4.5 Article

Quasi-Static Cyclic Testing of Elevated RC Pile-Cap Foundation for Bridge Structures

Journal

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000797

Keywords

Elevated RC pile-cap foundation; Cyclic loading test; Seismic failure mechanism; Ductility

Funding

  1. State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering of Tongji University [SLDRCE 10-B-09]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50878147, 51278375]
  3. National Key Basic Research Program of China [2013CB036302]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In current practices, the elastic design principle for the seismic design of pile foundations is an overly conservative strategy. In this regard, cyclic lateral loading tests were conducted to investigate the seismic failure mechanism and ductile behaviors of elevated RC pile-cap foundations. Two six-pile specimens with different aboveground heights were constructed and embedded in a single layer of cohesionless soil. Hysteretic characteristics and observed damages of the pile groups were presented, together with the corresponding soil pressure and pile curvature responses. From the test results, the sequence and positions of the pile plastic hinges were established. Ultimate limit states of the pile groups were determined according to test data, as well as numerical analysis results. Test results revealed a ductile flexural failure mode for both specimens. Plastic hinges were detected first at the top of outer piles, then underground at a depth of 4-6 times the section width. A displacement ductility capacity of 3.5 was observed for the elevated pile-cap foundation. Test results also indicated a linear relation between the displacement ductility factor and the cap rotation, which was important for determining the displacement at the top of piers. (C) 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available