Randomized trial evaluates shear and flexure effects on bridge pier strength, suggesting improved modeling techniques for engineers.
Double-column reinforced-concrete (RC) hollow bridge piers are often assessed using flexure-dominated models, although their thin walls can develop shear-related deterioration. This study reanalyzes seven previously reported cyclic tests on scaled square hollow-pier columns and extends the assessment to a full-scale double-column system in OpenSees. The tests varied the shear-span ratio and transverse and longitudinal reinforcement. A flexure-only fiber model and an axial–flexure–shear interaction membrane–beam–truss element model (AFSI-MBTEM) were evaluated using six response indicators before cyclic and nonlinear time-history analyses of the prototype system. Lower shear-span ratios increased resistance but intensified inclined cracking, stiffness loss, and post-peak deterioration; increasing L/D from 3.9 to 7.9 reduced peak strength from 320.5 to 145.9 kN. AFSI-MBTEM reduced the mean absolute errors in peak strength, yield displacement, and effective stiffness to 3.08%, 11.83%, and 12.86%, respectively, but did not improve residual-displacement or mean hysteretic-loop-energy predictions. At the system level, shear-span ratio most strongly affected cyclic stiffness and peak base shear; wall-thickness ratio, width-to-depth ratio, and longitudinal reinforcement were also influential. Under three near-fault records, AFSI-MBTEM predicted 5.31–10.32% lower peak base shear, while displacement changes remained record-dependent. Shear-sensitive modeling improves force and deformation assessment, but the system-level trends remain conditional on the adopted prototype, parameter ranges, and records.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: