Pushover Analyses of Two

R
-A
S A 2 0 12
-A
d
Advanced Research in Scientific Areas 2012
nc
AL CO N F E RE
va
in
IR
TU
e d R e s e a rc h
December, 3. - 7. 2012
Sc
ien
t i fi c A re as
Pushover Analyses of Two-Span Reinforced Concrete

Bridge With Piers Confined by Fiber Reinforcements
Theodoros C. Rousakis
Zoi Th. Gronti
Civil Engineering Department

Democritus University of Thrace, D.U.Th.
Xanthi, Greece
trousak@civil.duth.gr
Civil Engineer, MSc, D.U.Th.

Xalkida, Greece
zoigron@civil.duth.gr
AbstractThe study examines analytically the effects of the

external confinement of reinforced concrete bridge piers with
different fiber reinforcements and techniques. A typical two-span
overpass bridge is retrofitted with light Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (CFRP) or Glass FRP (GFRP) or Aramide FRP (AFRP)
or Polythylene Naphthalate FRP (PENFRP) or Polyethylene
Terephthalate FRP (PETFRP) jackets or Vinylon Fiber Rope
(VFR) or Polypropylene FR (PPFR) wraps for the intermediate
piers. Also an extra light PPFR wrapping of the piers is
examined. Pushover analyses of the different 3d models of the
bridge are performed in order to assess the eight retrofit
schemes. VFR and PPFR have ultra high deformability at failure
and thus enhance remarkably the deformability of confined
concrete. FR wraps may provide far more upgraded
displacement ductility of the bridge than FRP jackets of
equivalent axial rigidity. FR retrofitted piers suppress the failure
of confined concrete (typical failure for FRP confined piers)
while they present steel bars fracture. Extra light PPFR
wrapping results in an enhanced bridge behavior similar to that
for FRP jackets.
The study investigates the effects of the use of different

confining materials and techniques for the strengthening of the
intermediate piers in order to meet current codes seismic design
requirements. It examines carbon or glass or aramide or
polythylene naphthalate or polyethylene terephthalate FRP
jacketing of piers as well as vinylon or polypropylene FR
wrapping without the use of impregnating resins.
II. TWO-SPAN BRIDGE LAYOUT
The structure is a typical bridge [7] with total length of
67.66m, having two spans of 33.83m. The deck consists of 6
precast prestressed girders with 1.825m height and 2.95m
spacing. The top slab has thickness of 0.205m (0.23m in the
cantilever region) and is connected with the girders through
shear connectors. The deck is simply supported on the
abutments and on the intermediate piers through bearings
allowing free sliding and rotation in every horizontal direction.
Keywords; bridge pier;fiber rope; confinement; pushover
I.
INTRODUCTION
Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) are widely used in the

retrofit of bridge piers. FRP confining sheets may upgrade
remarkably the stress-strain behavior of concrete. Hence, the
strengthened piers may present enhanced curvature ductility
and further develop extensive inelastic deformations without
significant loss of their shear strength [1,2]. High deformability
FRP material reinforcements made of PEN or PET provide
concrete with significant compressive axial strain at failure [6].
The studies by [3,4] investigate the confining effects of
aramide or vinylon structural fiber ropes (AFR, VFR). The
ropes are externally wrapped around the columns without the
use of gluing resins. The ropes present very low sensitivity to
local damage.
Figure 1. Layout of the piers.
Recent results by [5] suggest that Vinylon or Polypropylene

Fiber Ropes (VFR, PPFR) may provide confined concrete with
ultimate axial strain up to 13%. The use of high deformability
confining materials ensures that the high potential of concrete
for energy dissipation is utilized. Then the failures of the
reinforced concrete members are related to second order effects
or to shear capacity degradation.
INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL CONFERENCE

http://www.arsa-conf.com
SECTION
12. Industrial and Civil Engineering
- 1885 -
R
-A
S A 2 0 12
-A
d
nc
AL CO N F E RE
va
in
IR
TU
e d R e s e a rc h
December, 3. - 7. 2012
Sc
ien
t i fi c A re as
Figure 2. longitudinal section of bridge (half).
The intermediate piers consist of four single cylindrical

columns with 1.067m diameter which are interconnected
through a beam of 1.22m height. The piers are supported on
spread footings and the abutments on piles (Figures 1 and 2).
The bridge was originally designed for vertical loads and
then retrofitted to meet Eurocode standards for bridges in
seismic regions. The bridge piers are strengthened through
external confinement. The paper investigates the effect of the

different confining fiber reinforcements on the inelastic
response of the bridge. Seven different reinforcements are
considered: CFRP or GFRP or AFRP or PENFRP or PETFRP
jackets and Vinylon Fiber Ropes (VFR) or Polypropylene Fiber
Ropes (PPFR), in quantities (Table I) that provide equivalent
stress-strain curves for confined concrete (Figure 3).
TABLE I. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF CONFINING MATERIALS

Confining Materials
Parameters
VFR
PPFR
GFRP
CFRP
PPFR0.08
AFRP
PENFRR
PETFRP
Ej (GPa)
15.9
2.25
73
240
2.25
115.2
12*
8.3*
ju
0.046
0.18
0.028
0.015
0.18
0.0324
0.0626
0.0871
j,max (MPa)
734
405
2044
3600
405
3732
751
722
Equivalent
Thickness tj (mm)
3.02
25.37
0.7
0.21
4.2
3.94
5.69
0.0345
0.29
0.008
0.0024
0.08
0.048
0.045
0.065
au
0.1
0.1
0.015
0.012
0.06
0.0205
0.0415
0.0625
*equivalent modulus of elasticity
(a)
Figure 3.
(b)
Typical - curves from seismostruct for (a) equivalent CFRP, GFRP, AFRP, PENFRP, PETFRP, VFR, PPFR, (b) PPFR0.08 (ideally plastic -).

SECTION
- 1886 -
R
-A
S A 2 0 12
-A
d
nc
AL CO N F E RE
va
in
IR
TU
e d R e s e a rc h
December, 3. - 7. 2012
Sc
ien
t i fi c A re as
Hence, the different confining materials provide different

axial strains at failure (Table I, au values), according to recent
experimental findings [5,6]. The characteristic stress-strain
curves for the FR confined concrete with fcm=21 MPa are
modeled according to the study by [8] as provided in
Seismostruct software [9] and are gathered in Figure 3.
III. ASSESSMENT OF AS-BUILT AND RETROFITTED BRIDGE
The inelastic mechanical performance of the bridge is
assessed through inelastic static analyses (pushover) with the
use of the Seismostruct software. Seismostruct accounts for
material inelasticity along the member and across the section
depth as well as for geometric nonlinearity. Herein, distributed
inelasticity frame elements are used within the framework of
Seismostruct. They are implemented with force-based finite
element formulations.
The steel is modelled uniaxially according to [10] with
isotropic hardening rules and implemented by [11]. The
elastomeric bearings are modelled as link elements (curve

lin_sym). The bridge analytical model is presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4a presents the thorough detailing of the model that
allows for extensive parametric analyses of different effects
that are involved in the bridge design (3 dimensional modeling
of all the different structural members). Figure 4b shows the
required elements and nodes in order to describe accurately the
deck and the substructure (discretization for deformed shape).
Figures 5a and 5b depict the 3d bridge models for the case of
strengthening with extra low Polypropylene FR confinement
(PPFR0.08) for pushover X and pushover Y analysis
correspondingly. The different colours of the piers regions
denote the different performance criteria reached by the
concrete (i.e. yellow for concrete cover failure), steel (i.e.
magenta for steel fracture and pink for steel yielding) or the
member itself (i.e. red for ultimate member chord rotation and
blue for shear failure) during the ultimate analysis step.
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.
Three dimensional model of the bridge in seismostruct (a). Discretization of the deck and the substructure (half, deformed shape) (b).

SECTION
- 1887 -
R
-A
S A 2 0 12
-A
d
nc
AL CO N F E RE
va
in
IR
TU
e d R e s e a rc h
December, 3. - 7. 2012
Sc
ien
t i fi c A re as
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.
Typical 3d model of the bridge for the case of piers confined by extra low Polypropylene FR confinement, PPFR0.08. Different
colours denote the different performance criteria reached by the piers for pushover X-X (a) and Y-Y (b).
Figures 6a and 6b show the total base shear V versus

intermediate pier top displacement d curve for the as-built and
retrofitted bridge. The same figure includes the V-ddeck
(displacement at the deck) for the case of bridge retrofitted by
the PPFR0.08 confinement that shows the effect of the
elastomeric bearings. The pushover X-X analyses suggest that
the as-built bridge presents early shear failure of concrete and
then of confined concrete at the base region of the piers. What
follows is the fracture of the steel bar reinforcements. The
retrofitted bridges reveal the effects of the different confining
materials. The bridge confined with light CFRP jacket achieves
a higher displacement d at a higher base shear V upon failure
of the confined concrete than the as-built bridge. The use of
higher deformability GFRP jacket (of the same axial rigidity
with CFRP) provides the same enhanced V-d behaviour (with
respect to as-built bridge) while the failure displacement of the
bridge is higher (Figure 6a). The bridge confined with AFRP
jacket achieves a higher displacement d upon failure of the
confined concrete than the confined with GFRP or CFRP
bridge. The bridge confined by PENFRP or PETFRP jackets or
ultra high deformability Vinylon or Polypropylene Fiber Ropes
present identical V-d response. Furthermore, the confined
concrete failure is suppressed and the failure displacement of
the bridge happens upon the fracture of the steel at the base
region of the inner piers. The corresponding displacement is
more than twice than that of the CFRP or GFRP jacketed piers.
The same results come over the pushover Y-Y analyses. The
bridge confined with light CFRP or GFRP jacket achieves
almost the same displacement d with the as-built bridge but at a
higher base shear V. The bridge confined with AFRP jacket
achieves a higher displacement d at a higher base shear V upon

failure of the confined concrete than the confined with GFRP

or CFRP bridge. The failure displacement of the bridge
happens upon the fracture of the steel at the base region of the
exterior pier.
The case of extra low confinement with PPFR (PPFR0.08)
uses a quantity (axial rigidity) that is 0.29/0.08 = 3.65 times
lower than the abovementioned retrofits. Such an equivalent
CFRP or GFRP confinement leads to marginal stress-strain
upgrade and thus it is not investigated. The analyses of the
bridge suggest that the stress-strain curve of confined concrete
of the piers that is almost ideally plastic (very weak hardening
behaviour) may accelerate the fracture of the steel at the base
region of the exterior piers. That failure occurs around the
displacement levels of the as-built bridge. Yet, the V-d
response of the bridge is identical with the one of multiple axial
rigidity of confining reinforcement. Also, the failure happens
around the failure of CFRP or GFRP jacketed piers. The failure
chord rotation of the piers occurs in twice the displacement of
the steel fracture.
The V-ddeck response in Figures 6a and 6b include the
displacements of the spring elements that model the
mechanical behaviour of the elastomeric bearings. The elastic
stiffness of the V-ddeck response of the bridge, incorporates the
combined effect of the substructure and elastomeric bearings.
The pushover Y-Y presents a higher deviation from V-d
behaviour as the double bending of the piers provides higher
stiffness for the substructure.
SECTION
- 1888 -
R
-A
S A 2 0 12
-A
d
nc
AL CO N F E RE
va
in
IR
TU
e d R e s e a rc h
December, 3. - 7. 2012
Sc
ien
t i fi c A re as
fracture of steel of inner piers at base of

Polythylene Naphthalate FRP, Polyethylene
Terephthalate FRP, Vinylon and
failure of Glass FRP confined
Polypropylene FR confined concrete piers
concrete piers case
CFRP, GFRP, AFRP, PENFRP, PETFRP,
cases
VFR PPFR confined bridge piers
failure of Aramide FRP
failure of Carbon FRP
PPFR0.08 V-ddeck
confined concrete piers
confined concrete piers
case
case
failure chord rotation of piers
for PPFR0.08
fracture of steel of exterior
piers at base for PPFR0.08
Total Base Shear, V (KN)
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
failure chord rotation

steel fracture at base
failure of confined concrete at base
4000
2000
confined
As-built bridge
(a)
steel yielding at base, cover failure,

shear failure of two exterior piers
0
0
50
failure of all
bearings of all
confined
concrete cases
14000
Total Base Shear, V (KN) .
PPFR0.08
bridge piers
12000
100
150
failure of Glass
or Carbon FRP
confined concrete
piers cases
200
250
350
400
450
500
Displacement, d (mm)
failure of two exterior

Aramide FRP confined
concrete piers
fracture of the steel of one exterior
pier at base for PENFRP or PETFRP
or VFR or PPFR
CFRP, GFRP, AFRP, PENFRP,
PETFRP, VFR PPFR confined
PPFR0.08 bridge
V-d piers
shear failure
of one inner
pier
10000
300
deck
fracture of steel of all piers
8000
PPFR0.08 confined
bridge piers
fracture of steel of all piers
6000
failure of concrete cover
4000
As-built bridge
yielding of steel of all piers

shear failure of all piers and yielding of steel of exterior pier
2000
(b)
shear failure of exterior pier
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Displacement, d (mm)
Figure 6. Pushover curves of as-built and retrofitted bridge (CFRP, GFRP, AFRP, PENFRP, PETFRP, VFR, PPFR or PPFR0.08) for pushover X-X (a) and
pushoverY-Y (b).
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The study presents the comparative investigation of the
effects of different confining reinforcements on the seismic
behaviour of reinforced concrete bridges, through inelastic
static analyses. The higher the axial deformability of the
confining materials, the higher the ultimate base shear and
displacement of the bridge. Fiber rope reinforcements made of

vinylon or polypropylene may provide a more effective

alternative strengthening technique for bridges than CFRPs or
GFRPs. High deformability PENFRP and PETFRP
confinement presents similar efficiency with FRs. The
displacement of FR (and PEN or PET FRP) confined piers at
failure is around twice as that of bridges with CFRP or GFRP
confined piers and is limited by the fracture of the steel bars.
Extra light confinement of the piers with PPFR0.08 (3.65 times
SECTION
- 1889 -
R
-A
S A 2 0 12
-A
d
nc
AL CO N F E RE
va
in
IR
TU
e d R e s e a rc h
December, 3. - 7. 2012
Sc
ien
t i fi c A re as
lower axial rigidity than the one that corresponds to light CFRP
or GFRP confinement) results in identical V-d response of the
bridge. The failure V and d values are around the ones for
CFRP or GFRP confinement of 3.65 times higher axial rigidity.
While CFRP or GFRP or AFRP strengthened piers fail with the
crushing of confined concrete, the PPFR0.08 wrapped piers fail
with the fracture of the steel bars. This failure concerns only
the two exterior piers for pushover X-X (cantilever
behaviour).
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
G. Monti, N. Nistico, S. Santini, Design of FRP Jackets for Upgrade of

Circular Bridge Piers, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 5,
No. 2, May 2001, pp. 94-101.
D. Anggawidjaja, T. Ueda, J. Dai, H. Nakai, Deformation capacity of
RC piers by new fiber-reinforced polymer with large fracture strain,
Cem Concr Compos. 2006;28:91427
T. Shimomura, N.H. Phong, Structural Performance of Concrete
Members Reinforced with Continuous Fiber Rope, FRPRCS-8
Conference University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007.
T. Shimomura, H. Fujikawa, K.Maruyama, MODELING OF LOAD
BEARING MECHANISM OF RC COLUMN WITH EXTERNAL
CONTINUOUS FIBER ROPE UNDER REVERSED CYCLIC LOAD,
Asia - Pacific Conference on FRP in Structures APFIS 2009, pp137-142.

[5]
T.C. Rousakis, Confinement of Concrete Columns by Fiber Rope

Reinforcements, CICE 2012 Conference, 13 15 June, Rome,.
[6] Jian-Guo Dai, Yu-Lei Bai, and J.G. Teng, Behavior and Modeling of
Concrete Confined with FRP Composites of Large Deformability,
Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 15, No. 6, December 1,
2011.
[7] Modjeski and Masters, Inc., COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN EXAMPLE
FOR
PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE
(PSC)
GIRDER
SUPERSTRUCTURE BRIDGE WITH COMMENTARY (Task order
DTFH61-02-T-63032), Submitted to THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION, November 2003.
[8] B. Ferracuti, M. Savoia, Cyclic behaviour of FRP-wrapped columns
under axial and flexural loadings, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Fracture, Turin, Italy 2005.
[9] Seismosoft, Seismostruct programme v5.2.2 (22/08/2011).
[10] M. Menegotto, P.E. Pinto, Method of analysis for cyclically loaded
R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic
behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending,
Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures
Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, International Association for
Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 1973, pp. 1522.
[11] G. Monti, C. Nuti, S. Santini, CYRUS - Cyclic Response of Upgraded
Sections, Report No. 96-2, University of Chieti, Italy 1996.
SECTION
- 1890 -

Pushover Analyses of Two

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Pushover Analyses of Two

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

R

Advanced Research in Scientific Areas 2012