1200 1200 4x2B

Actuator longitudinal force (kips)

Actuator longitudinal force [kN]

Actuator transverse force (kips)

Actuator transverse force [kN]
Fy' 200 Fy' 200
800 800

400 100 400 100

Ductility Ductility
0 0 0 0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-400 -100 -400 -100

-800 -Fy' -800 -Fy'

-200 -200
4x2B
-1200 -1200 4x2A
-Fy -300 -Fy -300
-1600 -1600
-400 -400
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Longitudinal displacement at the inflection point [mm] Transverse displacement at the inflection point [mm]

Figure 8. Hysteretic loops of DPT: (a) longitudinal axis and (b) transverse axis.
Drift ratio ∆/L (%) Drift ratio ∆/L (%)
(a) (b)
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
2000 2000
Fy 6A 400 Fy 400
1600 1600 6A
Fy' 300 Fy' 300
Actuator longitudinal force (kips)

1200 1200
Actuator longitudinal force [kN]

Actuator transverse force (kips)

Actuator transverse force [kN]

800 200 200

800

400 100 400 100

Ductility Ductility
0 0 0 0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-400 -100 -400 -100
-800 -200 -800 -200
-1200 -1200
-Fy' -300 -Fy' -300
6B 6B
-1600 -1600
-Fy -400 -Fy -400
-2000 -2000
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Measured longitudinal displacement [mm] Measured transverse displacement [mm]

Figure 9. Hysteretic loops of BPT: (a) longitudinal axis and (b) transverse axis.
Drift ratio ∆/L (%) Drift ratio ∆/L (%)
(a) (b)
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
2000 2000
Fy A 400 Fy F 400
1600 C 1600
Fy' Fy' A
300 300
Actuator longitudinal force (kips)

1200 1200
Actuator longitudinal force [kN]

Actuator transverse force (kips)

Actuator transverse force [kN]

800 200 200

800 G
D
400 100 400 100
Ductility Ductility
F C
0 0 0 0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-400 -100 -400 -100
E
-800 -800 H
-200 -200
-1200 -1200
H B -Fy' -300 -Fy' -300
E
-1600 -1600 B
G -Fy -400 D -Fy -400
-2000 -2000
-75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75
Measured longitudinal displacement (in.) Measured transverse displacement [mm]

Figure 10. Hysteretic loops of BPT at µ∆ = 4: (a) longitudinal axis and (b) transverse axis.
 Discussion

Fig. 11 compares the force-displacement envelopes of BPT in different directions. It is

interesting to note that the behavior of the test unit in the sweeping diagonal direction is close to
that of the principal directions instead of the straight diagonal directions. The coupling between
the two orthogonal directions decreases the stiffness in the sweeping diagonal direction. In
comparison, the loading along the other directions passes through the centroid of the cross
section and no coupling exists.
Drift ratio D/L (%)

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Longitudinal 500
2000 Transverse
400
Diagonal
1500
Sweeping diagonal 300
1000 200

Actuator force (kips)

Actuator force [kN]

500 100
0 0

-500 -100

-1000 -200
-300
-1500
-400
-2000
-500

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Measured Displacement [mm]

Figure 11. Comparison of the BPT force-displacement envelopes in different directions.

The shear stiffness degradation and the energy dissipating capacity of the inelastic shear
mechanism of the test units under various loading patterns are of interest in this study. The
displacement ductility limit of the hollow piers before web crushing failure is directly related to
those two factors. Fig. 12 and 13 show the hysteretic loops of both test units for flexure and
shear deformations, respectively. It can be seen that flexure (Fig. 12(a) and Fig. 13(a)) dominates
the force-displacement behavior of both test units, while comparison of Fig. 12(b) and Fig. 13(b)
indicates that the DPT unit exhibited larger inelastic shear deformations and energy dissipating
capacity than the BPT unit.
Drift at the inflection point Longitudinal shear displacement at the inflection point (in.)
(a) (b)
-2% h -1% h 0% h 1% h 2% h -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
400 400
1600 1600
Fy 300 Fy 300
1200 1200
Actuator longitudinal force (kips)
Actuator longitudinal force (kips)

Actuator longitudinal force [kN]

Actuator longitudinal force [kN]

Fy' 200 Fy' 200

800 800

400 100 400 100

Ductility Ductility
0 0 0 0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-400 -100 -400 -100

-800 -Fy' -800 -Fy'

-200 -200

-1200 -1200
-Fy -300 -Fy -300
-1600 -1600
-400 -400
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Longitudinal flexural displacement at the inflection point [mm] Longitudinal shear displacement at the inflection point [mm]

Figure 12. Hysteretic loops of DPT in (a) flexure and (b) shear.
 Drift at the inflection point Transverse shear displacement at the inflection point (in.)
(a) (b)
-2% h -1% h 0% h 1% h 2% h -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
2000 2000
Fy 400 Fy 400
1600 1600
Fy' 300 Fy'
1200 300
1200

Actuator transverse force (kips)

Actuator transverse force [kN]

Actuator transverse force (kips)

Actuator transverse orce [kN]
800 200 200
800
400 100 400 100
Ductility Ductility
0 0 0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-400 -100 -400 -100
-800 -200 -800 -200
-1200 -1200
-Fy' -300 -Fy' -300
-1600 -1600
-Fy -400 -Fy -400
-2000 -2000
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Transverse flexural displacement at the inflection point [mm] Transverse shear displacement at the inflection point [mm]

Figure 13. Hysteretic loops of BPT in (a) flexure and (b) shear.

To study the shear stiffness degradation of the DPT, a linear regression analysis was
conducted on the unloading curves of the shear hysteretic loops. The unloading stiffness
degradation of the DPT against displacement ductility is shown in Fig. 14(a). It is noteworthy to
see that the damage degradation from the first loading peak (point A) with respect to the second
loading peak (point B) progressively decreases, indicating overall damage to the structure.. For
the BPT, the “butterfly” loading pattern disturbed the unloading scheme of the test units and the
unloading stiffness is difficult to evaluate. Therefore, the degradation of the secant stiffness was
studied since plastic shear deformations were small. The secant stiffness degradation of BPT is
shown in Fig. 14(b). Of interest here is the fact that the degradation follows a quadratic trend,
compared to the linear degradation than is seen in structural walls subjected to in-plane shear
demands (Hines and Seible 2004, Liu 2009b). More discussion on this observation follows.
2200 550000 3200
(a) Unloading after A
(b)
350000 2000 500000
Unloading after B 2800
Shear unloading stiffness (kips/in)
Shear unloading stiffness [kN/m]

Shear secant stiffness (kips/in)

1800 450000
Shear secant stiffness [kN/m]

300000 2400
1600 400000

250000 1400 350000 2000

300000
1200 1600
200000
250000
1000
200000 1200
150000
800
150000 800
100000 600
100000
400 400
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement ductility Displacement ductility

Figure 14. Multidirectional loading effects: (a) Shear unloading stiffness degradation of DPT in
longitudinal direction, and (b) Shear secant stiffness degradation of BPT in transverse direction.

Hines et al. (Hines 2001) tested a single cantilever wall (Unit 3A) with the same cross
section, steel reinforcement, and aspect ratio as one sides of the pier units in this program. Fig.
15 shows the global and the shear hysteretic loops of Unit 3A. A comparison of the shear
hysteretic loops indicates that Unit 3A exhibited less shear stiffness degradation and better
inelastic shear behavior than the pier units in this program, for which the mixed flexure-shear
cracking under multi-directional loading caused rapid shear stiffness degradation. The shear
dissipating energy of both piers along principal directions is compared with that of Unit 3A in
Fig. 16. It can be seen that BPT has less shear energy dissipating capacity than DPT and that
both pier tests dissipated much less energy compared to the twice of the single wall test. The
linear energy dissipation of the in-plane loaded wall compared to the quadratic degradation of
the piers can also be noted.

Drift Shear displacement (in.)

(a) (b)
-4% h -3% h -2% h -1% h 0% h 1% h 2% h 3% h 4% h -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
200 200
800 800
Fy 150 Fy 150
600 600
Fy' Fy'
100 100
400 400

200 50 200 50

Force (kips)

Force (kips)
Force [kN]

Force [kN]
Ductility Ductility
0 0 0 0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-200 -50 -200 -50

-400 -400
-100 -100
-Fy' -Fy'
-600 -600
-Fy -150 -Fy -150
-800 -800
-200 -200
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Displacement [mm] Shear displacement [mm]

Figure 15. Hysteretic loops of Unit 3A (a) Global behavior (b) Shear behavior (Hines 2004).

90 800

80 700

Shear dissipating energy (kips-in)

Shear dissipating energy [kN-m]

70
600
60
500
50
400
40
300
30
200
20
3A (x2)
10 DPT 100
BPT
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement ductility

Figure 16. Comparison of shear dissipating energy of pier tests and single wall test.

Conclusions

The effect of multi-directional loading effect on the inelastic web crushing capacity of
HSC hollow rectangular bridge piers was experimentally investigated through tests on two 1/4-
scale units subjected to diagonal and multi-axial cyclic loading. Results to date have confirmed
some of the advantages hypothesized for using HSC but have also brought forth important issues
in establishing performance limits to inelastic web crushing in walls under three-dimensional
shear demands. The following conclusions are offered based on the noted results and findings to
date.
1. Both pier test units exhibited a stable ductile response up to moderate ductility levels
before experiencing a web crushing shear failure. The three dimensional force-resisting
mechanism provided by the integrated response of the boundary elements to resist
flexure and the walls to resist shear was efficient and can be relied upon for new
designs.
2. The effect of high-strength-concrete (HSC) in delaying the web-crushing shear failure in
 the BPT compared to the DPT was verified even when the wall assembly was loaded
under more severe multi-directional demands.
3. The BPT unit exhibited less inelastic shear deformation and more damage due to the
application of HSC and the multi-directional loading pattern compared to the DPT unit.
Therefore, the use of HSC to increase the ductility level was impaired by the severe
biaxial loading pattern and the higher damage susceptibility of HSC.
4. Compared to a prior single wall test by Hines (2001), both pier test units exhibited rapid
shear stiffness degradation, which is attributed to the damage accumulation under multi-
directional loading and the lower fracture toughness of HSC.

Acknowledgements

The research described in this paper was carried out under funding from the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. CMS-0530634. The authors thank the staff and students of
the University of Minnesota’s NEES-MAST laboratory where the reported tests were conducted.

References

Bousias, S. N., Verzeletti, G., Fardis, M. N., and Guitierrez, E., 1995. Load-Path Effects in Column
Biaxial Bending and Axial Force, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 125 (5), pp. 596-605.
Hines, E. M., Dazio, A., and Seible, F., 2001. Seismic Performance of Hollow Rectangular Reinforced
Concrete Piers with Highly-Confined Corner Elements – Phase III: Web Crushing Tests,
Structural Systems Research Project 2001/27, University of California, San Diego, Calif., 2001,
239 pp.
Hines, E. M. and Seible, F., 2004. Web Crushing of Hollow Rectangular Bridge Piers, ACI Structural
Journal, 101 (4), 569-579.
Hines, E. M., Dazio, A., and Seible, F., 2006. Structural Testing of New East Bay Skyway Piers, ACI
Structural Journal, 103 (1), pp. 103-112.
Liu, X., Burgueño, R., Egleston, E., and Hines, E. M., 2009a. Inelastic Web Crushing Performance Limits
of High-Strength-Concrete Structural Wall – Single wall Test Program, Report No. CEE-RR –
2009/03, Michigan State University, 2009, 281 pp.
Liu, X., Burgueño, R., Egleston, E., and Hines, E. M., 2009b. Inelastic Web Crushing Performance Limits
of High-Strength-Concrete Structural Wall – Wall-Assembly Test Program, Report No. CEE-RR
– 2009/06, Michigan State University, 2009, 219 pp.
Maria, H. S., Wood, S. L., and Breen, J. E., 2006. Behavior of Hollow, Rectangular Reinforced Concrete
Piers Subjected to Biaxial Loading, ACI Structural Journal, 103 (3), pp. 390-398.
Mo, Y. L., Wong, D. C., and Maekawa, K., 2003. Seismic Performance of Hollow Bridge Columns, ACI
Structural Journal, 100 (3), pp. 337-348.
Oesterle, R. G., Ariztizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Fiorato, A. E., Russell, H. G., and Corley, W. G., 1979.
Earthquake Resistant Structural walls – Tests of Isolated Walls, Phase II, NSF Report ENV77-
15333, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 331 pp.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,
Wiley Interscience, New York, 768 pp.
Takizawa, H. and Aoyama, H., 1976. Biaxial Effects in Modelling Earthquake Response of R/C
Structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 4 (6), pp. 523-552.
Vallenas, J. M., Bertero, V. V., Popov, E. P., 1979. Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls, University of California, Report No. UCB/EERC-79/20, Berkeley, CA, 234 pp.
Wong, Y., Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J., 1993. Response of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns to
Multi-Directional Seismic Attack, 90 (2), pp. 180-191.