Seismic Retrofit Study of RC Bridge Columns

K.C. Chang
1
, L.L. Chung
2
, B.J. Lee
3
, Y.F. Li
4
, K.C. Tsai
1
, J.S. Hwang
5
, S.J. Hwang
5

Abstract
This paper presents the progress of a NCREEs research program on seismic retrofit of
existing RC bridge columns during the last three years. More than sixty large-scale specimens
were designed and constructed to simulate the worst scenario of the construction practice in
Taiwan prior to 1987. Twenty-four of the test columns were used as the benchmark for
comparison with other specimens retrofitted or repaired using the carbon fiber reinforced
plastics (CFRP) jacketing, steel jacketing, and RC jacketing. Experimental results showed that,
in general, the retrofit methods used in the U.S. and Japan are effective also effective for the
existing RC bridge columns in Taiwan. However, due to the poor concrete compressive
strength and the lap splicing at the plastic hinge zone, the retrofit measures developed for
better ductility and shear strength are not always effective. More research effort is necessary
to develop effective methods for RC columns lap-spliced at the plastic hinge zones.

1
Prof., Dept. of Civil Engr, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
2
Research Fellow, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering
3
Prof., Dept. of Civil Engr., Feng Chia University, Taichung 100, Taiwan.
4
Associate Prof., Dept. of Civil Engr., National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
5
Prof., Dept. of Construction Engr., National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Introduction
A 4-years coordinated research effort on seismic retrofit of existing RC bridge columns
has been established at the National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE)
since 1998. Major objectives of this program are to develop effective seismic retrofit methods
of existing bridges in Taiwan due to (1) inadequate design strength, (2) inadequate
confinement at potential plastic hinge region, (3) inadequate shear strength due to large lateral
steel spacing, and (4) lap-splicing in the plastic hinge zone, etc., identified as some the most
severe weaknesses of the existing RC bridge columns for seismic hazard.. Observations of the
bridge damage during the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake indicate that many existing bridges in
Taiwan are indeed vulnerable to major earthquakes and the coordinated research program
conducted at NCREE is necessary and urgent. This coordinated research program includes a
master plan administrated by NCREE and seven coordinated projects handled by the
investigators from six universities and research institutions. Results of this research program
will provide a domestic test database for seismic bridge engineering applications and to
provide seismic retrofit guidelines for highway officials in Taiwan. Many retrofit techniques
that have been extensively studied and widely implemented in the United States, Japan and
New Zealand are studied in this joint research.
Experimental Program
More than 60 large scale specimens were tested during the last three years, including 24
bench-mark specimens that were designed to represent typical pre- and after 1987 bridge
columns in Taiwan. Cross sectional dimensions of the rectangular columns and circular
columns are 600mm by 750 mm and 760 mm diameter, respectively, roughly 2/5 scale of the
prototype columns. The worst details that may be expected in the existing bridges are

International Training Programs for Seismic Design of Building Structures

Hosted by National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering
Sponsored by Department of International Programs, National Science Council

assumed in the specimens, such as the double U-shaped transverse reinforcements with large
spacing, and the lap-spliced of main reinforcements at the plastic hinge zone. Retrofit
techniques used in the specimens include steel jacketing, FRP wrapping, and RC jacketing. In
addition, seismic performance of column-foundation connections, beam-column connections
as well as the wall type piers are also studied. Details of the test specimens are listed in Tables
1-3.
Summary of results
Seismic Retrofit of Rectangular RC Bridge Columns Using FRP Jacket

Test specimens
Flexural failure mode specimens
These specimens represent the benchmark and the CFRP wrapped, named as BMR2,
BMR3, FR1, and FR2 respectively. Specimen FR1 is retrofitted with 4 layers of FRP (0.55 )
along the whole height.
For specimen FR2, it is retrofitted based on the ductility requirement of 6. This specimen
is retrofitted in the plastic hinged zone with 8 layers of FRP (1.1 ), and the other areas are
retrofitted with 2 layers of FRP (0.275 ).

Lap-spliced failure mode specimens
These specimens represent the benchmark, CFRP wrapped, and combined steel plate and
CFRP, named as BMRL100, FRL100, SFRL100, respectively. For specimen FRL100, one
third of the column height (1100 mm) is retrofitted with 8 layers of CFRP (1.1mm), and the
other areas are with 4 layers. For specimen SFRL100, steel plates are attached to each column
face before wrapping the CFRP. Combining the steel plate, the cross section became a little
close to oval-shaped. The curvature of the shape is advantageous for FRP to produce inward
confinement stress to prevent bond slip failure.

Shear failure mode specimens
These specimens represent the benchmark and the CFRP wrapped, named as BMRS and
FRS, respectively. In order to observe the short column effect, the column height is reduced.
For specimen FRS, it is retrofitted with 4 layers of FRP (0.55 ) along the whole height.

Experimental Results and Discussion
Fig. 1-1 to 1-9 shows the lateral force and displacement relationships of the specimens.
The sequence from top to bottom is BMR2, BMR3, FR1, FR2, BMRL100, FRL100,
SFRL100, BMRS, and FRS. It is shown that both displacement ductility and energy
dissipation in BMRL100 and BMRS are quite poor. Compared to specimen BMRL100, it can
be seen that specimen SFRL100 performs very well. Not only it gets the 7.24 times of the
dissipation energy of the specimen BMRL100, but also enhances 6.03 times of the
displacement ductility, a value close to the flexural failure mode. This figure demonstrates
clearly that this retrofit method has a good potential in seismic retrofit of rectangular RC
columns lap-spliced at the plastic hinge zones.

Conclusions
1 Flexural failure mode
Seismic Retrofit Stud of RC Bridge Columns

1. Test results show that failure of the flexural type specimen under larger axial load will
result in speeding up the degradation of strength and energy dissipation capacity.
2. Standard hoop arrangements can gain better confinement than the double-U shaped
alternation arrangement used in many existing bridges.
3. The retrofit efficiency of force-based design and displacement-based design is nearly
the same. The displacement ductility levels of 7 can be reached.

2 Shear failure mode
1. Brittle shear failure occurs due to insufficient transverse reinforcement spacing.
2. Retrofitted by wrapping FRP shows great performance in improving shear strengths,
and transfers the failure mode to flexural-shear type.

3 Lap spliced failure mode
1. Without enough confinement stress, bond slip occurred between the lap-spliced
longitudinal reinforcements and resulted in brittle failure.
2. Applying CFRP directly cant provide enough confinement stress to increase frictional
force between the lap spliced longitudinal reinforcements.
3. A new method by attaching steel plates before wrapping FRP shows great potential in
increasing the confinement stress and energy dissipate capacity for rectangular RC members.
The strength, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity are also greatly improved. Further
study is necessary to better understand the mechanism and to determine the critical
parameters for retrofit design applications.

Reference
K.C. Chang, and F.S. Chung (2000), Seismic Shear and Lap-Spliced Retrofit of Rectangular
Bridge Columns using FRP, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering,
Technical Report.
K.C. Chang, and H.F. Chang (2000), Seismic Flexural Retrofit of Rectangular Bridge
Columns using FRP, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering,
Technical Report.
K.C. Chang, K.Y. Liu, F.S. Chung, and S.B. Chang (2000), Seismic Retrofit study of RC
rectangular bridge column lap spliced at plastic hinge zone , Proceeding of the thirteen
KKNN symposium on Civil Engineering, December 7-8,2000, Taipei, Taiwan.


-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-400
-200
0
200
400
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-1
0
1
P
/P
y
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
BMR2
Py = 240 kN
Dy = 20.58 mm
Pmax = 303.37 kN
Dmax = 65 mm
Pu = 242.70 kN
Du = 130 mm
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-400
-200
0
200
400
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-1
0
1
P
/P
y
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
0 1 2 3 4
BMR3
Py = 251.25 kN
Dy = 32.72 mm
Pmax = 260 kN
Dmax = 48.75 mm
Pu = 208.0 kN
Du = 130.0 mm


Fig 1-1 Hysteresis curve of specimen BMR2 Fig1-2. Hysteretic curve of specimen BMR3
S sm c tro t St d o C Br d Col mns

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-400
-200
0
200
400
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-1
0
1
P
/P
y
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
0 2 4 6 8
FR1
Py = 245.0 kN
Dy = 15.3 mm
Pmax = 357.77 kN
Dmax = 97.5 mm
Pu = 286.22 kN
Du = 130.0 mm

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-400
-200
0
200
400
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-1
0
1
P
/P
y
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FR2
Py = 245.0 kN
Dy = 18.04 mm
Pmax = 297.96 kN
Dmax = 65 mm
Pu = 238.37 kN
Du = 130.0 mm

Fig1-3. Hysteretic curve of specimen FR1 Fig1-4. Hysteretic curve of specimen FR2
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-2
-1
0
1
2
P
/P
y
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
01
BMRL100
Py = 275.0 kN
Dy = 14.21 mm
Pmax = 328.0 kN
Dmax = 24.3 mm
Pu = 262.4 kN
Du = 21.93 mm

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-1
0
1
P
/P
y
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
0 1 2
FRL100
Py = 384.0 kN
Dy = 32.46 mm
Pmax = 415 kN
Dmax = 48.83 mm
Pu = 332.0 kN
Du = 65.94 mm

Fig1-5. Hysteretic curve of specimen BMRL100 Fig1-6. Hysteretic curve of specimen FRL100
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-1
0
1
P
/P
y
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
SFRL100
Py = 400.0 kN
Dy = 21.5 mm
Pmax = 512.75 kN
Dmax = 97.39 mm
Pu = 410.2 kN
Du = 129.75 mm
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-1
0
1
P
/P
y
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drift Ratio (%)
01
BMRS
Py = 657.0 kN
Dy = 17.20 mm
Pmax = 681.0 kN
Dmax = 26.78 mm
Pu = 544.8 kN
Du = 26.0 mm

Fig1-7. Hysteretic curve of specimen SFRL100 Fig1-8. Hysteretic curve of specimen BMRS

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-1
0
1
P
/P
y
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drift Ratio (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5
FRS
Py = 745.0 kN
Dy = 12.85 mm
Pmax = 941.0 kN
Dmax = 53.0 mm
Pu = 752.0 kN
Du = 74 mm
Fig1-9. Hysteretic curve of specimen FRS
Steel Jacketing Retrofit Design
Lateral confinement deficient specimens
The steel jacketing details for the retrofitted specimens were shown in Fig. 2-1. The SR1
and SR3 were retrofitted using the octagonal steel jacket, while the SR2 and SR4 were
retrofitted with the elliptical steel jacket. For the SR2, the dimensions of the ellipse were
computed in order to minimize the overall cross-sectional area. The 3-mm thick A36 grade
steel elliptical jacket for the SR2, SR4 was designed considering the equivalent radius (Sun et
al. 1993) and a target ductility capacity of 6 following the procedures recommended in the
reference (Priestley et al. 1996). For the purposes of comparison, the same 3-mm thick steel
plate was adopted in the fabrication of the octagonal jacket for the SR1. Specimen SR3 has a
S ismic R tr fit Stud f RC Brid C lum s

smaller octagonal cross sectional area, but a thicker steel jacket (6mm) than SR1. The
thickness of the steel jacket for the SR3 is computed from the static equilibrium assuming the
same confinement pressure to be developed in Specimens SR1. Noted that the dimensions of
the elliptical jacket for SR4 is slightly different from those of the SR2 in order to ensure the
rods for applying the vertical load not to impinge on the retrofitted column.

Lap-splice deficient specimens
For the retrofitted specimens, SRL1 was retrofitted with a 6mm thick octagonal steel jacket
while SR2 was retrofitted with a 3mm thick elliptical steel jacket. Fig. 2-1 Details of the steel
jacketing.

Shear-deficient specimens
The SRS1 was retrofitted with an octagonal steel jacket, and the SRS2 was retrofitted with
a rectangular steel jacket. The 3mm thick steel plate was adopted in both Specimens SRS1
and SRS2. Fig. 2-1 Details of the steel jacketing.

Response of the retrofitted specimens
Test results given in Fig.2-2 and Fig.2-3 confirm that the seismic performance of
rectangular RC bridge columns can be significantly and equally enhanced by properly
designed elliptical or octagonal steel jacket following the procedures noted above. Bridge
columns retrofitted with the octagonal or the elliptical steel jacket exhibit stable lateral
force-displacement hysteretic response, possess excellent displacement ductility and energy
dissipation capacities.
For the SRS2 specimen retrofitted with a rectangular steel jacket, outward bulging of the
steel jacket was observed at a drift angle of 0.03 radian. In the mean time, significant strength
degradation occurred due to the loss of the lateral confinement. Test results confirmed that the
rectangular steel jacketing is ineffective in providing lateral confinement.

Conclusions
1. Test results confirmed that the seismic performance of the rectangular RC bridge
columns can be significantly and equally enhanced by properly constructed elliptical or
octagonal steel jacket.
2. It is found that the cost of the octagonal jacketing is 15% lower than that for the
elliptical jacketing in the case studied of SR1 and SR2 specimens.
3. Using a thicker jacket can reduce the cross-sectional area of an octagonal steel jacketing
rectangular RC bridge column. The thickness of the steel jacket can be determined from the
static equilibrium assuming the same confinement pressure is to be developed for different
thickness of the steel jacket.
4. Rectangular steel jacketing can effectively prevent a shear-deficient column from shear
failure; however, it is not effective in improving the flexural ductility.
5. Octagonal steel jacketing scheme is cost-effectively and can provide lateral confinement
and the shear strength to mitigate seismic failures of rectangular RC bridge columns due to a
lack of lateral confinement, improper lap-splice or inadequate shear capacity.
6. A smaller cross-sectional area and better seismic performance than the elliptical steel
jacketing scheme have been achieved from the octagonal steel jacketing.

Reference
S ismic R tr fit Stud f RC Brid C lum s

Sun, Z.L., Seible, F. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1993), Flexural Retrofit of Rectangular Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Columns by Steel Jacketing, Structural System Research Project, Report
No. SSRP-93/01, Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Science, U.C. San
Diego.
Tsai, K.C. and Lin, M.L. (2000), Steel Jacketing for Seismic Retrofit of RC Rectangular
Columns, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Technical Report


43.5cm
54cm
SR2
Steel Plate t=3 mm , A36
43.5cm
54cm
Steel Plate t=3 mm , A36
SR1
Steel Plate t=6 mm , A36
60cm
42cm
SR3
50cm
37cm
Steel Plate t=3 mm , A36
60cm
SR4
42cm

(a) lateral confinement deficient specimen

SRL1
39cm
48cm
Steel Plate t= 6 mm ,A36
46cm
56cm
Steel Plate t= 3 mm ,A36
SRL2

(b) lap-splice specimen

Steel Plate t= 3 mm ,A36
48cm
39cm
SRS1
SRS2
Steel Plate t= 3 mm ,A36
33 cm
40cm

(c) shear-deficient specimen

Fig. 2-1 Details of the steel jacketing








-500
-250
0
250
500
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift Rati o(%radian)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
SR-1
Vmax=456kN
-500
-250
0
250
500
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift Ratio(%radian)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
BMR-3
Vmax=290kN
-500
-250
0
250
500
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift Ratio(%radian)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
SR-2
Vmax=400kN
-500
-250
0
250
500
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift Rati o(%radian)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
SR-3
Vmax=418kN
-500
-250
0
250
500
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
SR-4
Vmax=423kN
-500
-250
0
250
500
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
BMR-3
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
P=0.15f'cAg
=1400kN

(a) lateral confinement deficient specimen
-800
-400
0
400
800
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift Ratio(%)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
BMRL100
P=0.15f'cAg
=1400kN
Vmax=- 368kN
-800
-400
0
400
800
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift Ratio(%)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
SRL1
P=0.15f'cAg
=1400kN
Vmax= - 622kN
-800
-400
0
400
800
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift Ratio(%)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
SRL2
P=0.15f'cAg
=1400kN
Vmax=602kN
-800
-400
0
400
800
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift Ratio(%)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
BMRL100
SRL1
SRL2

(b) lap-splice specimen
-1200
-600
0
600
1200
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift Ratio(%)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
BMRS
SRS1
SRS2
FRS
-1200
-600
0
600
1200
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Dri ft Ratio(%)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
SRS2
P=0.15f'cAg
=1400kN
Vmax= 982kN
-1200
-600
0
600
1200
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Dri ft Ratio(%)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
SRS1
P=0.15f'cAg
=1400kN
Vmax= 1086kN
-1200
-600
0
600
1200
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Dri ft Ratio(%)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
BMRS
P=0.15f'cAg
=1400kN
Vmax=- 722kN

(c) shear-deficient specimen
Fig. 2-2 Cyclic load-deflection relationships
Se sm c etro t St d o C Br dge Co m s

(a)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cyclic Drift Ratio(% radian)
E
n
e
r
g
y

D
i
s
s
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
(

k
N
-
m
)
BMR3
SR1
SR3
SR2
SR4
Each Two Cycles
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cyclic Drift Ratio(% radian)
E
n
e
r
g
y

D
i
s
s
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
(

k
N
-
m
)
BMR100
SRL1
SRL2
Each Two Cycles
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cyclic Drift Ratio(% radian)
E
n
e
r
g
y

D
i
s
s
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
(

k
N
-
m
)
BMRS
SRS1
SRS2
Each Two Cycles

Fig. 2-3 Energy dissipation curves
Seismic Retrofit of Circular RC Bridge Columns Using Steel Jacket

Experimental Program and Results
In the test program (Hwang and Hseih 1999, Hwang and Kuo 2000 ), four 0.4-scaled
down test specimens are designed according to the details of existing circular RC bridge
columns. The retrofitted specimens corresponding to the weaknesses of the four existing
column details are also designed (Hwang et al 1998) and tested for validation purpose. The
targeted weaknesses of the existing bridge details include (1) the lack of volumetric ratio of
lateral hoop; (2) the early termination of 50% main reinforcement at the mid-height of the
column, together with a much larger pitch of the lateral hoop at the upper region of the
column; (3) the lap-splice failure at the plastic hinge zone; and (4) the shear failure of short
columns. The tests results are summarized in Fig. 3-1 to Fig. 3-4. From the figure it is
concluded that the retrofit using steel jacketing is effective in enhancing the seismic resistance
of the existing circular RC bridge columns in Taiwan.

References

Kuo, S.S. (1998) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing highway bridges with circular
single column bents. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan
University of Science and Technology.
Hwang, J.S. and Hseih, Y.M. (1999) Seismic retrofit of RC bridge columns suing steel
jacket. Report No. 99016, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering of
Taiwan.
Hwang, J.S. and Kuo, M.Y. (2000) Seismic setrofit of existing RC bridge columns shear
strength and lap splice retrofit Report No. National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering of Taiwan.
Hwang, J.S, et. al. (1998) Seismic retrofit manual for highway bridges, Research Report,
Department of Transportation and Communication, Taiwan

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Displacement (mm)
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Main bar yield point
Spalling point

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Displacement (mm)
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Main bar yield point


Fig.3-1 Columns with the lack of confinement (a)existing (b)retrofitted
S ismic R trofit St dy of RC ridg Col m s

(a)
(b)
(b)

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Displacement (mm)
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Main bar yield point
Spalling point

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Displacement (mm)
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main bar yield point

Fig.3-2 Columns with termination of main reinforcement (a)existing (b)retrofitted

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6

Main bar yield point

Spalling point

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Main bar yield point

Fig.3-3 Columns with lap-splice (a)existing (b)retrofitted

-150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Displacement (mm)
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drift Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5

Main bar yield point

Spalling point

-150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Displacement (mm)
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drift Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Main bar yield point

Fig.3-4 Columns with shear failure (a)existing (b)retrofitted

Seismic Retrofit of Circular Section Bridge Column by Using CFRP

Experimental results and observation
The rules of naming the bridge columns are as following. For names beginning with
BM, BM means benchmark, C means circular section, and the remaining letter stands
for failure mode. For example, F means flexural failure, L means lap splice failure, and
S means shear failure. Beside the BM series, other names begin with letters
representing the retrofit method, for example, F means CFRP jacketing. The second letter
C means circular section and the third letter is the failure mode, as mentioned above.
Table 4 is the material properties of CFRP.

Flexural Failure Retrofit
From Fig.4-1, the ductility of CF2 is 8.7, and the maximum lateral force of CF2 is 360
kN. FCF2 and FCF3 are retrofitted by using 4-layer CFRP (FAW=200g/m2). The ductility
of FCF2 and FCF3 are 12.3 and 12.4, and the maximum lateral forces of FCF2 and FCF3 are
all about 310 kN, as seen in Fig 4-2 and Fig. 4-3. The difference between FCF2 and FCF3 is
that column FCF2 was applied with lateral force till 0.5mm crack widths initiate, then it was
retrofitted with 4-layer CFRP; FCF3 was retrofitted with 4-layer CFRP before applied with
Se sm c Retrof t St d of R r d e o mns

lateral force. As seen in Fig.4-2 and Fig. 4-3, even though there are circumference cracks in
column FCF2, the ductility of FCF2, after retrofitted by using 4-layer CFRP, is similar to the
ductility of FCF3. For columns FCF2 and FCF3 with CFRP jacketing, the failure mode
changes from flexural failure to the breaking of the longitudinal bar in the bottom of the
columns. CF4 is the flexural-shear failure. From Fig. 4-4, the ductility of CF4 is 7.0, and
the maximum lateral force is 250 kN.

Lap Splice Failure Retrofit
From Fig. 4-5, the ductility of BMCL100 is 2.5, and the maximum lateral force is 350
kN. Columns FCL100, FCL100-1 and FCL100-2 are retrofitted by using CFRP jacketing
(FAW=250g/m2) with, respectively, 6-layer (in the transverse direction), 4-layer (in the
transverse direction), and 2 (transverse)-2 (longitudinal)-2 (transverse)-layer. The ductility of
FCL100, FCL100-1 and FCL100-2 are 8.9, 5.7, and 4.6, and the maximum lateral forces are
440 kN, 340 kN and 450 kN, as seen in Figures 4-6, 4 -7 and 4-8, respectively. After
retrofitting with steel and CFRP jacketing, the failure mode changes from lap splice failure to
flexural failure (Hsieh, 1999).

Shear Failure Retrofit
From Fig. 4-9, the ductility of BMCS is 2.3, and the maximum lateral force is 660 kN.
Columns FCS, FCS-1 and FCS-2 are retrofitted by using 4-layer, 3-layer, and 2-layer CFRP
(FAW=250g/m2). In Fig. 4-10 to Fig 4-12, the ductility of FCS, FCS-1 and FCS-2 are 9.3,
15.8 and 12.8, and the maximum lateral forces are about 860, 800 and 820 kN, respectively.
The failure mode of SCS and FCS changes from shear failure to flexural failure with the
breaking of the longitudinal bars. And the failure mode of FCS-1 and FCS-2 changes from
shear failure to flexural failure but with CFRP broken. The ductility of FCS-1 and FCS-2 is
higher than the ductility of FCS because the final failure modes are different. It is worth
noting that more layers of CFRP may not have higher ductility.
Conclusion
In the experimental results and observations of this paper, we can arrive at the following
conclusions:
Using tie bar, 2 semicircular stirrups with hoop, and reducing the distance of the stirrups
can increase the confinement strength and ductility of bridge column, which is an effective
design detail to increase the seismic capacity of bridge columns.
Using CFRP to retrofit bridge columns, the performance of bridge columns with
circumference cracks is almost the same as the bridge columns without cracks.
With steel jacketing and CFRP jacketing, the failure mode changes from flexural failure to
the breaking of longitudinal bar in the bottom of the columns, and the ductility and maximum
lateral force have increased.
For lap splice failure mode, using steel and CFRP jacketing can tremendously increase the
confinement strength and ductility of bridge columns. The more layers of CFRP can obtain
higher ductility.
For shear failure mode, using steel and CFRP jacketing can also tremendously increase the
confinement strength and ductility of bridge columns. But, more layers of CFRP may not
have higher ductility; yet more layers result in different failure modes, which cannot be
compared with each other

Se sm c Retrof t St d of R r d e o mns

-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Drift Ratio(%)
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement(mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
g

-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Drift Ratio(%)
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement(mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
g

Fig.4-1 The Hysteresis curve of column CF2 Fig.4-1 The Hysteresis curve of column FCF2


-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Drift Ratio(%)
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement(mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
g

-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Drift Ratio(%)
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement(mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
g

Fig.4-3 The Hysteresis curve of column FCF3 Fig.4-4 The Hysteresis curve of column CF4


-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Rati o (%)
1 2 3 4
g
Main bar yield point
Spalling point
g=2.6

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift Rati o (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
g
Main bar yield point
g=7.3

Fig.4-5 The Hysteresis curve of column BMCL100 Fig.4-6 The Hysteresis curve of column FCL100


-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Drift Ratio(%)
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement(mm)

-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Drift Ratio(%)
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement(mm)

Fig.4-7 The Hysteresis curve of column FCL100-1 Fig.4-8 The Hysteresis curve of column FCL100-2


Seismi Retrofit Stu of R ri ge olumns

-150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Di splacement (mm)
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drif t Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5
g
Main bar yield point
Spalling point
g=2.3

-150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Di splacement (mm)
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drif t Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
g
Main bar yield point
g=7.5

Fig.4-9 Hysteresis curve of column BMCS Fig. 4-10 The Hysteresis curve of column FCS

-150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Displacement (mm)
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Dri ft Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 1415 16
15.78

-150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Displacement (mm)
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 13
12.80
Drift Ratio (%)

Fig.4-11 The Hysteresis curve of column FCS-1 Fig.4-12 The Hysteresis curve of column FCS-2

Seismic Retrofit and Repair of Bridge Columns by Reinforced Concrete Jacketing

Seismic Retrofit and Repair Design
Specimen RCCL1 is retrofitted for the weakness of 100 % longitudinal reinforcement
lap-spliced at the bottom of bridge column so that its design before retrofitting is the same as
specimen BMCL100. The bridge column is jacketed with 9-cm-thick reinforced concrete to
the full height. In the reinforced concrete jacketing, there are 12 #5 longitudinal
reinforcement with nominal yielding strength 2800 kg/cm2. The longitudinal reinforcement
is imbedded 18 cm into the foundation. The space of the transverse reinforcement is 7 cm
with nominal yielding strength 2800 kg/cm2.
Specimen RCCL2 is almost the same as specimen RCCL1 except the longitudinal
reinforcement of the reinforced concrete jacketing is not imbedded into the foundation.
There is a 3-cm gap between the reinforced concrete jacketing and the foundation.
Specimen RCC2 is retrofitted for the weakness of 50 % longitudinal reinforcement
terminated at the mid-height of bridge column so that its design before retrofitting is the same
as specimen BMC4. The design of reinforced concrete jacketing for specimen RCC2 is the
same as that for specimen RCCL2.
Specimen BMC4-RC is repaired for the weakness of 50 % longitudinal reinforcement
terminated at the mid-height of bridge column. It is a repaired specimen after the specimen
BMC4 is tested to fail. The design of reinforced concrete jacketing for specimen BMC4-RC
is the same as that for specimen RCC2.
Specimen BMCL50-RC is repaired for the weakness of 50 % longitudinal reinforcement
lap-spliced at the bottom of bridge column. It is a repaired specimen after the specimen
BMCL50 is tested to fail. The design of reinforced concrete jacketing for specimen
BMCL50-RC is the same as that for specimen BMC4-RC.
S ismic o i S d o id o mns

Experimental Results
The cyclic test for specimen RCCL1 is terminated when the amplitude of displacement is
130 mm (drift ratio 4 %). The cover concrete at the bottom is crushed so that confinement
loses its effect. The performance in ductility and energy dissipation is not satisfied and no
longitudinal reinforcement is fractured (Photo 5-1). The elastic stiffness of the bridge
column is 31.57 kN/mm, the ultimate strength is 543.9 kN and the ductility ratio is 5.49.
Energy 2746 kN-m is dissipated during the cyclic test (Fig. 5-1).
The cyclic test for specimen RCCL2 is terminated when the amplitude of displacement is
195 mm (drift ratio 6 %). Some of the longitudinal reinforcement is fractured and the
concrete at the bottom is cracked but not to a serious extent. The performance in ductility and
energy dissipation is excellent (Photo 5-2). The elastic stiffness of the bridge column is
25.56 kN/mm, the ultimate strength is 492.6 kN and the ductility ratio is 7.19. Energy 7872
kN-m is dissipated during the cyclic test (Fig. 5-2).
The cyclic test for specimen RCC2 is terminated when the amplitude of displacement is
195 mm (drift ratio 6 %). Some of the longitudinal reinforcement is fractured and the
concrete at the bottom is cracked but not to a serious extent. The performance in ductility and
energy dissipation is excellent (Photo 5-3). The elastic stiffness of the bridge column is
24.76 kN/mm, the ultimate strength is 390.3 kN and the ductility ratio is 6.21. Energy 6300
kN-m is dissipated during the cyclic test (Fig. 5-3).
The cyclic test for specimen BMC4-RC is terminated when the amplitude of
displacement is 162.5 mm (drift ratio 5 %). Some of the longitudinal reinforcement is
fractured and the concrete at the bottom is spalled (Photo 5-4). The elastic stiffness of the
bridge column is 13.07 kN/mm, the ultimate strength is 352.0 kN and the ductility ratio is
4.65. Energy 3120 kN-m is dissipated during the cyclic test (Fig. 5-4).
The cyclic test for specimen BMCL50-RC is terminated when the amplitude of
displacement is 195 mm (drift ratio 6 %). Some of the longitudinal reinforcement is
fractured and the concrete at the bottom is spalled (Photo 5-5). The elastic stiffness of the
bridge column is 22.15 kN/mm, the ultimate strength is 353.5 kN and the ductility ratio is
6.36. Energy 3580 kN-m is dissipated during the cyclic test (Fig. 5-5).




-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
RCCL1
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift Ratio (%)


Photo 5-1. Failure of RCCL1 Fig. 5-1. Force and displacement of RCCL1


S ismic o i S d o id o mns


-200 -100 0 100 200
Displacement (mm)
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
RCCL2
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift Ratio (%)


Photo 5-2. Failure of RCCL2 Fig. 5-2. Force and displacement of RCCL2



-200 -100 0 100 200
Displacement (mm)
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
RCC2
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift Ratio (%)


Photo 5-3. Failure of RCC2 Fig. 5-3. Force and displacement of RCC2



-200 -100 0 100 200
Displacement (mm)
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
BMC4-RC
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift Ratio (%)


Photo 5-4. Failure of BMC4-RC Fig. 5-4. Force and displacement of BMC4-RC



-200 -100 0 100 200
Displacement (mm)
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
BMCL50-RC
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift Ratio (%)
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400


Photo 5-5. Failure of BMCL50-RC Fig. 5-5. Force and displacement of BMCL50-RC


S ismic o i S d o id o mns

Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Bridge Column Footings on Piles

Test Specimens
As-built column footing RF1, shown in Fig. 6-1(a), had no joint hoops in the footing,
providing no reliable shear-resisting mechanism in the joint region. Column longitudinal
reinforcement was anchored by
90
deg hooks bent outwards with insufficient development
length. Retrofit column footing RF3, as shown in Fig. 6-1(b), had the same existing column
dimensions as RF1. Existing
cm 45 180 245
footing of RF3 was enlarged to
cm 55 200 255
by adding reinforced concrete overlay (Xiao et al. 1996 and McLean and
Marsh 1999).

Observed Behavior
The cracks observed in both the as-built column footing RF1 and the retrofit column
footing RF3 are indicative of a joint shear failure at the column-footing connection.
Horizontal force-displacement hysteretic response histories for the as-built column footing
RF1 and the retrofit column footing RF3 are shown in Fig. 6-2 (a) and 6-2 (b), respectively.
As shown in Fig. 2, the retrofit column footing RF3 developed higher strength and more
ductile hysteretic behavior than the as-built column footing RF1.

Assessment of Joint Shear Strength
The softened strut-and-tie model for determining the shear strength of beam-column
joints for seismic resistance has been developed (Hwang and Lee 2000). For column-footing
connection, the upper and lower ends of the diagonal strut have different values. The
crushing of the concrete strut should be examined at both ends, and the weaker portion
controls the shear strength of the column-footing joint.
The softened strut-and-tie model was used to calculate the joint shear strength of RF1
and RF3, as presented in Table 5. The strength ratios that are listed as the ratios of the
measured to the calculated strength indicate the precision of the softened strut-and-tie model.
The strength ratios for the column footing RF1 and RF3 are 1.37 and 1.03 (Table 5),
respectively. This indicates the applicability of the softened strut-and-tie model in the
seismic assessment for column-footing joints. More details can be found in the Reference of
Jian and Hwang 2000.

Conclusions
The test results of the retrofitted model column footing indicated that the reinforced
concrete overlay atop the existing footing on piles is an effective retrofitting measure.
Experimental observations and theoretical analyses indicated that the shear strength of joint
can be predicted by the softened strut-and-tie model. As an improvement to current footing
retrofit design methodology, it is recommended that the softened strut-and-tie model be used
to assess the shear strength of column-footing connection, and to design the appropriate
overlay depth.

References
Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J. (2000). Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of
Interior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, ACI
Structural Journal, 97(1), 35-44.
S ismic o i S d o id o mns

McLean, D. I., and Marsh, M. L. (1999). Seismic Retrofitting of Bridge Foundations, ACI
Structural Journal, 96(2), 174-182.
Xiao, Y., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. (1996). Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of
Bridge Column Footings, ACI Structural Journal, 93(1), 79-94.
Jian, J. Y., and Hwang, S. J. (2000). Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Bridge Column
Footings on Piles, Report of National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering,
NCREE-00-027, Taipei, Taiwan, 188 pp (in Chinese)
.
(a) "As built" column footing RF1
cm 8 @ 4 #
cm Footing 45 180 245 :
side each
cm 15 @ 8 #
cm Column 50 75 :
8 # 20
245cm
cm 75
direction Loading
side each cm 15 @ 8 #
cm 45
(b) Retrofitted column footing RF3
cm 8 @ 4 #
cm Footing 55 200 255 :
cm 15 @ 6 #
cm 10
8 # 20
cm Column 50 75 :
245cm
255cm
cm 75
bond and drill
cm of spacing
at Dowels
15
4 # 150
cm 5 . 16
direction Loading
side each cm 15 @ 8 #


Fig. 6-1. Footing details


H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L

F
O
R
C
E

(
k
N
)
(a) Footing RF1
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
DRIFT RATIO (%)
kN load Axial
kN H
kN H
y
500
385
347
max
=
=
=
1 4 2 5 3
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)
y
H
H
/
-200 -100 0 100 200
first yield
max. load
(b) Footing RF3
DRIFT RATIO (%)
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L

F
O
R
C
E

(
k
N
)
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
kN load Axial
kN H
kN H
y
550
473 max
370
=
=
=

1 8 5
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)
y
H
H
/
-200 -100 0 100 200
first yield
max. load


Fig. 6-2. Hysteretic response of column footings

Retrofit of Circular Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns by CFRP

The aim of this study is to evaluate the seismic resistance enhancement of circular RC
bridges columns retrofitted by CFRP. In out tests, the as-built columns are scaled down from
Seismi Retrofit Stu of R ri ge olumns

typical RC bridges built in Taiwan. The structural deficiencies considered in this study are
(1) inadequate flexural ductility, (2) the splice of the transverse hoop, (3) high longitudinal
steel volumetric ratio, (4) low aspect ratio and (5) the reduction of longitudinal and transverse
steel. Due to the competition of moment strength with shear strength in earthquake, as-built
columns will develop different failure modes. Series tests have been performed on as-built
and retrofitted columns. Test results show CFRP is a good retrofit material for bridge columns,
which can effectively enhance the ductility and shear capacity of bridge columns.

Experimental Results
-160-140-120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection ( mm)
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
L
a
t
e
r
a
l


F
o
r
c
e


(

k
N

)
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Drift Ratio / L ( % )
1820-A
Pull
Push
y = 7.0 mm
= 8 . 5 6
-100 0 100
-100
0
100

-160-140 -120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection ( mm )
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
L
a
t
e
r
a
l


F
o
r
c
e


(

k
N

)
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Drift Ratio / L ( % )
1820-C
Pull
Push
y = 11.4 mm
= 12.3
-100 0 100
-100
0
100

Fig.7-1 The Hysteresis curve of column 1820-A Fig.7-2 The Hysteresis curve of column 1820-C

-160-140-120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection ( mm)
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
L
a
t
e
r
a
l


F
o
r
c
e


(

k
N

)
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Drift Ratio / L ( % )
1820L-A
Pull
Push
y = 8 . 9 mm
= 5 . 3 8
-100 0 100
-100
0
100

-160 -140-120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection ( mm)
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
L
a
t
e
r
a
l


F
o
r
c
e


(

k
N

)
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Drift Ratio / L ( % )
1820L-C
Pull
Push
y = 12.1 mm
= 11.6
-100 0 100
-100
0
100

Fig.7-3 The Hysteresis curve of column 1820L-A Fig.7-4 The Hysteresis curve of column 1820L-C
-160-140-120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection ( mm)
-280
-260
-240
-220
-200
-180
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
L
a
t
e
r
a
l


F
o
r
c
e


(

k
N

)
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Drift Ratio / L ( % )
5420-A
Pull
Push
y = 1 5 . 0 mm
= 3 . 4 7
-100 0 100
-200
0
200

-160-140-120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection ( mm)
-280
-260
-240
-220
-200
-180
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
L
a
t
e
r
a
l


F
o
r
c
e


(

k
N

)
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Drift Ratio / L ( % )
5420-B
Pull
Push
y = 21.1 mm
= 6.64
-100 0 100
-200
0
200

Fig.7-5 The Hysteresis curve of column 5420-A Fig.7-6 The Hysteresis curve of column 5420-B
Se c Re rof S d of RC Br dge Col

-160 -140-120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection ( mm)
-400
-360
-320
-280
-240
-200
-160
-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
L
a
t
e
r
a
l


F
o
r
c
e


(

k
N

)
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Drift Ratio / L ( % )
5420S-A
Pull
Push
y = 17.2 mm
= 2
-100 0 100
-400
-200
0
200
400

-160-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection ( mm)
-400
-360
-320
-280
-240
-200
-160
-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
L
a
t
e
r
a
l


F
o
r
c
e


(

k
N

)
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Drift Ratio / L ( % )
5420S-B
Pull
Push
y = 15.0 mm
= 8.67
-100 0 100
-400
-200
0
200
400

Fig.7-7 The Hysteresis curve of column 5420S-A Fig.7-8 The Hysteresis curve of column 5420S-B

-160-140-120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection ( mm)
-280
-260
-240
-220
-200
-180
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
L
a
t
e
r
a
l


F
o
r
c
e


(

k
N

)
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Drift Ratio / L ( % )
2533-A
Pull
Push
y = 23.4 mm
= 3.46
-100 0 100
-200
0
200

-160-140-120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection ( mm)
-280
-260
-240
-220
-200
-180
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
L
a
t
e
r
a
l


F
o
r
c
e


(

k
N

)
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Drift Ratio / L ( % )
2533-B
Pull
Push
y = 19.8 mm
= 7.07
-100 0 100
-200
0
200

Fig.7-9 The Hysteresis curve of column 2533-A Fig.7-10 The Hysteresis curve of column 2533-B

Seismic Retrofit of Circular RC Bridge Columns Using Steel Jacket

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the seismic resistance of old wall piers and to
retrofit the piers using CFRP. The characteristics of old wall piers are low longitudinal and
transverse steel volumetric ratio. There are four wall pier models designed in this study. Two
of them are as-built models exerting repeated force in the long and short direction. Others
exerting repeated force in the long and short direction are strengthened by carbon FRP and
compare with above as-built models. Due to the competition of moment strength with shear
strength in earthquake, as-built columns will develop different failure modes. Based on the
results of cyclic loading tests, it is concluded that old wall piers may not perform well. Wall
pier exerting repeated force in the long direction has major improvement after it is
strengthened by CFRP. But wall pier exerting repeated force in the short direction does not
have obvious improvement after it is strengthened by CFRP.
Max Load 166.40KN
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Deflection (mm)
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
K
N
)

Max Load
171.13KN
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Deflection (mm)
L
a
te
r
a
l F
o
r
c
e
(
K
N
)

Fig. 8-1 The Hysteresis curve of specimens SW Fig. 8-2 The Hysteresis curve of specimens FSW
S c R ro S d o RC Br d Col

Max Load 457.88KN
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
-125 -75 -25 25 75 125
Deflection (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
F
o
r
c
e
(
K
N
)

Max Load 546.43KN
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
-125 -75 -25 25 75 125
Deflection (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
F
o
r
c
e

)
L
O
*

Fig. 8-3 Hysteresis curve of specimens LW Fig. 8-4 Hysteresis curve of specimens FLW

Table 1 Detail of Benchmark Specimens
Material
Longitudinal
reinforcement
Transverse
reinforcement
Arrangement
Cross
section
Height
Axial
Load
Conc.
fc
Long.
Rein. fy
Trans.
Rein. fyh
Arrange-
ment
Cut off
height
PHZ. Non-PHZ.
Note
Failure
Type
Specimen
(mm) (mm)
(fcAg
)
(Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Code
BMR1 750*600 3250 0.1 25.97 490 490 32-19 --- 9@100 9@100 New
BMR2 750*600 3250 0.1 25.97 343 490 32-16 1800 9@130 9@240 Old
BMR3 750*600 3250 0.15 25.48 343 490 32-16 1800 9@130 9@240 Old
BMR4 750*600 3250 0.15 20.48 386.81 450.8 32-16 1800 9@230 9@230 Old
BMR1-R 750*60 3250 0.15 22.05 436.79 450.8 34-19 1800 9@100 9@100 New
BMC1 D=760 3250 0.15 25.97 490 490 34-19 --- 9@70 9@100 New
BMC2 D=760 3250 0.15 25.51 343.35 490.5 30-16 1800 9@130 9@220 Old
BMC3 D=760 3250 0.15 21.29 387.2 451.26 30-16 1800 9@230 9@230 Old
BMC4 D=760 3250 0.15 20.6 274.68 274.68 30-17 1800 9@130 9@220 Old
SC1 D=760 3250 0.15 26 343.35 490.5 26-16 1250 9@140 9@240 Old
SC1-R D=760 3250 0.15 26 343.35 490.5 26-16 1250 9@140 9@240 Old
FC1 D=750 3250 0.15 26 343.35 490.5 32-16 --- 9@100 9@100 New
Flexural
FC4 D=750 3250 0.15 25.51 343.35 490.5 18-16 --- 9@300 9@300 Old
BMRS 750*600 1750 0.15 16.67 421.83 412.02 30-19 --- 9@300 9@300 Old
Shear
BMCS D=760 1750 0.15 16.67 425.22 426.2 30-19 --- 9@300 9@300 Old
BMRL100 750*600 3250 0.15 16.67 421.83 412.02 30-19 760 9@130 9@220 Old
BMRL50 750*600 3250 0.15 17.89 411.6 421.4 30-19 760 9@130 9@220 Old
BMCL100 D=760 3250 0.15 19.99 425.22 426.2 30-19 760 9@130 9@220 Old
Lap -
splices
BMCL50 750*600 3250 0.15 20.6 274.68 274.68 30-19 760 9@130 9@220 Old
SW
1250*500
R=250
3250 0.15 16.67 421.83 412.02 8-25 1530 9@230 9@350 Old
Wall
type
LW
1250*500
R=250
3250 0.15 16.67 421.83 412.02 8-25 1530 9@230 9@350 Old
RF0 245*180 450 0.05 25.2 423.1 423.1 25@150 --- 25@150 25@150 New
RF1 245*180 450 0.05 41.7 423.1 423.1 25@150 --- 25@150 25@150 Old
Foun-
dation
RF2 245*180 450 0.05 36.8 423.1 423.1 25@150 --- 25@150 25@150 Old

Total24 benchmark specimens
S m c t t Stud C d C lumn











Table 2 Retrofit & Repair methods of rectangular specimens

Failure Type Retrofit / Repair Specimen Benchmark Note
FR1 BMR2 FRP (8 layers)
FR2 FRP (4 layers)
SR1 Large octagon
SR2 Ellipse
SR3 Small octagon
Flexural
SR4
BMR3
Ellipse
FRS FRP (4 layers)
SRS1 Small octagon
SRS2 Ellipse
Shear
BMRS-RC
BMRS
RC (9cm)
FRL100 FRP (8 layers)
SFRL100 FRP (layers)
SRL1 Small octagon
SRL2 Ellipse
BMRL100-RC
BMRL100
RC (9cm)
Lap splices
BMRL50-RC BMRL50 RC (9cm)
FSW SW FRP (2 layers)
Wall type
FLW LW FRP (2 layers)
Foundation RF3 RF1 RC (10cm)
Total19 rectangular retrofit/repair specimens











S m c t t Stud C d C lumn


Table 3 Retrofit & Repair methods of Circular specimens

Failure Type Retrofit / Repair Specimen Benchmark Note
SC2 SC1 Steel (3mm)
SC3 BMC2 Steel (3mm)
FC2 FRP (4 layers)
FC3
FC2
FRP (4 layers)
RCC2 BMC2 RC (9 cm)
Flexural
BMC4-RC BMC4 RC (9 cm)
SCS Steel (3mm)
FCS FRP (4 layers)
FCS-1 FRP (3 layers)
FCS-2 FRP (2 layers)
Shear
FCS-3
BMCS
High Pressure
Epoxy injected
SCL100 Steel (3mm)
FCL100 FRP (6-2 layers)
FCL100-1 FRP (4-2 layers)
FCL100-2 FRP (6-2 layers)
FCL100-3 FRP (6-2 layers)
RCCL1 RC (9 cm)
RCCL2
BMCL100
RC (9 cm)
Lap splices
BMCL50-RC BMCL50 RC (9 cm)

Total19 circular retrofit/repair specimens


Table 4 Material property of CFRP
Material specification FAW 200 (g/m) FAW 205 (g/m)
Yang's modulus Ecf (kgf/cm) 2.36 x 106 2.36 x 106
Thickness (mm/layer) 0.11 0.1375
Ultimate strain 0.015 0.015


Table. 5 Test results and comparison with theoretical predictions
Concrete crushed at upper end Concrete crushed at lower end
Test
unit
Measured
strength
test jv
V
,

kN
mm
a
t s,

mm
b
t s,

calc jv
test jv
V
V
,
,
mm
a
b s,

mm
b
b s,

calc jv
test jv
V
V
,
,

RF1 1311 288 613 0.66 113 690 1.37
RF3 1539 299 638 0.59 138 740 1.03