M EMOTOD ESIGNERS 6- 1OcTOBER2001

SUPERSEDES M Ei\10 TO D ESI Gi"ERS 6- 1DATED J UNE 1990

6-1 COLUMNANALYSISCONSIDERATIONS
ColumnsdesignedinaccordancewiththeCaltransBridgeDesignSpecificati ons(BDS)and
theCaltransSeismicDesignCriteria(SOC)mayresultinadensere inforcementarrangement.
This often leads to reinforcement congestion and maycause constructi on di fficulties. To
avoidtheseconcerns,thereareanumberofoptionsadesignershouldconsiderbeforedeciding
on parameters such as bent locati on, co lumn s ize, number ofcolumns per bent and the
column s pac ing best suite d for the structure. Some of these optio ns, a lo ng with
recommendati ons, a re di scussed in the following paragraphs. These recomme ndations
generally apply to long or narrowstructures. The designer should be aware that column
designconsiderationsbasedonGroup1-VI loadsmaysometimescontradictthoseforGroup
VII loads. I
Spanlengths,col umns izes,andcolumnarchitecturalfeaturesaresometimesselectedrather
arbitrarily when the GeneralPlan is first developed.The next step istodetermi newhether
thesearbitrarydecis ions will be practi cal. Preliminary ana lyses using the Bridge Design
SystemandtheBENTprogram shouldbemadetogetherwithpre liminarydynamicanalyses.
These analyses may be rather limited in scope in the early design stage. When a more
detaileddynamicanalysisisrequired,theanalysismodelshouldencompasstheent irestructure,
includingconnectingrampssubjecttoprogramlimitations.Fordynamicanalysis,longstructures
maybedi videdintogroupsofframes,butindi vidualgroupsmustoverlap.In supports
andtheboundaryconditionsforeachgroupshouldbeproperlymodeledusingsuitablesprings. I
Theresultsofpreliminaryanalysesshouldbereviewedforcriti calcolumnloadings,bothfor
GroupI-VI and GroupVIIloadings. Columns which require maximumreinforcement(for
GroupI-VIloads)shouldbefurtheranalyzedus ingtheYIELDprogram.Non-linearanalyses
ofacriticalbent(us ingXSECTIONand WFRAME)mayberequired ifductilityrequirements
are a concern. Based on these pre liminary analyses, if the longitudina l and transverse
re inforcementincolumns isfoundtobeacceptable,thenthegeometri candstructuralframe
arrangements can be assumed to be sati sfactory. However, if the column re inforcement
exceedsacceptabl elimits,thenthefollowinga lternativesshould becons idered:
I) In multi-columnbents,pincolumnsatthefootings.Insingle-columnbents,pinning
the baseofthecolumnadj acentto abutments maybe cons idered.
2) Addadditionalcolumnsper bent.
3) Usebroadersinglecolumns.
4) Forsinglecolumnbents,cons iderincorporatingcont inui tyatthetopofcolumns
in analyses.
5) Utilizetors ionalrigiditytoreduceP- loadeffectsonsinglecolumnbents.
6) In multi -columnbents,increasecolumnsize.
7) Use hi gherstrengthconcrete forcolumns.
6- 1 CoLUMN A NALYSES CoNSIDERATIONs
MEMOTOD ESIGNERS 6-1 OCTOBER2001
~ i
8) Shortenspan lengthsbyaddingbents.
9) Add hinges or consider temporary construction hinge to reduce sens iti vity to
shortening.
I0) Increasetheelastic lengthof shortcolumns.
II) Usepileshafts in lieuof foot ings.
12) Reduce prestressand thennal force coefficients where appropriate.
Thedesignershouldconsiderthebestoptionthatisapplicabletoaspecificproject. Inadditionto
theabove-mentionedoptions,thefollowingtwoitemsmayhaveanimpacton decisionsmadeby
thedesignerindesigningcolumns:
I) Aesthetic features (Column Flares).
2) Outriggerbents.
Thedesignermay adoptanyoneoracombinationof theabove-mentionedopt ions.Whilecost
should be a primary consideration, it should not be the onl y criterion. Some ofthe options
recommended above may not appearto be costeffect ive, but may result in savi ngs in other
bridgeelementssuchasfootings,andleadtoanoverallefficientdesign. Thedesignershouldbe
aware that any one ofthe above-mentioned opti ons may solve one problem, butmay cause
another.
Thefollowing isabri ef reviewof eachopti on,citing bothbeneficialanddetrimentaleffects.
1) Pincolumnsatthebase:Thisopti onshouldbethenormforall multi -columnbents.
Pinnedcolumnsleadtoasofterstructureincomparisontofixedcolumnsandresult
in largerdrift(lateraldisplacement)particularlyunderGroupVIIloads. Inaddition,
the momentsatthe top ofthe columns due toGroup I-VI loads would increase.
Consequently, these columns maybesubj ected to higher moment magnification
factorsinthedesignstage.Thecombinedeffectsof increasedgrouploadmoments
atthe fixed end and moment magnifi cation could requirean increase in primary
rei nforcement.
Insinglecolumnbents,columnsmaybepinned iftheabutmentortheadjacentbent
canassumeincreaseddemandsandretainstability.Pinnedcolumnsmustbesupported
duringconstruction. Thi s option should beconsideredonly as a last resort. End
columns in framescanalsobedesignedtoslideonthefootingduringprestressing
andthenexternallykeyedtothefooting.
The biggest advantage ofpinning the column at the footing is that it leads to a
reduct ion in the foundati on sizeand reduced footing costs. Pot bearings orbase
isolati onbearings, thoughexpensive, may providea sat isfactorysolution in some
situations.
6- 1COLUMN ANALYSES CONSIDERATIONS
2
MEMo To D ESIGNERs 6-1 O c TOBER 200 I
~ i
2)
3)
4)
5)
Addmore similar columns per bent: This alternative usually leads to a reduced
column s ize which may reduce the longi tudinal stiffness and moments, but may
increase the transverse frame stiffness. Adding columns may not be aesthetically
pleasing. While aesthetics is important, it should not take precedence over
structural integrity. In s ingle-column bents, addition of a second column may be
the appropriate soluti on (for narrow structures, two closely spaced columns
may not leave room for flares). Axial tension due to overturning effects may
reduce shear capacity in multi-column bents, but other benefits may prevai l.
Use broader single columns/oblong columns: This option may be cons idered
as an alternative to adding a second column to a single-column bent. The oblong
column may be pinned with reference to longitudinal response to reduce foundation
costs. Such columns typically have interlocking reinforcement cages.
For single-column bents, consider incorporating continuity at the top of
columns: For analysis under Group 1-VI loads, the designer should cons iderthe
restraining effects ofadjacent spans. Box girder bridges on s ingle column bents
should not be considered as true cantil evers (0.99 Distribution Factor) in the
transverse direction in the YIELD program. The tors ional rigidity ofa box girder
provides significant restraint and a D.F. of 0.90 can conservatively be used
without a frame analysis. Thi s wi ll greatly reduce the column moment and
reinforcement. The designer should use STRUDL analysis to obtain actual lower
D.F. values if slenderness causes a signi ficant moment magnification.
Utilize torsional rigidity and distribution to reduce P-load effects on single-
column bents: STRUDL analyses show that superstructure ri gidi ty reduces
transverse moments s ignificantly in many s ingle column bent structures under
Group 1-VI loads as compared to the typical cantil ever bent analysis. These
analyses also show that a s igni ficant portion of wheel loads, applied at a bent
near the edge of deck, is di stributed to adjacent bents. Therefore, the des igner
should take advantage of such analyses when conventional cantilever analysis
shows that the selected column size/shape is inadequate for the appli ed Pern1 it
Truck load. Trial STRUDL analyses have a lso shown that the reacti ons from
distributed Permit loads are simi tar to reactions caused by HS loads analyzed in
the usual cantilever manner. Therefore, an approximate alternative to a detailed
analysis for Permit loads in the maximum transverse load case, is to use only
HS li ve loadings to analyze the bent as a cantil ever. Bridges with unusually large
span-to-width ratios ( i.e., connector ramps) are not good candidates for this
approximate method.
6-J COLUMN A NALYSES CONSI DERATIONS 3
MEMo TO D EsiGNERs 6-1 O cTOBER 2001
~ i
6)
7)
8)
9)
In multi-column bents, use larger columns: A larger column section will allow
more room to place main reinforcement and provide greater shear capacity for
Group 1-Vlloads. However, increasing the column size would also draw more moment
and shear. For Group VII loads, in additi on to increased sti ffness, a possible increase
in plasti c moment would lead to an increase in footing and superstructure costs. Thi s
option may not be viable if horizontal roadway clearances are ti ght or when existing
bridges are being widened.
Use higher strength concrete for columns: Thi s opti on may be used as a means to
reduce main reinforcement without significantly increasing stiffness. Thi s will also
increase the shear capacity (unless tensile axial loads exist). However, the resul ting
increase in plasti c moment capaci ty may lead to increased footing and superstructure
costs.
The designer should consider the economics ofspecifying more than one high strength
concrete in the design of prestressed concrete bridges.
In general, the designer should not use 12 mm (No.4) primary aggregate in concrete
as a means to allow a more closely spaced, dense network ofcolumn reinforcement.
This type of materi al is not readi ly avai labl e in all geographical areas and may also
require the use of concrete additi ves to develop assumed concrete strengt h.
Shorten spans lengths and add bents: This option should be considered primarily
for viaducts. Other long structures (connector ramps) generally have bent locations
dictated by facilities that are crossed (such as roadways and rai l roads). Shorter
spans can reduce structure de pth (i.e., dead load) and proportionately reduce seismic
loads to the bents. The applicabi lity of both, conventionally reinforced as well as
prestressed concrete sections should be considered. While prestressed concrete
sections typically result in a smaller dead load, they cause secondary prestress
moments in columns and may require more expensive joi nt seals due to increased
movement rati ngs at the joints. Short prestressed spans reduce dead load, but the
superstructure depth may be too shallow to pennit the development ofcolumn bars.
Add hinges: This opti on s hould be considered primarily for long, prestressed
structures. Adding a hinge will effecti vely shorten all frames in a structure. The end
bents of the frames, especially the short bents near abutments, will draw less prestress
moment. The structure may become more fl exible resulti ng in increased defl ections
under Group VII loads, but would also benefit from reduced force levels due to a
lengthened primary response peri od. lnte nnedi ate construction hinges, strategically
placed on selected reinforced concrete segments within long prestressed structures,
allow for creep forces to stabilize before connecting frames together. In general, it
is preferable to avoid/minimize hinges so as to maintain structure continui ty whi ch is
parti cularly desirable under seismic loads.
6- 1 COLUMN ANALYSES CONSIDERATIONS 4
MEMo TO DESIGNERS 6-1 OcTOBER 2001
~ i
I0) Increase the elastic length of short columns: Signifi cant moment reductions
can be achieved, especially in prestressed concrete structures, by increasing
the column elastic length. This can be accomplished by taking advantage of
footingtranslationduetoelasticandplasticsoildeformation,loweringthefooting
elevation,orboth.lfthefoot ingislowered,passiveearthresistanceonpilesand
footingswillincreaseandresultin lesstranslation.Soi lspringscanbeusedwith
theSTRUBAGprogramtomode lfoundat ionreleasesfromfull fi xity.
II) Use pile shafts in lieu offootings: The benefits ofthi s option are si mi lar to
increasingthecolumn lengths.Generally,theresulting increasein fl exibili tywill
leadtoreducedseismicforces,butdisplacementswill increase.Shaftconstruction
may become morecompl icatedin thepresenceofshallowgroundwaterand/or
loosesand.Elasticcolumnlengthscanbeincreasedbyrequiringthetopof shaft
tobebelowtheground-lineandbyspecifyingaspacercasing(isolation)around
theundergroundportionofcolumn.However,theconsequencesofplastichinging
belowground-lineshouldbeconsidered.
Shaftswhichdonot requireunusualconstructiontechniquesarelessexpensive
thanfixedpilefootings.
12) Reduce preslress and !henna/ force coefficients: There are several theori es
describing the effects ofprestress and thermal forces on a structure. Some
expertsfeelthatinitialmomentsincolumnsduetoprestressshorteningeventually
creepto nearly zero. Since thermal stressesdevelopgradually, there is some
plastic re lief. In additi onto momentreductionsdueto creep,thee lasto-plastic
characteristicsof thesoi lsurroundingthefoundationsalsopermitsomemoment
re liefforthecolumns. Somereductionin theseforcesshouldbeuti lized.Since
there isnoagreementona llowablereductions, it issuggestedthatmomentsand
shears dueto prestressingcouldbe reduced by 50%,and thosedueto thermal
actionbereducedby25%.Thesevaluesareconsideredreasonablewhenapplied
tofixedfoundations.Whenallowinglimitedfoundationreleaseusingspringsor
somefoundationtranslation,orifshaftsarebeingused,theprestressandthermal
forcesshouldnotbeadjustedasradi cally.Adjustmentsmustbemadecons istent
withtheanalysismodel.
6-1 COLUMN ANALYSES CONSIDERATIONS 5
MEMo TO D ESIGNERS 6-1 OcTOBER 2001
l!;ic
Additi ona lconsiderat ionswhichmayimpactcolumntypeselection,ana lysisanddesign:
I) Aesthetic features: Aestheti c features often require fascia concrete suchasflares.
Ingeneral,columnfl aresshouldbeisolated fromthesuperstructurewithahorizontal
gap as shown in Attachment I, unl ess structura l cons iderations require that the
fl aresbemonolithicwiththesuperstructure. Theconcreteinthefl areregionoutside
the column core (fl are concrete) s ha ll be adequate ly reinforced with fl are
rei nforcement to minimize shrinkageandtemperature related cracks aswell asto
preventtheseparationoffl aresfromthecolumncoreatdesigndi splacementductili ty
levels (approximate ly,a ductili tylevelof4). Flarere inforcement istheadditi ona l
re inforcement(longitudina landtransverse)provided in thefl areregionoutsidethe
confinedcolumncorereinforcement. Whenagapisprovided,thecontributionfrom
fl aresshouldnotbeincluded inserviceloadanalysisaswe llasinseismicana lysis.
The fl are details areshown inAttachment I.
Testson40% scaled mode lsofcolumns with isolated fl areshaveshownthatthese
columnshavealargedisplacementductil itycapacity[Uni vers ityofCaliforni a,San
Diego,Report# SSRP-97/06]. Thesetests alsorevealthatthe pl ast ic hingeforms
in the column in the concentrated region ofthe fl are gap. However, due to the
confi ningeffectsofthebentcapandthecolumnflare,theshortplastichingelength
canstillprovidethecolumnwithadequatedi spl acementductilitycapacity.
Mono lithicfl ares(structuralfl ares)shouldbeavoidedwherepossibleforthefollowing
reasons:
a) Incolumnswheretheflare is improperlydesignedand detailed, it is like ly that
the plasti chingemayformatthebaseofthecolumnfl are( insteadofformingat
thetopof thecolumn). Thi snotonlyincreasesthesheardemandonthecolumn,
buta lsoresul tsin severelossofbridgedeckprofi le if plasti chingefa ilurewere
tooccur. Whileproperdesignanddeta ilingassuresthattheprobabilityof failure
ofaplasti chi ngeisextreme ly low,itispossiblethatpl astichi ngesmayfail due
to unforeseenoverloads.
b) Monolithicfl aresleadtoanincreaseinforcedemandsonadjacentsuperstructure
andsubstructureelements,andmayresult in reduceddi splacementductil ityof
bents.
Withproperj ustificati on,theDesignEngineermayadoptmono lithi cfl ares. The
approvalofChief,Offi ceofStructureDesignshall beobtainedbeforeadecis ion
toadoptmonolithi cfl aresismade.
6-1 COLUMN A NALYSES CONSIDERATIONS 6
MEMOTODESIGNERS 6-1 OcTOBER2001
~ i
When monolithic flares are approved for adoption, these flares shall be
designedanddetai ledsothattheyareunlikelytoseparatefrom thecolumn
evenatdesigndisplacementductilitylevels. In such structural flares,the
flare reinforcement (longitudinal and transverse) shall be determined in
accordance with the c'Oiumn performance requirements specified in the
CaltransSeismicDesignCriteria. Thecontributi ontocolumncapacityand
stiffnessfrom thestructuralflaresshallbemodeledand incorporatedinthe
seismicanalysistoidentifyplastichinge locations. The Design Engineer
shall ensure that the plastic hinge forms in the column and not in the
superstructure. Furthermore,throughproperdesignanddetailing,theDesign
Engi neershouldensurethattheplastichingeformsatthetopofthecolumn
and notat thebaseofthe flare.
2) Oulrigger bents: Outriggers are extremely vulnerable under seismic forces
becausetheydonot havethesuperstructureconcreteenclosureatthecolumn-
capjoint.Thejointmustbeadequatelyconfinedusingclosedtieswithseismic
hookstopreventdegradationduringplastichinging.Also,thejointmustbedesigned
anddetai ledtoensurethat aplasti chingefonnsinthecolumnandnotinthecap
in accordancewiththeguidelinesin SOC.
Theexposedportionofthe capmust beproperlydesignedfortorsionand reinforcedwith
closedseismictiesiftorsionissignificant.Thecomerjointmustbecapableofresistingall
torsion,moment,andshearsoccurringatthejoint. Adequateconfinementmustbeprovided
for developingbarsfrom boththeoutriggerandcolumn.
In concl usion, it is importanttoemphasizethat thedesignerbe awareofall the preceding
factorswhich are applicabletothestructure beinganalyzed.Attentionshould begiven to
producingadynamicmodelrepresentingactualsiteconditionsratherthanassumedgeneral
practicemethodswhencol umndesignproblemsarise.Secondaryeffectsshouldbeinvestigated
whenlargecolumndeflectionsareindicatedbyanalysis.Thecolumnsshouldbe investigated
earlyin thedesign process.Relegatingcolumndesigntotheendcanresult in redesignand
many wasted hoursofwork.
6-1 COLUMNA NALYSES CONSIDERATIONS 7
MEMoToDESIGNERS 6-1 OcTOBER2001

ConstructionJoint
Superstructure
!locationoptional!
Dimensiontobe TransverseFlore
determinedby Reinforcement
Engineer lseeNote3)
Couplers
lseeNote5)
Rare Column Details-1
Table1
TransverseFlareReinforcement
ColumnDiaor
"D"(meter)
UpperFlareRegion LowerFlareRegion
(Too 1/3FlareHeiohtl (Lower2/3FlareHeight)
1.22 #19@90 #13@205
1.68 #22@90 #16@205
2.13 #25@90 #16@205
NotestoDesigner:
1. Typically,thethicknessoftheflaregopshouldbe50mm.However,ifsignificantrelative
rotationbetweenthecopandthecolumnisexpected. thentherequiredgopthicknessto
accommodatethisrotationshouldbecalculatedandprovided.
2. Thelongitudinalflarereinforcementprovidedisnominal.Themaximumspacingbetween
longitudinalflarereinforcementshallnotexceed450mm;andthespacingshallnotbeless
than150mm.lEg.#19 atamaximumof450mm;minimum150)
3. Therecommendedtransverseflarereinforcementratiointheupper1/3of theflare
heightis =0.40%0.05%,whilethatratioforthelower2/3of theflareheightshouldnot
belessthan =0.075% 0.025%. SeeTable1fortypicaltransversereinforcementintheflare
regionofacircularcolumnswithastandardone-wayflareIBDD7-31).Thisreinforcementis
inadditionto therequiredprismaticcoreconfinement/shearreinforcement.Thecolumn flare
detailshavebeendevelopedafterreviewingtheresultsoflaboratorytests.
4.MinimumclearcovershallconformtorequirementsofBDS8.22.
5. Whilelaboratorytestswereconductedwiththetransverseflarereinforcementhavinga lap
ofapproximately40timesbardiameter,theuseofmechanicalcouplers!servicesplice) is
recommended.Whenacolumnissubjectedtomulti-directionalexcitation,lapsplicesin
transverseflarereinforcementmaynotbereliableifflareconcretespoils.Tominimize
reinforcementcongestion.thelocationofmechanicalcouplersshallbestaggered.
6- 1COLUMNANALYSES CONSIDERATIONS 8
MEMO TO D ESIGNERS 6-1 O CTOBER 2001

50mm thick (min) horizontal

polystyrene with hard board
surfacing (see Note 1)
150 typ
Plan Section A-A
450 max
See Note 2
See note 4
Plan Section 8-8

See note 4 ,
.,

Column Spiral
of Hoop Bars
Varies
Plan Section C-C
Start Parabolic
Hoop Bars
Flare
Transverse Flare
Reinforcement
See note 4
Detail D
Cut Line for
Polystyrene Removal
Seal Joint
Grout - Tight
Longitudinal
Flare Bars
Longitudinal
Column Bars
Transverse Flare
Reinforcement
Column Spiral or
Rare Column Details-2
6-1 COLUMN A NALYSES CONSIDERATIONS 9
'
MEMo TO DESIGNERS 6-1 O cTOBER 2001
~ l
DeputyChief,EngineeringServices,
StructureDesign
MR: pkml
6- 1 COLUMN A NALYSES CONSIDERATIONS 10