ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001 3

ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 1, January-February 2001.

MS No. 99-204 received October 14, 1999, and reviewed under Institute publica-
tion policies. Copyright 2001, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright pro-
prietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the November-December 2001 ACI
Structural Journal if received by July 1, 2001.

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
The objective of this research was to develop an approach that
relates the confinement reinforcement in the plastic hinge zone of
bridge pier walls to the displacement ductility capacity. An analyt-
ical model to predict the seismic response of bridge pier walls was
developed and verified using test data. A parametric study was
conducted using a computer program named Pier to study pier
walls with a wide range of parameters. Based on the results of the
parametric study, a new performance-based design method was
developed. The proposed method can be used to design the con-
finement reinforcement based on a target displacement ductility
level. Conversely, the method can be used to estimate the ductility
capacity of an existing wall with a known amount of confinement
reinforcement. Depending on the ductility demand, the result can
be used to determine if retrofit of the wall is necessary.
Keywords: ductility; load; pier; reinforced concrete.
INTRODUCTION
The practice of designing pier walls in the weak direction
based on the provisions for columns is primarily driven by
judgment and not actual test data. Whether this practice is
appropriate has not been investigated in detail and is yet to be
verified by tests. The minimum confinement reinforcement
limits also appear to be judgmental and are perhaps approxi-
mately based on the minimum shrinkage reinforcement re-
quirements. In plastic hinge zones, the compressive strain
capacity of unconfined concrete is inadequate to achieve the
desired ductility level without excessive spalling of the cover
concrete. Transverse reinforcement is provided to confine the
concrete core and to prevent buckling of the longitudinal bars.
Confining the concrete core improves its strength and com-
pressive strain capacity. Comprehensive data and analysis of
the effect of transverse reinforcement on the seismic perfor-
mance of pier walls for out-of-plane loading are lacking.
The American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials (AASHTO) design specifications
1
have
no specific provisions to design bridge pier walls.
AASHTO
1
requires pier walls to be designed as shear walls
in the strong direction and as columns in the weak direction.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans
2
) de-
sign specifications require bridge pier walls to be designed
as columns, with certain limits for the reinforcement ratio
and spacing that are specific to walls.
AASHTO
1
adapted the ACI
3
code requirement for the lat-
eral reinforcement spacing. The maximum spacing limit is
the smallest of 1/4 of the minimum member dimension, and
102 mm. Caltrans
2
requires the maximum spacing of the lat-
eral reinforcement to be the smallest of 1/5 of the column
minimum dimension, 203 mm, and six times the longitudinal
bar diameter. The last limit is intended to prevent buckling
of the longitudinal bars. In designing the confinement rein-
forcement in the plastic hinge zones of bridge pier walls,
AASHTO
1
considers the gross and the confined section di-
mensions, and the material properties. In addition to the pa-
rameters considered by AASHTO,
1
Caltrans
2
considers the
effect of the axial load. Neither of the two design specifica-
tions explicitly considers the displacement ductility capacity
of the pier walls.
In contrast to walls, several methods are available for de-
sign of confinement reinforcement in columns. Three of the
methods are based on a ductility capacity for the columns.
Paulay and Priestley
4
developed an equation that accounts
for the axial load level and the curvature ductility capacity.
Wehbe, Saiidi, and Sanders
5
proposed an equation to calcu-
late the lateral reinforcement in rectangular bridge columns
based on a target displacement ductility. Sheikh and
Khoury
6
proposed a modification to the current ACI
3
code
equation. The modified equation contained two parameters
to account for the effect of the axial load level and the curva-
ture ductility demand for the column.
The objectives of this research were to study the seismic
response of bridge pier walls with a wide range of parame-
ters and to develop a practical design approach that relates
the confinement reinforcement in the plastic hinge zones of
bridge pier walls to a target displacement ductility capacity.
Such a design method can be a useful tool in performance-
based design of concrete bridges.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Current design provisions require pier walls to be designed
as columns in the out-of-plane direction. No performance-
based design methods for the confinement reinforcement of
walls for out-of-plane loading are available. Three methods,
however, can be found in the literature for columns. This pa-
per introduces a method for pier walls and examines the ap-
plicability of existing methods that are developed for
columns.
ANALYTICAL MODEL
An analytical model was developed to determine the out-
of-plane seismic response of bridge pier walls.
7
The lateral
deflection of a reinforced concrete pier wall includes flexure,
bond slip, and shear components. The Kent and Park
8
model
Title no. 98-S1
Performance-Based Design of Confinement Reinforcement
in Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier Walls for Out-of-Plane
Seismic Loads
by Nagi A. Abo-Shadi, M. Saiid Saiidi, and David H. Sanders
ACI Structural Journal/ January-February 2001 4
and the modified Mander, Priestley, and Park
9
model were
used to model the cover concrete and the confined concrete,
respectively. The confinement effectiveness coefficient,
which relates the area of the effectively confined core to the
nominal core area bounded by the centerline of the confine-
ment reinforcement, was taken as 0.6, as recommended by
Paulay and Priestley.
4
Furthermore, the stress in the confine-
ment reinforcement was assumed to be 60% of the steel yield
stress. The stress reduction in the confinement reinforcement
was based on the observations during the tests of the wall
specimens at the University of Nevada, Reno. To model the
steel stress-strain relationship, the model proposed by
Mander
10
was used.
The deformation due to flexure was calculated by taking
the static moment of the area under the idealized curvature
profile along the height of the pier wall taken about its free
end. The idealized curvature at the ultimate state included
the effect of the plastic hinge by replacing the actual plastic
hinge length with an equivalent plastic hinge length that
would result in the same plastic displacement at the free end.
The plastic rotation was assumed to be concentrated at the
middle of the equivalent plastic hinge length. The proposed
empirical expression by Paulay and Priestley
4
to calculate
the equivalent plastic hinge length of reinforced concrete
members was adopted in this study. In calculating the dis-
placement between the yield and the ultimate, it was as-
sumed that the plastic hinge length at a displacement
ductility
d
of 1 is equal to 50% of the calculated value using
the equation by Paulay and Priestley,
4
while it is equal to
100% at
d
of 4 or higher. These values are based on judg-
ment, and they appear to be reasonable. A linear interpola-
tion for the plastic hinge length was assumed between
displacement ductility levels of 1 and 4.
The deformation due to bond slip was found using a mod-
ified version of a model that was proposed by Wehbe, Saiidi,
and Sanders
5
The Wehbe method ignores the yield plateau in
the stress-strain diagram for steel, which can lead to unrea-
sonable results immediately after the yield point. In the mod-
ified version, the yield plateau was included. The steel stress-
strain curve was modeled by a trilinear relationship, with
strain hardening stage represented by a line.
The shear deformation was based on empirical equations
developed by Park and Paulay
8
for uncracked and cracked
reinforced concrete members. The equations were used to
calculate the shear stiffness per unit length of the member.
Park and Paulay found that the shear stiffness of a diagonally
cracked member is approximately 10 to 30% of that of the
uncracked members, depending on the amount of the shear
reinforcement. For pier walls with very low or no shear rein-
forcement, a minimum cracked shear stiffness of 10% of the
uncracked stiffness was used.
The yield point was assumed to have been reached when
the tensile strain in the vertical reinforcing bars is equal to the
yield strain of the steel. The total lateral deflection and curva-
ture of the pier wall at the yield point are called the yield dis-
placement and the yield curvature, respectively. The failure
point was calculated, taking into account the load history. The
mode of failure in the model was controlled by compression
failure in the confined concrete or fatigue fracture of the ver-
tical bars. When the strain in the concrete core reached the ul-
timate strain of the confined concrete, the wall was assumed
to have failed in compression of the concrete. The Manson-
Coffin
11
model for the strain-fatigue life relationship and the
linear damage model by Miner
12
were used to calculate the
damage index, which identifies fracture of the vertical bars
due to low cycle-fatigue. The total lateral deflection and cur-
vature of the pier wall at the failure point are called the ulti-
mate displacement and the ultimate curvature, respectively.
The displacement ductility capacity is defined as the ratio of
the ultimate displacement to the yield displacement, while the
curvature ductility capacity is defined as the ratio of the ulti-
mate curvature to the yield curvature.
Computer implementation
A personal computer-based special-purpose program was
developed to implement the analytical model described in
the previous section. The program calculates the confined
concrete properties and develops the stress-strain curves for
unconfined and confined concrete and the steel. The pro-
gram performs the moment-curvature analysis in the weak
direction for piers with two longitudinal reinforcement cur-
tains subjected to a known axial load. The effect of spalling
of the cover concrete is included. The program calculates the
deflections at the top of cantilever piers due to flexure, shear,
and bond slip. It defines the moment and curvature for crack-
ing and yield points. The program incorporates a low cycle-
fatigue model and a linear damage model that are used to cal-
culate the damage index. The damage index identifies frac-
ture of the longitudinal bars due to low-cycle fatigue. The
ultimate displacement at which a limit state is reached is cal-
culated. Two possible limit states have been identified: 1) the
maximum compression strain in the confined concrete is
equal to the ultimate strain of the confined concrete; and 2)
the damage index of the vertical reinforcing bars is equal to
unity (meaning fracture of bars).
The required data to run the program are the pier geomet-
rical properties, the vertical and confinement reinforcement,
the unconfined concrete compressive strength, and the steel
properties. The program results are the mode of failure, the
displacement ductility capacity, and a breakdown of the dis-
placements due to flexure, shear, and bond slip at the crack-
ing, yield, and ultimate points.
Verification of analytical model
The pier wall specimens were tested at the University of
Nevada, Reno,
7
and the University of California-Irvine
(UCI),
13,14
and were analyzed using Pier. To evaluate the
ACI member Nagi A. Abo-Shadi is an engineer at Robert Englekirk, Inc., Los Ange-
les, Calif. He received his BSc in civil engineering and MSc in structural engineering
from Mansoura University, Egypt, and his PhD from the University of Nevada, Reno,
Nev. He is a member of ACI Committees 341, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges;
and 342, Evaluation of Concrete Bridges and Bridge Elements. His research interests
include analysis and design of reinforced concrete and post-tensioned structures with
an emphasis on seismic analysis.
M. Saiid Saiidi, FACI, is the UNR-Foundation Professor of Civil Engineering at the
University of Nevada, Reno, Nev. He is a member and former chair of ACI Committee
341, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges, and is a member of ACI Committees
342, Evaluation of Concrete Bridges and Bridge Elements; 343, Concrete Bridge
Design; and 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. His
research interests include analysis and shake-table studies of reinforced concrete
bridges.
David H. Sanders, FACI, is an associate professor of civil engineering at the Univer-
sity of Nevada, Reno. He is the chair of ACI Committee 341, Earthquake-Resistant
Concrete Bridges, and a member of ACI-ASCE Committees 423, Prestressed Con-
crete; and 445, Shear and Torsion. His research interests include all aspects of struc-
tural concrete response, with an emphasis on seismic performance, including shake-
table testing.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001 5
performance of the analytical model, the analytical results
were compared with the experimental results.
Comparison with results from pier wall specimens
tested at University of Nevada, Reno
Seven half-scale pier wall specimens that were tested at
the University of Nevada, Reno,
7
under out-of-plane cyclic
loads, were analyzed using Pier. The test was conducted to
evaluate the seismic behavior of representative existing
bridge pier walls in the U.S. Details of the test specimens
were based on representative existing bridge pier walls in the
U.S. Representative pier walls were established based on a
survey
7
of state departments of transportation. Forty-seven
cases were included in the database.
The wall cross section was 300 mm thick and 1500 mm
wide. The height measured from the top of the footing to the
centerline of the lateral actuator was 2850 mm. The number,
size, ratio, and spacing of the bars are listed in Table 1 and 2.
Figure 1 shows details of reinforcement for Specimen 1.
Crossties with standard hooks of 90 and 135 degree legs
were used.
The measured material properties were used in the analy-
sis. Good agreement was found when comparing the enve-
lopes of the lateral load-displacement relationships with the
calculated responses in all seven walls. Figure 2 and 3 show
two representative samples of the lateral load-displacement
envelopes for walls with low (0.75%) and high (1.5%) lon-
gitudinal reinforcement ratios, respectively. It can be seen
that the analytical model led to a reasonable estimate of the
initial stiffness, the yield point, and the ultimate point. The
peak load capacities were also close. The descending portion
of the postyielding region was not present in the calculated
result. This is because the concrete in the actual wall deteri-
orated at a faster rate than that assumed in the model by
Mander
10
for confined concrete. Six out of seven wall spec-
imens failed due to fracture of the vertical reinforcing bars.
The program successfully predicted the same observed mode
of failure of the wall specimens.
The numerical values of the measured and calculated total
displacements at the yield and ultimate points and the dis-
placement ductility capacities are listed in Table 3, while a
graphical interpretation is presented in Fig. 4 and 5. The dif-
ference between the measured and calculated total displace-
ments and ductilities is presented for comparison. The
average difference between the measured and calculated to-
tal yield displacements was 6.3% with a standard deviation
of 10.2%, while it was 11.9% with = 5.8% for the ulti-
mate displacements. An average difference of 5.7% with =
5.1% was found between the measured and the calculated
displacement ductility capacity.
Fig. 1Details of Specimen 1.
Fig. 2Measured and calculated lateral load-displacement
for Specimen 1.
Fig. 3Measured and calculated lateral load-displacement
for Specimen 4.
6 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001
Comparison with results from pier wall specimens
tested at UCI
The as-built specimens
13
that were tested in the weak di-
rection and had Class C splice (28d
b
) were selected to be an-
alyzed. Wall specimens with shorter lap-splices were not
analyzed because the analytical model does not consider the
lap-splice length. The specimens represented a 1/2-scale
model of existing pier walls. The height and thickness of the
specimens were 3175 and 250 mm, respectively. The width
was 913 mm in Specimen WCI, while it was 950 mm for
Specimens WC2 and WC3. The wall specimens did not in-
clude lateral reinforcement or crossties in the short direction.
The specified yield stress of the vertical bars was 276 MPa,
while it was 483 MPa for the deformed wires. The specified
concrete compressive strength was 27.6 MPa.
The vertical and lateral reinforcement ratios, the measured
concrete compressive strength, and the applied axial load are
presented in Table 4.
The wall specimens that were tested in the second study
14
were approximately 1/2-scale models of existing pier walls.
The typical dimensions of these wall specimens were 3175
mm high, 2400 mm wide, and 250 mm thick. Table 4 pre-
sents data for the wall specimens. The specified concrete
compressive strength was 27.6 MPa, while the steel yield
stress for the vertical bars and the deformed wires were 414
and 620 MPa, respectively.
The measured and calculated yield and ultimate displace-
ments and displacement ductility for the UCI
13,14
wall spec-
imens are presented in Table 5. The percentage differences
between the measured and calculated values are presented
for comparison. An average difference of 0.8% with =
7.1% was found between the measured and calculated yield
Table 3Comparison of measured and calculated displacements and displacement ductilities for
University of Nevada, Reno wall specimens
Specimen
no.
Yield point Ultimate point Ductility
Calculated
curvature,
10
5
rad/mm
Displacement, mm
Calculated
curvature,
10
4
rad/mm
Displacement, mm
Calculated
curvature
ductility

Displacement ductility
d
Calculated Measured
Difference,
% Calculated Measured
Difference,
% Calculated Measured
Difference,
%
1 743 32.6 32.5 0.2 1224 211.3 230.5 9.1 16.5 7.1 6.5 8.7
2 728 32.2 27.5 16.9 1212 192.5 227.8 18.3 16.6 7.1 7.0 1.2
3 731 30.3 25.0 21.0 1204 187.5 224.8 19.9 16.5 7.4 7.5 0.9
4 786 41.9 41.5 1.0 1243 240.7 259.3 7.7 15.8 6.2 5.8 6.6
5 804 42.6 42.5 0.3 1301 242.3 271.3 12.0 16.2 6.4 5.7 11.6
6 798 39.7 42.5 6.5 1298 257.7 267.0 3.6 16.3 6.7 6.1 10.9
7 686 19.5 17.5 11.1 1074 157.5 177.8 12.9 15.7 9.1 9.0 1.6
Average 6.3 11.9 5.7
10.2 5.8 5.1
Table 1Vertical and transverse reinforcement for wall specimens tested at
University of Nevada, Reno
Specimen
Vertical reinforcement Transverse reinforcement
No.
Reinforcing
bar

v
, % S
h
, mm
No.
Reinforcing
bar

1
, % S
v
, mm
1 18 16 0.78 180 16 10 0.14 320
2 18 16 0.78 180 28 10 0.25 182
3 18 16 0.78 180 28 10 0.25 182
4 24 19 1.47 130 16 10 0.14 320
5 24 19 1.47 130 28 10 0.25 182
6 24 19 1.47 130 28 10 0.25 182
7 10 13 0.28 360 16 10 0.14 320
Table 2Crosstie reinforcement for wall specimens tested at University of
Nevada, Reno
Specimen
Lower crosstie reinforcement Upper crosstie reinforcement
H, mm No. Bar

c
, % S
v
, mm
H, mm No. Bar

c
, % S
v
, mm
1 956 21 10 0.10 320 63.75 35 10 0.10 320
2 910 20 10 0.10 182 65.50 36 10 0.10 182
3 910 40 10 0.20 182 65.50 36 10 0.10 182
4 956 18 10 0.09 320 63.75 30 10 0.09 320
5 910 20 10 0.10 182 65.50 36 10 0.10 182
6 910 40 10 0.20 182 65.50 36 10 0.10 182
7 1275 20 10 0.07 255 51.00 20 10 0.07 255
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001 7
displacements, while it was 0.9% with = 8.8% for the ulti-
mate displacement. As for the displacement ductility capac-
ity, the average difference was 1.5% with = 8.9%.
Based on the good correlation between the analytical and
experimental results, it was concluded that the analytical
model is a reliable tool for seismic response analysis of pier
walls for out-of-plane loading.
PARAMETRIC STUDY
In performing the parametric study, 120 pier walls were
analyzed using the computer program Pier. The low-cycle
fatigue of the vertical bars was considered by applying two
cycles at each displacement ductility level. The parameters
included in this study were the ratio of the wall height to its
thickness, the vertical reinforcement ratio, the confinement-
reinforcement ratio, and the axial load index. The reinforce-
ment ratio is defined as the area of the reinforcing bars to the
cross-sectional area of the wall normal to the bars direction.
The confinement-reinforcement ratio included the transverse
(running parallel to the long direction of the wall section)
and crosstie reinforcement ratios. The axial load index is de-
fined as the axial load divided by the product of the gross
sectional area of the wall and the specified concrete com-
pressive strength. The selected ranges for the parameters
were based on the state departments of transportation sur-
vey.
7
Table 6 lists the range of the parameters in the survey
and the selected values for the parametric study. The general
rule to select the values for different parameters was to
choose those that are more likely to be critical in terms of
their values and presence in the database, taking into account
the mean and standard deviation values. For example, the
confinement-reinforcement ratio was limited to 0.4%, even
though some walls in the database had a reinforcement ratio
exceeding 1%. Note that the average value for confinement-
reinforcement ratio in the database was 0.19%, and the stan-
dard deviation was 0.17%.
The ratio of the wall height to its thickness ranged from 2
to 15 to represent a wide range of short to tall walls. Walls
with higher aspect ratio were excluded because of their very
low population in the database. The transverse and crosstie
reinforcement ratios were taken equal to each other. An axial
load index of 10% is believed to be the upper bound for
bridge pier walls and should account for extra loads due to
the vertical earthquake component. The wall cross section
was taken as 300 x 1500 mm. The concrete compressive
strength was taken as 31 MPa, while the steel yield stress
was taken as 448.2 MPa. The yield strain, strain hardening,
and ultimate strain of the steel were taken as 0.0022, 0.01,
and 0.1, respectively. The ultimate steel stress was assumed
as 620 MPa. Data for selected representative cases are pre-
sented in Table 7.
Results of parametric study
The analysis results for selected cases are presented in
Table 8. The relationship between the yield displacement
y
and the ratio of the wall height to its thickness H/t at an axial
load index of 5% and a confinement-reinforcement ratio of
0.1% is presented in Fig. 6. Figure 7 shows the ultimate dis-
placement versus H/t at a confinement-reinforcement ratio of
0.1% and an axial load index of 5%. The relationship between
the displacement ductility capacity
d
and H/t ratio at an axial
load index of 5% is presented in Fig. 8 to 10. Figure 11 to 13
show the
d
and H/t relationship at an axial load index of 10%.
When the vertical reinforcement ratio
v
was increased for
cases with the same H/t and confinement reinforcement, the
yield curvature and moment were increased as expected.
Fig. 4Measured and calculated lateral displacements for
test specimens.
Fig. 5Measured and calculated displacement ductility for
test specimens.
Table 4Data for wall specimens tested at UCI
13,14
Specimen
Vertical
steel ratio

v
, %
Lateral
steel ratio

1
, %
Crosstie
steel ratio,

c
, %
Measured
concrete
strength,
MPa
Axial load,
kN
WC1
13
0.56 0.15 NA 26.6 275.8
WC2
13
0.56 0.15 NA 36.9 275.8
WC3
13
0.56 0.15 NA 38.6 275.8
LN
14
1.30 0.25 NA 28.4 880.8
LP
14
1.30 0.25 0.16 25.3 880.8
LU
14
1.30 0.25 0.08 25.3 880.8
HN
14
2.30 0.25 NA 32.2 1000.9
HP
14
2.30 0.25 0.16 28.4 1000.9
HU
14
2.30 0.25 0.08 32.2 1000.9
8 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001
Because the cracked wall stiffness was independent of
v
,
the deflections due to flexure and shear at the yield point
were increased (Fig. 6). In most cases with confinement-re-
inforcement ratios of 0.25 and 0.4%, and vertical reinforce-
ment ratios of 0.5 and 1%, the ultimate point was controlled
by low-cycle fatigue of the vertical bars (Fig. 9, 10, 12, and
13). The cases that failed in low-cycle fatigue resulted in the
irregularity of the curves (Fig. 9, 10, and 13) because of the
discrete character of the low-cycle fatigue model. When the
failure was controlled by compression crushing of concrete,
high
v
reduced the ultimate deflection. On the contrary, high

v
increased the ultimate displacement when the failure was
controlled by low-cycle fatigue. Nevertheless, the displace-
ment ductility capacity dropped for both failure modes because
of relatively high yield displacement (the denominator in duc-
tility ratio). A similar trend was observed when the axial load
index was increased from 5 to 10%.
In cases with confinement-reinforcement ratio of 0.1%
(lower than 0.25%, the minimum required by AASHTO
1
and
Caltrans
2
) and the axial load index of 5%, the displacement
ductility capacity was nearly constant for walls with the
same vertical reinforcement ratio and H/t 4 (Fig. 8). On the
Table 5Comparison of measured and calculated displacements and
displacement ductilities for UCI wall specimens
13,14
Specimen
Yield displacement, mm Ultimate displacement, mm Displacement ductility
Measured Calculated
Difference,
% Measured Calculated
Difference,
% Measured Calculated
Difference,
%
WC1 17.8 20.1 11.5 153.3 195.6 21.7 8.6 9.8 11.5
WC2 16.5 16.4 0.5 195.0 200.8 2.9 11.8 12.2 3.3
WC3 16.5 16.0 3.1 195.0 203.6 4.2 11.8 12.7 7.1
LN 46.5 45.7 1.7 202.5 190.4 6.4 4.4 4.2 4.6
LP 44.8 47.4 5.6 275.0 252.7 8.8 6.1 5.3 15.3
LU 44.8 47.5 5.7 252.5 247.0 2.2 5.6 5.2 8.4
HN 62.0 58.4 6.2 250.0 242.9 2.9 4.0 4.2 3.1
HP 66.8 61.3 8.8 298.8 297.9 0.3 4.5 4.9 7.8
HU 64.3 58.8 9.3 260.0 260.4 0.2 4.0 4.4 8.6
Average 0.8 0.9 1.5
7.1 8.8 8.9
Fig. 6Yield displacement versus H/t for P/(f
c
.A
g
) = 5%
and
1
and
c
= 0.1%.
Fig. 7Ultimate displacement versus H/t for P/(f
c
.A
g
) =
5% and
1
and
c
= 0.1%.
Table 6Selected values for parameters
Parameter Units
Survey
7
range
Selected
values Minimum Maximum Average
Wall height to its thickness ratio H/t 2.75 18.22 10.27 3.28
2, 4, 7, 10,
15
Vertical steel ratio
v
% 0.21 3.77 1.26 0.86
0.5, 1.0,
1.75, 2.5
Confinement-reinforcement ratio
1

and
c
% 0.01 1.02 0.19 0.17 0.1, 2.5, 0.4
Axial load index P/A
g
. f
c
% 0.90 6.70 3.57 1.67 5, 10
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001 9
contrary, in walls with H/t < 4, the displacement ductility ca-
pacity was sensitive to H/t. Another important observation in
Fig. 8 is that, despite the very low amount of confinement re-
inforcement, ductile behavior is expected for walls as long as
the vertical reinforcement ratio is 1% or less. This indicates that
it is the relative value of the confinement reinforcement and the
vertical reinforcement that affects the ductility capacity. When
the axial load index was raised from 5 to 10%, the displacement
ductility capacity dropped and was nearly the same for wall cas-
es with H/t 4 (Fig. 11). The displacement ductility capacity
was improved considerably when the confinement-reinforce-
ment ratio was raised from 0.1 to 0.25%, particularly for high
vertical reinforcement ratios (Fig. 8 and 9). The change in
d
was not that significant for walls with an axial load index of 5%
when the confinement-reinforcement ratio was changed from
0.25 to 0.4% (Fig. 9 and 10). When the axial load index was
10% and the vertical reinforcement ratio was equal to 1.75% or
more,
d
was enhanced significantly by increasing the confine-
ment reinforcement (Fig. 11 to 13).
PROPOSED METHOD
Based on the results of the parametric study, an approach
to relate the confinement reinforcement to the displacement
ductility capacity of pier walls was developed. The analyti-
cal models used in the parametric study were checked by an-
alyzing pier wall specimens that were tested at the University
of Nevada, Reno, and UCI. Good agreement was found
when comparing the analytical and experimental results for
Fig. 8Ductility versus H/t for P/(f
c
.A
g
) = 5% and
1
and

c
= 0.1%.
Table 7Data for selected cases in parametric
study
Wall case
Wall height
to thickness
H/t
Wall
height, mm
Vertical
steel ratio,

v
, %
Confine-
ment steel
ratio
1
and

c
, %
Axial load
index,
P/(A
g
.f
c
),
%
C-1 2 600 0.50 0.10 5
C-2 4 1200 0.50 0.10 5
C-3 7 2100 0.50 0.10 5
C-4 10 3000 0.50 0.10 5
C-5 15 4500 0.50 0.10 5
C-61 2 600 0.50 0.10 10
C-62 4 1200 0.50 0.10 10
C-63 7 2100 0.50 0.10 10
C-64 10 3000 0.50 0.10 10
C-65 15 4500 0.50 0.10 10
C-116 2 600 2.50 0.40 10
C-117 4 1200 2.50 0.40 10
C-118 7 2100 2.50 0.40 10
C-119 10 3000 2.50 0.40 10
C-120 15 4500 2.50 0.40 10 Fig. 9Ductility versus H/t for P/(f
c
.A
g
) = 5% and
1
and

c
= 0.25%.
Fig. 10Ductility versus H/t for P/(f
c
.A
g
) = 5% and
1
and

c
= 0.4%.
10 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001
the pier wall specimens. The confinement-reinforcement ra-
tio was normalized relative to the vertical reinforcement ra-
tio and used in the equation. Figure 14 to 17 show the
relationships between the displacement ductility capacity and
the normalized confinement-reinforcement ratio. Two H/t
ranges were considered to distinguish between tall walls and
short walls. The selection of the H/t ranges was based on the
results of the parametric study. Note that in all the analyses,
the lateral and crosstie reinforcement ratios were assumed to
be the same. A best fit was used for each axial load index.
The best-fit curve is given by the following equation
(1)
where

d
a b

t

v
----- + =

t
= confinement-reinforcement ratio (in this study, tak-
en equal to
1
, lateral steel ratio, or
c
, crosstie steel ratio);
and
a, b = fitting constants.
Equation 1 was developed for
t
/
v
in the range of 0.04
and 0.8. Table 9 presents the fitting constants (a, b) for each
axial load index and H/t range. For an axial load index of 5%,
the first constant a was 3.0 and 2.5 for H/t 4 and H/t < 4,
respectively. When the axial load index was 10%, the con-
stant a was 1.5 for H/t 4, while it was 1.1 for H/t < 4. The
constant b was found to be 8.3 for all axial load indexes and
H/t values.
The following equations were developed for the best fit
curves:
For axial load index of 5% and H/t 4
Table 8Results for selected cases in parametric study
Case
Yield deflections, mm Ultimate deflections, mm

d
d
f
d
b
d
sh
d
t
d
f
d
b
d
sh
d
t
C-1 1.0 0.9 2.6 4.4 15.7 5.6 3.0 24.3 5.47
C-2 3.8 1.8 2.6 8.2 43.8 11.2 3.0 58.0 7.12
C-3 11.5 3.1 2.6 17.2 106.9 19.6 3.0 129.4 7.51
C-4 23.5 4.4 2.6 30.6 195.1 28.0 3.0 226.1 7.40
C-5 52.6 8.4 2.6 63.5 418.5 52.3 3.0 473.8 7.46
C-61 1.1 1.0 3.6 5.6 10.1 2.9 3.7 16.7 2.97
C-62 4.4 2.0 3.6 9.9 28.8 5.8 3.7 38.3 3.89
C-63 13.3 3.4 3.6 20.3 71.7 10.1 3.7 85.5 4.22
C-64 27.2 4.9 3.6 35.6 132.3 14.5 3.7 150.4 4.23
C-65 61.7 9.2 3.5 74.4 285.4 27.0 3.7 316.1 4.25
C-116 1.7 2.9 2.5 7.2 24.0 13.5 3.1 40.5 5.66
C-117 6.9 5.8 2.5 15.2 65.7 26.9 3.1 95.6 6.28
C-118 21.1 10.1 2.5 33.8 152.0 47.1 3.1 202.2 5.98
C-119 43.1 14.5 2.5 60.1 267.1 67.3 3.1 337.4 5.61
C-120 97.0 21.7 2.5 121.2 522.5 100.9 3.1 626.4 5.17
Fig. 11Ductility versus H/t for P/(f
c
.A
g
) = 10% and
1
and
c
= 0.1%.
Fig. 12Ductility versus H/t for P/(f
c
.A
g
) = 10% and
1
and
c
= 0.25%.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001 11
(2)
For axial load index of 5% and H/t < 4
(3)
For axial load index of 10% and H/t 4
(4)
For axial load index of 10% and H/t < 4
(5)
Curves parallel with the best fit
d
versus
t
/
v
curves were
plotted (Fig. 14 to 17) to establish the lower bound of the dis-
placement ductility capacity. No particular rules were applied
to obtain the lower bound curves except that they needed to be
below nearly all the points. The lower-bound curves are in-
tended to be conservative and are recommended for design of
confinement reinforcement for a target displacement ductility

d
3.0 8.3

t

v
----- + =

d
2.5 8.3

t

v
----- + =

d
1.5 8.3

t

v
----- + =

d
1.1 8.3

t

v
----- + =
or to determine a conservative estimate of
d
for a given pier
wall.
For axial load index of 5% and H/t 4
(6)
For axial load index of 5% and H/t < 4
(7)

d
1.75 8.3

t

v
----- + =

d
1.25 8.3

t

v
----- + =
Fig. 13Ductility versus H/t for P/(f
c
.A
g
) = 10% and
1
and
c
= 0.4%. Fig. 14Displacement ductility versus
t
/
v
for P/(f
c
.A
g
) =
5% and H/t 4.
Fig. 15Displacement ductility versus
t
/
v
for P/(f
c
.A
g
) =
5% and H/t < 4.
Table 9Fitting constants
Axial load index P/(f
c
.A
g
)
H/t
Best fit Lower bound
a b a b
5%
4 3.0 8.3 1.75 8.3
< 4 2.5 8.3 1.25 8.3
10%
4 1.5 8.3 0.50 8.3
< 4 1.1 8.3 0.00 8.3
12 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001
For axial load index of 10% and H/t 4
(8)
For axial load index of 10% and H/t < 4
(9)

d
0.5 8.3

t

v
----- + =

d
8.3

t

v
----- =
Equation (6) and (8) were combined into one equation
(Eq. (10)), while Eq. (7) and (9) were combined into another
(Eq. (11)). The ductility ratio was assumed to be a linear func-
tion of the axial load in combining the equations.
For H/t 4
(10)
For H/t < 4
(11)
Equation (10) and (11) can be rewritten as following
(12)
where is a factor that depends on H/t; = 1.2 for H/t 4;
and = 1 for H/t < 4.
Equation (12) is plotted for axial load index values ranging
from 5 to 10% in Fig. 18 and 19. The figures or Eq. (12) can
be used to design the confinement reinforcement or to esti-
mate the displacement ductility capacity of given pier walls
following the steps shown in the following section.
Design of confinement reinforcement
1. Determine the axial load index based on the axial load,
probable concrete strength, and cross section dimensions;
2. Estimate the displacement ductility demand from a non-
linear analysis or based on other criteria;
3. Use the curves in Fig. 18 or 19 (depending on the H/t)
or Eq. (12) to determine the required
t
/
v
. Use linear inter-
polation for axial load indices between 5 and 10% if using
the plots;
4. Design the transverse reinforcement and crossties using

t
for each; and
5. If the axial load index is less than 5%, use the 5% curve
for a conservative estimate of
t
/
v
.
Estimate of displacement ductility capacity
1. Determine the axial load index based on the axial load,
probable concrete strength, and cross section dimensions;
2. Determine
t
as the average of lateral and crosstie re-
inforcement ratio;
3. Determine
t
/
v
;
4. Using
t
/
v
and Eq. (12) or the appropriate curve for H/t
and the axial load index, determine the displacement ductility.
Use linear interpolation for axial load indices between 5 and
l0%; and
5. If the axial load index is less than 5%, use the 5% curve
for a conservative estimate of
d
.
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND OTHER
METHODS
No performance-based design methods for the confine-
ment reinforcement of walls for out-of-plane loading are
available. Three methods can be found, however, in the liter-
ature for columns. Paulay and Priestley
4
developed an equa-
tion that accounts for the axial load level and the curvature
ductility capacity. Wehbe, Saiidi, and Sanders
5
proposed an
equation to calculate the lateral reinforcement in rectangular

d
3 25
P
A
g
f
c

------------ 8.3

t

v
----- + =

d
2.5 25
P
A
g
f
c

------------ 8.3

t

v
----- + =

d
2.5 25
P
A
g
f
c

------------ 8.3

t

v
----- + =
Fig. 16Displacement ductility versus
t
/
v
for P/(f
c
.A
g
) =
10% and H/t 4.
Fig. 17Displacement ductility versus
t
/
v
for P/(f
c
.A
g
) =
10% and H/t < 4.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001 13
bridge columns based on a target displacement ductility.
Sheikh and Khoury
6
modified the ACI
3
code equation for
the confinement reinforcement of columns to account for the
axial load level and the curvature ductility demand.
The displacement ductility capacity and the curvature duc-
tility capacity for the seven wall specimens reported in Refer-
ence 7 were calculated using the proposed approach, the
Wehbe, Saiidi, and Sanders
5
method, and the Sheikh and
Khoury
6
method for the purpose of comparison. The Paulay
and Priestley
4
method was not considered for comparison be-
cause it can be used only in columns with an axial load index
of 8% or more while the axial load index of the wall speci-
mens was 5%.
Because the proposed approach and the Wehbe, Saiidi, and
Sanders
5
method relate the confinement-reinforcement ratio
to
d
, while the Sheikh and Khoury
6
method relates the con-
finement-reinforcement ratio to

, the analysis results of the

wall specimens
7
using Pier were used to relate the displace-
ment ductility to the curvature ductility (Table 3). The average
ratio of
d
/

was found to be 0.44, with a standard deviation

of 0.01 for Specimens 1, 2, and 3. For Specimens 4, 5, and 6,
the average ratio of
d
/

was 0.40, with a standard deviation

of 0.01. The
d
/

ratio was found to be 0.58 for Specimen

7.
Wehbe, Saiidi, and Sanders
5
equation
Wehbe, Saiidi, and Sanders
5
proposed the following equa-
tion to calculate the amount of lateral reinforcement in the
plastic hinge zone of rectangular bridge columns with differ-
ent levels of confinement based on the attainable displace-
ment ductility
(13)
where
A
sh
= lateral reinforcement area;
s = spacing of transverse reinforcement along the mem-
ber axis;
h
c
= dimension of column core measured center-to-cen-
ter of confining reinforcement;

d
= the target displacement ductility;
f
c,n
= specified concrete compressive strength;
f
ce
= expected concrete compressive strength;
f
ye
= expected longitudinal steel yield stress;
P = axial load;
A
g
= sectional gross area;

1
= longitudinal reinforcement ratio;
f
y
= specified longitudinal steel yield stress; and
f
s,n
= specified steel yield stress.
Equation (13) was verified against experimental results
obtained from test on flexure-dominated rectangular and
square bridge columns with an axial load index below 60%.
Sheikh and Khoury
6
equation
Sheikh and Khoury
6
proposed a design approach for the
confinement reinforcement in tied columns based on the ex-
perimental results of 29 column specimens. The relationship
between the amount of lateral reinforcement as recommend-
ed by the ACI
3
code A
sh,c
and the suggested amount of later-
al reinforcement A
sh
is given by
(14)
where Y is a factor expressed as
(15)
A
sh
sh
c
-------- 0.1
d
f
c n ,
f
ce

-------- 0.12
f
ce

f
ye
-------- 0.5 1.25
P
f
ce
A
g
-------------- +
,
_
+ =
0.13
1
f
y
f
s n ,
--------
,
_
0. 01
A
s h
A
s h c ,
( )Y =
Y Y
p
Y

=
Fig. 18Displacement ductility versus
t
/
v
for H/t 4
(design curve).
Fig. 19Displacement ductility versus
t
/
v
for H/t < 4
(design curve).
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001 14
The parameters Y
p
and Y

take into account the effect of

axial load level and the section ductility demand, respective-
ly. The factor is used to account for the confinement effi-
ciency. Three categories for lateral reinforcement configuration
were identified. Category I represents columns with single-pe-
rimeter hoops. Categories II and III represent columns with
perimeter hoops and ties to support the longitudinal bars. For
Category I, the average value of is equal to 2.5, while it is
equal to unity for Categories II and III. The following ex-
pression is the proposed final form to calculate the amount of
lateral reinforcement in tied columns
(16)
A
sh,c
is the greater of
(17)
and
(18)
where
P = applied axial load
P
o
= ultimate load capacity

= curvature ductility factor;

A
ch
= cross section area measured out-to-out of transverse
reinforcement; and
f
yh
= specified steel yield stress for lateral reinforcement.
Comparison of results
The displacement ductility capacity of the pier wall
specimens
7
was evaluated using the proposed approach and
the Wehbe, Saiidi, and Sanders
5
methods. Measured materi-
al properties were used. The displacement ductility listed
under Sheikh and Khoury
6
was based on the curvature duc-
tilities and used the
d
/

ratios that were discussed in the

previous section. Table 10 presents a comparison of the
measured and the calculated displacement ductilities. Table
11 lists the curvature ductilities. The ductilities listed under
the proposed and the Wehbe, Saiidi, and Sanders
5
methods
were based on
d
and the
d
/

ratios presented in the pre-

vious section, while those listed under Sheikh and Khoury
6
were found directly from Eq. (16). Note that Sheikh and We-
hbe methods were developed for columns and not walls.
They are presented in this paper to explore their applicabil-
ity to walls.
Because the displacement and curvature ductilities were
proportional, the calculated and measured ratios were the
same for both (Table 10 and 11). It can be seen in the tables
A
s h
1 13
P
P
o
------
,
_
5
+
)
' ;

( )
1.15
2 9
------------------A
s h c ,
=
A
s h c ,
0.3sh
c
f
c

f
y
-----
A
g
A
ch
--------
,
_
1 =
A
s h c ,
0.09sh
c
f
c

f
yh
------ =
Table 10Measured and calculated displacement ductilities
d
Specimen
Measured
d
Calculated displacement
ductility
d
Ratio of calculated to measured
d
Proposed
approach
7
Sheikh and
Khoury
6
Wehbe, Saiidi,
and Sanders
5
Proposed
approach
7
Sheikh and
Khoury
6
Wehbe, Saiidi,
and Sanders
5
1 6.50 5.01 1.73 3.74 0.77 0.27 0.58
2 7.00 5.68 1.73 6.79 0.81 0.25 0.97
3 7.50 6.21 2.99 6.65 0.83 0.40 0.89
4 5.80 4.12 1.46 3.15 0.71 0.25 0.54
5 5.70 4.61 1.82 5.95 0.81 0.32 1.04
6 6.10 5.00 3.18 5.86 0.82 0.52 0.96
7 9.00 6.83 1.72 4.39 0.76 0.19 0.49
Average 0.79 0.31 0.78
Standard deviation 0.04 0.11 0.24
Table 11Measured and calculated curvature ductilities

Specimen
Measured

Calculated displacement
ductility

Ratio of calculated to measured

Proposed
approach
7
Sheikh and
Khoury
6
Wehbe, Saiidi,
and Sanders
5
Proposed
approach
7
Sheikh and
Khoury
6
Wehbe, Saiidi,
and Sanders
5
1 14.92 11.49 3.97 8.59 0.77 0.27 0.58
2 16.07 13.04 3.97 15.59 0.81 0.25 0.97
3 17.22 14.25 6.86 15.26 0.83 0.40 0.89
4 14.50 10.30 3.64 7.87 0.71 0.25 0.54
5 14.25 11.53 4.56 14.87 0.81 0.32 1.04
6 15.25 12.49 7.95 14.65 0.82 0.52 0.96
7 15.49 11.76 2.96 7.56 0.76 0.19 0.49
Average 0.79 0.31 0.78
Standard deviation 0.04 0.11 0.24
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2001 15
that the ductility calculated based on the proposed method
ranged between 71 and 83% of the measured ductility, with
an average of close to 80% and standard deviation of 4%.
The Wehbe, Saiidi, and Sanders
5
method slightly overesti-
mated the ductility capacity of Specimen 5. The calculated
ductility using the Wehbe Saiidi, and Sanders.
5
method
ranged between 58 and 106% with an average of 78% and
of 24%. Using the Sheikh and Khoury
6
method, the calcu-
lated ductility ranged between 19 and 52%, with an average
of 31% and of 11%. The results demonstrate that the pro-
posed method leads to a reliable, yet conservative estimate
of wall ductilities. The relatively wide scatter in the correla-
tion between Wehbes results and test data suggests that
Wehbes method for columns is not applicable for walls.
The data also show that Sheikhs method for columns
should not be used for walls.
CONCLUSIONS
A new performance-based design method for the confine-
ment reinforcement in the plastic hinge zone of bridge pier
walls subjected to out-of-plane loading was developed. The
proposed method is recommended for design of walls be-
cause, unlike other available methods that are based on tests
of columns, the proposed method is calibrated against pier
wall data.
The proposed method can also be used to evaluate the
ductility capacity of bridge pier walls. The mean calculated
ductility capacity for the pier walls specimens
7
using the
proposed method was nearly 80% of the measured value
with a standard deviation of 4%. By comparing the ductility
demand and capacity, bridge pier walls that need retrofit can
be identified.
The parametric studies showed that for lightly reinforced
walls (longitudinal reinforcement ratio of less than 1%)
when the axial load index is 5% or less, which is typical in
bridge pier walls, a displacement ductility capacity of 6 or
more would be expected even with lateral reinforcement ra-
tios that violate the code by 60%.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research presented in this paper was sponsored by the Federal High-
way Administration (FHWA) through the Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) at the State University of New
York, Buffalo, N.Y.
REFERENCES
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 15th Edition,
1992.
2. Department of Transportation: State of California, Bridge Design
Specifications, June, 1990.
3. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, 369 pp.
4. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1992.
5. Wehbe, N.; Saiidi, M.; and Sanders, D., Seismic Performance of
Rectangular Bridge Columns with Moderate Confinement, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 96, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1999, pp. 248-258.
6. Sheikh, S., and Khoury, S., A Performance-Based Approach for the
Design of Confining Steel in Tied Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94,
No. 4, July-Aug. 1997, pp. 421-431.
7. Abo-Shadi, N.; Saiidi, M.; and Sanders, D., Seismic Response of
Bridge Pier Walls in the Weak Direction, Civil Engineering Department,
University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-3, Apr. 1999.
8. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 1975.
9. Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., Theoretical Stress-
Strain Model for Confined Concrete Columns, ASCE Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, V. 114, No. 8, Aug. 1988, pp. 1804-1826.
10. Mander, J. B., Seismic Design of Bridge Piers, PhD thesis, Univer-
sity of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1983, 442 pp.
11. Manson, S. S., Behavior of Materials under Conditions of Thermal
Stresses, Heat Transfer Symposium, University of Michigan Engineering
Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1953, pp. 9-75.
12. Miner, M. A., Cumulative Damage in Fatigue, Transactions, ASME,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, V. 67, 1945, pp. A159-A164.
13. Haroun, M. A.; Pardoen, G. C.; Shepherd, R.; Hagag, H. A.; and
Kazanjy, R. P., Cyclic Behavior of Bridge Pier Walls for Retrofit, Final
Report to the California Department of Transportation, Dec. 1993.
14. Haroun, M. A.; Pardoen, G. C.; Shepherd, R.; Hagag, H. A.; and Kaza-
njy, R. P., Assessment of Cross-Tie Performance in Bridge Pier Walls,
Final Report to the California Department of Transportation, Dec. 1994.