13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Vancouver, B.C., Canada

August 1-6, 2004
Paper No. 2097

CURVATURE VARIATION OF EARTHQUAKE-EXPERIENCED RC

BRIDGE PIER IN THE PLASTIC HINGE REGION

Young S. CHUNG1, Dae H. LEE2, Chang K. PARK3, and Hee W. SONG3

SUMMARY

Reinforced concrete (RC) bridge structures may be expected respond inelastically in a design-level
earthquake. Damage is expected in regions that experience inelastic action, with the degree of damage
depending on the earthquake characteristics as well as the column design. Before the implementation of
the 1992 seismic design provisions in Korea, longitudinal steels of RC bridge piers were practically lap-
spliced in the plastic hinge region. Experimental investigation was made to evaluate the seismic
performance of RC bridge pier specimens in a flexure/shear failure mode. The objective of this study is to
incur and assess the damage of RC bridge pier specimens under the artificial earthquake motions with the
specified PGA, to evaluate the displacement and curvature ductility of earthquake-experienced RC bridge
piers with lap-spliced longitudinal reinforcement in the plastic hinge region, and to investigate the effect of
the fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) wrap for the seismic enhancement.
Seven (7) circular test specimens in an aspect ratio of 2.5 were made with three test parameters:
confinement ratio, lap splice, and retrofit FRP material. They were damaged under series of artificial
earthquakes with the PGA, being compatible in Korean peninsula by the pseudo-dynamic test. Directly
after the pseudo-dynamic test, damaged test columns were laterally actuated under repeated cyclic loadings
simultaneously under a constant axial load. Through the displacement and curvature measurements,
residual seismic performance was evaluated for damaged test specimens. The relationship between the
curvature and the displacement ductility was investigated and compared with previous models by JRA [5],
Priestley [14], and Son [16]. Test results show that lap-spliced RC pier specimens were strongly required
of timely retrofit against the probable earthquakes, and the FRP wrapped columns showed significant
enhancement of seismic capacity even if lap splice of 50% longitudinal reinforcement. New empirical
formula for the plastic hinge length was proposed considering the effect of transverse confinement.

INTRODUCTION

Even though earthquakes have economic, social, and psychological effects in regions or the countries
where they take place, Korea is considered to be immune from the earthquake hazards since it is located
rather far away from the active fault area. However, it has been observed in the Korean peninsula that the

1
Professor, Chung-Ang University, Ansungsi, Kyunggido, Korea
2
Assistant Professor, Gyeongdo Provincial College, YechonGun, Gyeongsangbukdo, Korea
3
Graduate Student, Chung-Ang University, Ansungsi, Kyunggido, Korea
number of low or moderate earthquake motions have increased year by year. The recent Turkey(1999),
Taiwan(2000), India(2001) earthquakes have caused numerous loss of lives and extensive damage to
highway bridge structures. Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes are similar in scale, but in turkey the damage is
more severe because of the remissness in the discharge of seismic preparedness. Hence, to protect the
human lives and property from seismic hazard, the secure of the seismic safety is very important. The
collapse or near collapse of bridge structures during the 1994 Northridge earthquake and the 1995
Hyogoken Nambu earthquake stimulated the safety evaluation of various infrastructures which were
seismically or nonseismically designed in Korea. Lap splices of longitudinal steels were practically located
in the plastic hinge region of most RC bridge columns that were constructed before the implementation of
the seismic design code of the Korea bridge design specification in 1992. Therefore, it is needed to
investigate the effect of lap splice and retrofit scheme on the lap spliced piers for RC bridge columns.
Previous research has indicated that closely spaced transverse reinforcement in the potential plastic hinge
zone of bridge columns increases ultimate compression strength and strain of the concrete core. Chai et al
[2] reported that the steel jacketing retrofit method was effective in restoring the flexural strength and the
ductility capacity of a column which had suffered total bond failure of the spliced reinforcement in the
plastic hinge region. Priestley et al [14] investigated the seismic performance of two large-scale circular
columns with low longitudinal reinforcement ratios and proposed to reduce the lower limit of the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio for circular bridge columns as 0.5 percent. Saadatmanesh et al [15]
experimentally studied the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete columns strengthened with fiber
reinforced plastic (FRP) composite straps and showed the highly effectiveness of the FRP straps in
confining the core concrete and preventing the longitudinal reinforcement bars from buckling under cyclic
loading. They also conducted an experimental investigation into the flexural behavior of four earthquake-
damaged reinforced concrete columns repaired with prefabricated fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) wraps,
and verified the effectiveness of the proposed repair technique by showing higher flexural strength and
displacement ductility of repaired columns than those of the original column. Aboutaha et al [1] have also
reported the effects of confinement on the compressive strength and ductility of reinforced concrete bridge
piers. They investigated the effect of lap splice lengths of the longitudinal reinforcement. They
investigated the seismic repair of lap splice failures in damaged concrete columns. A total of six specimens
in 18×36 inches cross-section were fabricated and tested under axial load and cyclic lateral displacement
to investigate the effect of two confinement steel types and the repair method. Results from this cyclic
lateral load test showed that the retrofitted columns reached their design strength with the enhancement of
the shear strength and ductility of the columns. Lehman et al [7] made an experimental investigation on the
performance of earthquake-damaged reinforced concrete columns repaired by different techniques: a
headed reinforcement with mechanical couplers, a RC jacket, and the cover replacement with epoxy resin
depending on the damage level and the details of the original columns. The performance of each repair
technique was determined by comparing the response of the repaired column with the response of the
original column as well as with the design intent.
Only the response modification factor in seismic design is adopted to induce the plastic behavior in Korea
[9]. But, Eurocode 8 [4] and NZS 3101 [10] take into account not only the displacement ductility but also
the curvature ductility. The displacement ductility reflects the global behavior of whole structure which is
variable according to structure type, column length, support condition, etc. Meanwhile, the curvature
ductility exhibits the local behavior, which can be changed by the section shape, material properties, rebar
arrangement, etc. Because the damage is concentrated on the plastic hinge region of RC columns, the
curvature ductility is more important because it exhibits the ductility of critical section. Priestley [13]
recommended the relationship between the curvature ductility and displacement ductility.
The objective of this study is to incur and assess the damage of RC bridge pier specimens under the
artificial earthquake motions with the specified PGA, to evaluate the displacement and curvature ductility
of earthquake-experienced RC bridge piers with lap-spliced longitudinal reinforcement in the plastic hinge
region, and to investigate the effect of the fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) wrap for the seismic enhancement.
Seven (7) circular test specimens in an aspect ratio of 2.5 were made with three test parameters:
confinement ratio, lap splice, and retrofit FRP material. To provide different levels of transverse
confinements, test specimens were designed in accordance with the pre-1992 roadway bridge design code,
the current seismic design code, and the limited ductility design concept. Since lap splice of bridge piers is
sometimes practically unavoidable, four test specimens were made with lap splice of 50% longitudinal
reinforcement steels. They were damaged under series of artificial earthquakes with the PGA, being
compatible in Korean peninsula by the pseudo-dynamic test. Directly after the pseudo-dynamic test,
damaged test columns were laterally actuated under inelastic reversal cyclic loadings simultaneously under
a constant axial load. Through the displacement and curvature measurements, residual seismic
performance was evaluated for damaged test specimens. The relationship between the curvature and the
displacement ductility was investigated and compared with previous models by JRA [5], Priestley [14],
and Son [16]. Test results show that lap-spliced RC pier specimens were strongly required of timely
retrofit against the probable earthquakes, and the FRP wrapped columns showed significant enhancement
of seismic capacity even if lap splice of longitudinal reinforcement. New empirical formula for the plastic
hinge length was proposed considering the effect of transverse confinement.

TEST PROGRAM

Test Specimens
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the plastic hinge length, where a damage is concentrated. For this
study, seven specimens with the aspect ratio of 2.5 were constructed with 600 mm diameter and 1,500 mm
height. Figure 1 shows detailed dimension of test columns. As shown in Table 1, seven test specimens
were prepared to investigate their seismic performance. Five test columns were nonseismically designed,
and four of them (DN-SP50-R0, RG, RA, RC) were made with lap splice of 50% longitudinal steels in the
lower plastic hinge region except for the specimen, DN-SP00-R0. Two other specimens (DL, DS-SP00-
R0) were designed in accordance with the limited ductile design concept and with the 1992 seismic design
code of Korea bridge design specification, respectively.

Axial Force SECTION A - A

30 540 30

Lateral Nonseismic
Force Column Bar
NPHR

PHR= 600
Limited Ductile
NPHR=900
Seismic Starter Bar
B B
PHR

SECTION B - B
334

A A 30 540 30 0.25D

Figure 1. Design details of test specimen (unit:mm) Figure 2. Lap-splice detail (unit:mm)

These test columns were reinforced longitudinally with D16 bars [diameter = 16 mm], resulting in a
longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 1.54 percent. Transverse confinement steel was provided by D10 bars
[diameter = 10mm], and was spaced at 230 mm, 82 mm and 50 mm in plastic hinge region depending on
the seismic design concept, as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1. The compressive strength of concrete was
26.4MPa. Figure 2 shows the detail of lap-splice.
 Table 1. Material properties of test specimens
Confinement Confinement Longitudinal
steel space steel ratio Axial force steel ratio
Classification Specimens Retrofit
(mm) ρs (kN)
(%)
PHR/NPHR*
0% Lap DN-SP00-R0
DN-SP50-R0
Non- DN-SP50-RG Glass
230/230 0.23
seismic 50%Lap
DN-SP50-RA 664.4 Aramid
( P/fckAg 1.54
DN-SP50-RC = 0.1 ) Carbon
Limited
0% Lap DL-SP00-R0 82/10 0.86
Ductile
Seismic 0% Lap DS-SP00-R0 50/93 1.31
* PHR : Plastic Hinge Region, NPHR : Non-plastic Hinge Region

Test Setup and Instrumentation

The test setup was designed for testing column-footing assemblages subjected to the combining axial and
lateral loadings. Two independent loading systems were used to apply the load to the specimens. First, the
axial load of 664.4kN corresponding to P / f ck Ag = 0.1 was applied to the top of column by prestressing a
pair of high-strength steel rods against the concrete floor of the loading frame. Next, the lateral forces were
applied to the column by a 1,000 kN hydraulic actuator mounted on the reaction wall. Every column was
instrumented to monitor the applied displacement and corresponding loads, strains, and deformations.
Various measurements were obtained through four instrumental equipments: (a) the calibrated load cell
and displacement transducer of the actuator, (b) the clip gages and inclinometers mounted on the plastic
hinge region of the column to measure the rotation, (c) the displacement transducers installed on the
reference frame, and (d) electrical-resistance strain gages bonded to reinforcing bars.

Input Load
The experimental program consisted of two test procedures: the pseudo dynamic test for the damage
inducement under the probable seismic ground motions in Korean peninsula, and subsequent quasi-static
test for the residual seismic performance evaluation of damaged RC bridge piers. Figure 4 shows two
different test procedures: the pseudo dynamic test and the quasi-static test. First step is the pseudo dynamic
test to damage RC bridge piers and next step is the quasi-static test to estimate the residual seismic
performance of damaged RC bridge piers. Figure 3 shows the applied moderate artificial earthquake,
which was proposed by the Korea Highway Corporation. The pseudo-dynamic test is similar to standard
step-by-step nonlinear analysis being divided into a series of time step. Explicit Newmark’s β method was
used for the algorithm of this pseudo-dynamic test. Peak ground acceleration for four input ground motions
are 0.0803g, 0.11g, 0.154g, and final 0.22g for 200 years, 500 years, 1000 years, and 2000 years of the
return period, respectively. Directly after the pseudo dynamic test, the quasi-static test was carried out in a
displacement-controlled way. With the same axial load, repeated cyclic loads were laterally applied at the
top of test columns using 1,000KN hydraulic actuator. The quasi-static test was conducted in a
displacement-controlled way, which was based on the drift level, as shown in Fig. 4. The drift level is
computed as the ratio of the input displacement to the column height.
 400 3.0%
3.0

300 2.0%
2.0
PGA = 0.2g 1.5%
1.5
Acceleration cm/ sec2

200 1.0%
1.0

Drift Level ( % )
100 0.5%
0.25% be continued 0.5
0.25
0
0 -0.25
-0.5

-100 -1.0

0.0803g 0.11g 0.154g 0.22g -1.5

-200 -2.0
Pseudo-Dynamic Test Quasi- Static Test
-300
Dominant Frequency : 1.7 Hz -3.0
-400
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time(sec)

Figure 3. Artificial Earthquake Figure 4. Loading Procedure

TEST RESULTS

Hysteresis behavior
Hysteretic behaviors of test specimens both under the pseudo dynamic test and the quasi-static test are
shown in Figs. 5(a)~(g). Left two figures of Fig. 5(a)~(g) show the force-displacement hysteresis observed
from the pseudo dynamic test and the quasi-static test, and right two figures of Fig. 5(a)~(g) show the
moment-curvature hysteresis observed from ditto tests. From the result of the pseudo dynamic test in Figs
5(a)~(c), the specimens without lap splice were almost linearly behaved up to the earthquake motion with
0.22g PGA, regardless of different confinement. In addition, Figs. 5(e)~(g) showed that the hysteresis
curves of all retrofitted specimens were similar. Three retrofitted specimens have higher lateral force and
moment than those of the corresponding non-retrofitted specimen(DN-SP50-R0). Figures 5(a) and 5(d)
show that nonseismic test specimen (DN-SP00-R0) without lap splices developed more ductile hysteresis
loops than nonseismic test specimen (DN-SP50-R0) with lap splice of 50% longitudinal reinforcement. As
shown in Figs. 5(d), (e), (f), and (g), it was observed that the fiber sheets remarkably increased the ductility.
In addition, Figs. 5(a), (b), and (c) showed that test specimens with more transverse reinforcement steels
could have higher displacement and curvature ductility.
Figure 6 shows the comparative lateral force-displacement envelope curves for all test specimens in
accordance with three test parameters; transverse confinement, lap splice, and retrofit, and Figure 7 also
shows the comparative moment-curvature envelope curves for ditto specimens. Figures 6(a) and 7(a) show
that more transverse confinement in the plastic hinge region of RC bridge columns can have bigger
ductility. Compared to the non-seismic specimen (DN-SP00-R0), the limited ductile specimen (DL-SP00-
R0) showed an increase of the ultimate displacement and curvature by 39.4% and 60.6% , respectively, as
shown in Table 2. A significant reduction of the displacement ductility and the curvature ductility was
observed for the test specimen with lap splices of 50% longitudinal steels from Figs. 6(b) and 7(b). The
lap-spliced specimen (DN-SP50-R0) showed a rapid decrease of the strength, while the other specimen
(DN-SP00-R0) without lap splice showed a gradual decrease of the lateral strength. Figures 6(e), (f), and
(g) show the effect of FRP wraps, which considerably increased the strength and the ductility of the retrofit
columns with lap spliced bars to reach the seismic capacity of the ductile test specimen, DL-SP00-R0.
 400 400 600 600

300 300
400 400

Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
200 200
200 200

Force(kN)
100
Force(kN)

100
0 0 0
0

-100 -100
-200 -200
-200 -200
-400 -400
-300
-300
DN-SP00-R0 DN-SP00-R0 DN-SP00-R0 DN-SP00-R0
-400 -600 -600
-400
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -0.00003 -0.00002 -0.00001 0 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm) Curvature(rad/mm) Curvature(rad/mm)

(a) DN-SP00-R0
400 400 600 600

300 300
400 400

Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
200 200
200 200

Force(kN)
Force(kN)

100 100

0 0 0
0

-100 -100 -200 -200

-200 -200
-400 -400
-300 -300 DL-SP00-R0 DL-SP00-R0
DL-SP00-R0 DL-SP00-R0
-600 -600
-400 -400
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -0.00003 -0.00002 -0.00001 0 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm) Curvature(rad/mm) Curvature(rad/mm)

(b) DL-SP00-R0
400 400 600 600

300 300 400 400

Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
200 200
200 200
Force(kN)
Force(kN)

100 100

0 0 0
0

-100 -100 -200 -200

-200 -200
-400 -400
-300 -300 DS-SP00-R0 DS-SP00-R0
S-SP00-R0
-600 -600
-400 -400
-0.00006 -0.00004 -0.00002 0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm) Curvature(rad/mm) Curvature(rad/mm)

(c) DS-SP00-R0
400 400 600 600
300 300
400 400
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
200 200
200 200
Force(kN)

Force(kN)

100 100

0 0 0 0

-100 -100 -200 -200

-200 -200
-400 -400
-300 DN-SP50-R0 -300
DN-SP50-R0 DN-SP50-R0 DN-SP50-R0
-600 -600
-400 -400
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.00003 -0.00002 -0.00001 0 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm) Curvature(rad/mm) Curvature(rad/mm)

(d) DN-SP50-R0
400 400 600 600

300 300
400 400
Moment (kN.m)

200 Moment (kN.m)

200
200 200
Force(kN)
Force(kN)

100 100

0 0 0 0

-100 -100 -200 -200

-200 -200
-400 -400
-300 -300 DN-SP50-RA DN-SP50-RA
DN-SP50-RA DN-SP50-RA
-600 -600
-400 -400
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -0.00003 -0.00002 -0.00001 0 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm) Curvature(rad/mm) Curvature(rad/mm)

(e) DN-SP50-RA
500 400 600 600

400 300
400 400
300
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

200
200 200 200
Force(kN)
Force(kN)

100
100
0 0 0
0
-100 -100 -200 -200
-200
-200
-300 -400 -400
-300 DN-SP50-RC DN-SP50-RC
-400 DN-SP50-RC
-600 -600
-500 -400
-0.00003 -0.00002 -0.00001 0 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm) Curvature(rad/mm) Curvature(rad/cm)

(f) DN-SP50-RC
400 400 600 600
300 300
400 400
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

200 200
200 200
Force(kN)

Force(kN)

100 100
0 0 0 0

-100 -100 -200 -200

-200 -200
-400 -400
-300 -300 DN-SP50-RG DN-SP50-RG
DN-SP50-RG DN-SP50-RG
-400 -600 -600
-400
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.00003 -0.00002 -0.00001 0 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm) Curvature(rad/mm) Curvature(rad/mm)

(g) DN-SP50-RG
[P-D Test] [Q-S Test] [P-D Test] [Q-S Test]
Force –displacement hysteresis Moment-curvature hysteresis
Figure 5. Hysteresis loop
 400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

Force(kN)
Force(kN)

Force(kN)
100 100 100

0 0 0
DN-SP50-RG
-100 -100 -100
DN-SP50-RA
-200 DN-SP00-R0 -200 -200 DN-SP50-RC
DL-SP00-R0 DN-SP50-R0 DL-SP00-R0
-300 -300 -300
DS-SP00-R0 DN-SP00-R0 DN-SP50-R0
-400 -400 -400
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm)

(a) Transverse Confinement (b) Lap-splice (c) Retrofit

Figure 6. Lateral force-displacement envelope curve

600 600 600

400 400 400

Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

200 200 200

0 0 0
DN-SP50-RG
-200 -200 -200 DN-SP50-RC
DN-SP00-R0 DN-SP00-R0 DN-SP50-RA
-400 DL-SP00-R0 -400 -400 DN-SP50-R0
DS-SP00-R0 DN-SP50-R0
DL-SP00-R0
-600 -600 -600
-0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006

Curvature(rad/mm) Curvature(rad/mm) Curvature(rad/mm)

(a) Transverse Confinement (b) Lap-splice (c) Retrofit

Figure 7. Moment-curvature envelope curve

Ductility of RC Columns

Displacement Ductility
The ultimate displacement was defined as the experienced maximum displacement before the fracture
point when longitudinal or confinement steel exceed its fracture state, or the strength on the descending
branch of the force-displacement envelope curve becomes less than 0.85Vmax . The yield displacement ∆ y
was the displacement corresponding to V y , which was computed by extrapolating a straight line from the
origin through 0.75Vmax . The displacement ductility, µ ∆ = ∆ u / ∆ y , was computed in Table 2. Composite
FRP wraps for retrofitted specimens (DN-SP50-RG,RA,RC) increased the displacement ductility about 1.8
~ 2.4 times with respect to the corresponding reference test specimen(DN-SP50-R0). The displacement
ductility ratio of lap-spliced test specimen(DN-SP50-R0) was significantly reduced to approximate 60%
that of the reference specimen(DN-SP00-R0).

Curvature Ductility
The curvature ductility defined as ratio yield curvature and ultimate curvature. The yield curvature φ y was
the curvature corresponding to M y , which was computed by extrapolating a straight line from the origin
through 0.75 M max . The ultimate curvature defined as the curvature corresponding to 0.85M max . As a result
of Table 2, the curvature ductility of the limited ductile specimen exhibits 2 times that of the nonseismic
test specimen, and the curvature ductilities of retrofitted specimens were increased by about 3~4 times,
compared with that of the unretrofitted specimen. The curvature ductilities of retrofitted specimens
showed similar ductile capacity to the limited ductile specimen. The curvature ductility of lap-spliced test
specimen (DN-SP50-R0) was significantly reduced to approximate 50% that of non-spliced test specimen
(DN-SP00-R0). Even for test specimen with lap-spliced longitudinal reinforcing steels, the higher
displacement ductility could be significantly increased if retrofitted by the FRP wrap. The curvature
ductility of the limited ductile specimen shows 15.81, it is over 2 times the demand curvature ductility 7
required for the typical limited ductile concept of Eurocode 8. In addition, nonseismic specimen without
lap splice show similar demand curvature ductility of Eurocode 8, but lap-spliced specimen did not satisfy
with this demand. As shown in Fig. 5(c), data errors were observed for the seismic specimen DS-SP00-R0,
of which results were omitted in the Table 2.

Table 2. Displacement and curvature ductility

Yield Ultimate
Cur./Displ.
Specimen Curvature Moment Displ. Force Curvature Moment Displ. Force Ductility
(rad/mm) (kN·m) (mm) (kN) (rad/mm) (kN·m) (mm) (kN)
DN-SP00-R0 2.59E-5 345.6 10.82 265.8 2.03E-4 351.1 66.00 265.7 7.82/6.10
DN-SP50-R0 2.12E-5 306.4 9.82 241.8 0.89E-4 316.7 24.08 300.0 4.22/2.45
DN-SP50-RA 1.98E-5 446.8 9.50 343.5 2.50E-4 424.6 70.00 322.2 13.16/7.37
DN-SP50-RG 2.21E-5 394.2 10.65 289.4 2.93E-4 461.7 88.00 282.1 13.27/8.26
DN-SP50-RC 2.18E-5 373.9 11.19 309.1 3.37E-4 372.9 74.93 305.6 15.40/6.70
DL-SP00-R0 2.06E-5 326.7 10.13 248.1 3.26E-4 324.0 92.00 245.1 15.81/9.08
DS-SP00-R0 Data errors were observed.

Ductility Relationship Between Curvature and Displacement

Figure 8 shows the curvature distribution in the plastic hinge region of RC column. The curvature ductility
is mainly dependent on the ductile capacity in plastic hinge region, which shows a practical failure
behavior of RC bridge columns. Because it is very difficult to acquire the curvature directly from the
experiment, however, most researchers have calculated the curvature ductility using the relationship
between the displacement ductility and the curvature ductility. Previous experimental results indicated that
the plastic hinge length of RC column was affected by various parameters: columns diameter, axial force,
transverse reinforcement ratio, longitudinal steel ratio, etc. For the ductility relationship between the
curvature and the displacement, Priestly et al [14], Son et al [16], and JRA [5] proposed following Eqs.
(1a), (2), and (3a), respectively. Meanwhile, Priestley et al [14] and JRA [5] recommend Eq. (1b) and Eq.
(3b) for the plastic hinge length, L p , respectively. Eq. (1b) is a function only of column length and
longitudinal steel, and Eq. (3b) is a function only of column height and column diameter. Eq. (1b) and Eq.
(3b) are not considered the effect of the axial force and transverse confinement. Eq. (2) suggested by Son
et al [16] is a function of column diameter and length.

Lp  L 
µ ∆ = 1 + 3( µ φ − 1) 1 − 0.5 p  (1a)
L  L 

L p = 0.08L + 0.022 f y d b ≥ 0.044 f y d b (mm, MPa) (1b)

 D  D
µ ∆ = 0.21.1 +  µ φ + 0.50.7 + 0.75  (2)
 L  L

δ u = δ y + (φu − φ y )L p (h − L p / 2) (3a)
L p = 0.2h − 0.1D (3b)
where, µ ∆ is displacement ductility, µ φ is curvature ductility, L and h are column length, D is column
diameter, f y is yield strength of rebar, and d b is diameter of rebar.
 Figure 8. Curvature distribution and plastic hinge region of RC column

Plastic Hinge Length of RC Columns

Figure 9 shows the curvature variation of the specimens (DN-SP00-R0, DL-SP00-R0, DS-SP00-R0). The
plastic hinge length was measured as the height from the footing to the point at when the curvature
exceeds the yield curvature. Experimental plastic hinge lengths of the specimen DN,L,S-SP00-R0 are
274mm, 267mm, and 249mm, respectively, as shown Fig. 9. From these results compared with
confinement steel ratio as shown in Fig. 10, the plastic hinge length was recommend following Eq. (4),
which is a quadratic equation. Eq. (4) was modified from Eq. (1b) suggested by Priestley et al [13] by
considering the effect of transverse reinforcement steel ratio.

L p = 0.08L + 0.022 f y d b + f ( ρ s ) (4)

where, f ( ρ s ) = −26.749 ρ s2 + 18.045 ρ s + 22.26 , ρ s is confinement steel ratio.

1600 1600 1600

N-SP00-R0 Yield Curvature L-SP00-R0 Yield Curvature S-SP00-R0 Yield Curvature
1400 1400 1400

1200 1200 1200

Height (mm)
Height (mm)
Height (mm)

1000 1000 1000

800 800 800

600
600 600
400
400 400
200
200 200
Lp = 274mm 0
Lp = 267mm Lp = 249mm
0 0 -0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
-0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006
Curvature(rad/cm) Curvature(rad/cm) Curvature(rad/cm)

Figure 9. Curvature variation and plastic hinge length at each loading step

30

25 2
y = -26.749x + 18.045x + 22.265
2
R =1
20
△Lp(mm)

15

10

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Transverse Confinement (ρs, %)

Figure 10. L p versus transverse confinement

Figure 11 shows the relationship of the displacement ductility and the curvature ductility. Test results are
analyzed together with further previous results [3], as shown Fig. 11. Equation (3) shows good agreement
with experimental results for various specimens with an aspect ratio of 2.5 and 4.0. Eqs. (1)~(3)
overestimate the curvature ductility compared with experimental results.

12 12
N-SP00-R0 L-SP00-R0 Ref. 2 Experiment Result (D=1.2m, L=4.8m)
10 N-SP50-R0 N-SP50-RA 10
N-SP50-RC N-SP50-RG Japan eq.
Displacement Ductility

Displacement Ductility
8 Proposed eq. 8 Proposed eq.

6 6

4 4
Son eq. Son eq : (L=4.8m)
Japan eq.
2 2
Priestley eq.
Priestley eq : (L=4.8m)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Curvature Ductility Curvature Ductility

(a) Aspect ratio 2.5 (b) Aspect ratio 4.0

Figure 11. Relationship of displacement ductility and curvature ductility

CONCLUSIONS

Test results showed that the FRP wraps in the potential plastic hinge region of RC bridge piers could be
one of effective retrofit measures to enhance the flexural ductility, and that lap-spliced RC pier specimens
were strongly required of timely retrofit against the probable earthquakes. The following conclusions can
be made.

a) Even under the 0.22g earthquake motions in the pseudo dynamic test, all test specimens were almost
linearly behaved with minor damage except for the nonseismic specimen with lap splice of 50%
longitudinal reinforcement.
b) The FRP wraps considerably increased the lateral strength and the ductility of retrofit columns with lap
spliced bars, which reached at the seismic capacity of the limited ductile specimen.
c) The curvature ductility of the limited ductile specimen shows 15.81, it is over 2 times the demand
curvature ductility 7 required for the typical limited ductile concept of Eurocode 8. Nonseismic specimen
without lap splice also showed similar demand curvature ductility of Eurocode 8, but lap-spliced specimen
did not satisfy with this demand.
d) In this study, new empirical formula recommended for the plastic hinge length showed good agreement
with experimental results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the Korea Earthquake Engineering Research Center
(Contract No. R11-1997-005302-0). The authors also thank Conclinic Co., Reform System Co., and SK
Chemicals Co. for providing retrofit materials.

REFERENCES

1. Aboutaha, Riyad S., Engelhardt, Michael D. Jirsa, James O. and Kreger. Michael E. “Experimental
Investigation of Seismic Repair of Lap Splice Failures in Damaged Concrete Columns,” ACI
Structural Journal 1999, 96(6), Nov.-Dec., pp. 988-996.
2. Chai, Y. H., Pristley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. "Seismic Retrofit of Circular Bridge Columns for
Enhanced Flexural Performance," ACI Structural Journal 1991, 88(5), Sep.-Oct., pp.572-584.
3. Chung, Y.S., Park, C.K., and Park, J.Y. “Seismic ductility evaluation of large-scaled bridge piers by
the quasi-static and the pseudo-dynamic test” Proceeding of the FIB2003 Symposium, Athens,
Greece, pp.320~321, 2003.
4. Eurocode 8 Part 2 "Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistant Structures-Bridge," European
Committee for Standardization, 1996.
5. Japan Road Association “Specification for Highway Bridges,” p125, 1996.
6. Jaradat, Omar A., McLean, David I., and Marsh, M. Lee “Performance of Existing Bridge Columns
under Cyclic Loading-Part 1:Experimental Results and Observed Behavior,” ACI Structural Journal
1998, 95(6), Nov.-Dec, pp. 685-704.
7. Lehman, D.E., Gookin, S.E., Nacamuli, A.M., and Moehle, J.P. “Repair of Earthquake-Damaged
Bridge Columns,” ACI Structural Journal 2001, 98(2), Mar.-Apr., pp.233-242.
8. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park R. “Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined
Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1988, 114(8), Aug., pp. 1804-1826.
9. Ministry of Construction and Transportation " Korea Highway Bridge Design Specification," 2000.
10. NZS 3101 Part 1&2 “Design of Concrete Structures,” New Zealand Standard, 1995.
11. Panahshahi, N., White, R. N., and Gergely, Peter “Reinforced Concrete Compression Lap Splices
under Inelastic Cyclic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal 1992, 89(2), Mar.-Apr., pp. 164-175.
12. Park, R. ”Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing,” Proc. of the Ninth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Vol. Ⅶ, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.
605-616, 1998.
13. Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,”
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1991.
14. Priestly, M. J. N., Seible, F., Calvi, G.M. "Seismic Design And Retrofit of Bridge," John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1996.
15. Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, Mohanmmad R., and Jin, L. "Repair of Earthquake-Damaged RC
Columns with FRP Wraps," ACI Structural Journal 1997, 94(2), Mar.-Apr., pp.206-215
16. Son H. S. “A Study on Seismic Design Methodology based in Transverse Reinforcement Demand
for RC Bridge Columns,” Ph D thesis, Yeong-Nam University, 2002.