Repair of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Containing

Buckled and Fractured Reinforcement by Plastic

Hinge Relocation
Stephen T. Rutledge1; Mervyn J. Kowalsky, Ph.D., P.E.2; Rudolf Seracino, Ph.D.3; and
James M. Nau, Ph.D., P.E.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper describes a new repair technique that involves the use of plastic hinge relocation to restore strength and deformation
capacity of RC bridge columns. Summarized is the overall repair concept and experimental results that include the reversed cyclic testing
of three large-scale bridge columns that were previously damaged, repaired using the proposed methodology, and then subsequently retested.
To date, two different repair alternatives were executed using unidirectional carbon fiber sheets in the hoop and longitudinal directions, the latter
anchored into the RC footing with 30-mm-diameter carbon fiber anchors. A method for predicting the force-displacement responses of columns
repaired in this manner was also developed and found to give reasonable results. Also included in this paper are design considerations, which are
carried out in the steps needed to design a repair system to relocate the plastic hinge in a column containing buckled longitudinal reinforcement.
The responses show that the proposed hinge relocation technique is able to restore the lost strength and displacement capacity of damaged RC
columns. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000492. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Hinge relocation; Carbon fiber reinforced polymer repair; RC bridge column; CFRP anchors; Earthquake load histories.

Introduction the plastic hinge could be formed at a higher location within a

Modern seismic design practices for bridge structures involve the
use of capacity design principles that locate plastic hinges in col-
umns while protecting against other modes of failure or locations of
damage (Paulay and Priestley 1992; Priestley et al. 1996). For large
earthquakes, the formation of plastic hinges in columns can lead to
buckling and rupture of longitudinal steel, such as that shown in
Fig. 1. Traditionally, once buckling occurs, bridge columns are
demolished and rebuilt because the cost to replace portions of bars
can be prohibitive. Replacement is deemed necessary because the
inelastic strain capacity of reinforcing bars is severely diminished
once buckling occurs, rendering the structure vulnerable to collapse
in future earthquakes.
Limited research work has been performed involving the re-
location of plastic hinges in RC columns. However, this was the
objective of one such experimental program executed by Hose et al.
(1997). The intent of Hose et al. (1997) was to construct RC columns
with the capability of forming a plastic hinge away from any
supporting member, such as a footing or cap beam. It was found that
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
(corresponding author). E-mail: strutled@ncsu.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering,
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail: kowalsky@ncsu.edu
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail: rudi_
seracino@ncsu.edu
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering,
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail: nau@ncsu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 24, 2012; approved on
March 22, 2013; published online on April 1, 2013. Discussion period open
until May 19, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, © ASCE,
ISSN 1084-0702/A4013001(10)/$25.00.
column by increasing the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
ratio of the column in the strengthened region.
With regard to repair of RC members by hinge relocation, work
conducted by Mahini and Ronagh (2011) observed the relocation of
plastic hinges in beams, away from the beam-column joint using
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) systems as a means of
repair. It was concluded that beam hinges could be relocated further
away from the joint by means of strengthening the joint with CFRP
materials in the longitudinal direction.
Past research on column retrofit has focused on issues related to
deficiencies in shear, lap splices, or confinement. Numerous tech-
niques have been developed for column retrofit including, steel,
concrete, or advanced composite jackets (Priestley et al. 1996).
These retrofit techniques can also be used to repair columns with
deficiencies exposed during seismic loading or to repair well designed
columns that have formed mild plastic hinges. Vosooghi and Saiidi
(2010) conducted a comprehensive study on rapid repair of bridge
columns using CFRP where they were able to repair columns with
moderate damage by removing loose concrete, epoxy injection of
cracks, and CFRP wrapping. Strength and deformation capacities
were similar to the original undamaged bent, although the initial
stiffness was substantially reduced.
From the work done by Hose et al. (1997), Mahini and Ronagh
(2011), and Priestley et al. (1996), it can be concluded that the plastic
hinges within RC members can be relocated to intended locations
through careful detailing of additional reinforcement and that composite
materials are an effective alternative. Considering this information,
a similar technique will be used which incorporates carbon fiber
materials for the relocation of hinges within damaged RC columns.
Once buckled or ruptured bars are observed, it is assumed that
repair is no longer feasible. It is the objective of this paper to chal-
lenge this assumption via relocation of the plastic hinge to a position
slightly higher in the column that remained essentially elastic during
the initial seismic attack. To accomplish this objective, it will be

© ASCE A4013001-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng.
 Fig. 1. (a) Test 1, (b) Test 2, and (c) Test 3 columns prior to repair containing buckled and/or ruptured longitudinal reinforcement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

essential to increase the flexural strength of the original plastic hinge

by a large enough amount to force the secondary plastic hinge,
which may form during an aftershock, further up the column. This is
accomplished through the use of carbon fiber sheets, which are
oriented in the vertical and transverse directions and externally
bonded to the surface of the column in the previous plastic hinge
region. The vertical carbon fiber sheets are then developed using
carbon fiber anchors embedded into the column footing. Although
this could also be done with conventional materials such as steel
dowels, the targeted use of carbon fiber anchors allows for a rapid
and durable repair solution. It is important to note that the use of
hinge relocation for repair will increase demands on capacity pro-
tected members, as well as the shear in the member forming the
plastic hinge. Furthermore, the relocated hinge must resist a larger
rotation to achieve the same member end displacement. It is likely
that all of these issues can be addressed without any special modi-
fication to the structure as a consequence of overstrength factors
used in design of the original structure; however, they must all
nonetheless be considered in the design of the bridge system.
Fig. 2. Moment demand versus moment capacity
Design Philosophy and Experimental Studies
 
MO LC
MBASE ¼ 1:05 (1)
Methodology ðLC 2 Lr Þ
The basic philosophy of hinge relocation in RC bridge columns for
new design was first proposed by Hose et al. (1997). In their work,
Test Specimens and Material Properties
they successfully relocated the hinge away from the footing interface
by providing additional steel in the plastic hinge region, thus forcing To study the proposed repair methodology, a series of three large
the hinge upwards. For repair, this concept is revisited as shown in scale tests was conducted. The specimens used in these tests rep-
Fig. 2. resent a single curvature bridge column. The columns are 2.4 m high
The first step involves selection of the location of the new hinge. and 600 mm in diameter containing 16 #6 (db 5 19 mm) ASTM
Although numerous locations for the relocated hinge are possible, it A706 longitudinal reinforcing bars and #3 (db 5 9:5 mm) ASTM
is important to note that as the hinge location is pushed further up A706 (ASTM 2009) spiral reinforcement with a 50-mm pitch as
the column, the rotation demand in the hinge for the same level of shown in Fig. 3. The repair to relocate the plastic hinge used CFRP
lateral column displacement will increase, as will the shear force in sheets and carbon fiber anchors, details of which will be discussed
the column and the moment transferred into the footing. As a con- later. The material properties used in design of the repair and the RC
sequence, it is beneficial to locate the new hinge as close as possible columns are given in Table 1, where the CFRP sheet and carbon fiber
to the base of the column while still sufficiently far from the original anchor material properties are those of the gross composite.
location of damage to allow for a new hinge to form. In the research Prior to repair, the columns were tested in a static manner under
described in this paper, the new plastic hinge was relocated a dis- the influence of real earthquake load histories as part of a different
tance of one plastic hinge [as defined by Eqs. (2)–(4)] away from research program (Goodnight et al. 2012). Table 2 summarizes the
the footing interface. This location was chosen because the strains load history, as well as the peak levels of displacement, displacement
measured at this height during the testing of the original undamaged ductility, and reinforcement tensile strains that each column was
column were about half of the peak strains in the plastic hinge region. subjected to preceding repair as part of the prior research program
The second step involves extrapolation of the moment capacity (Goodnight et al. 2012). Also shown in Table 2 is the number of
of the section at the new hinge location to the base. As shown in buckled and ruptured bars in each specimen prior to repair.
Eq. (1), an overstrength factor of 5% was used to determine the The loading histories used in the prior study were obtained by
required moment capacity at the base of the column, which is a analyzing the columns via nonlinear time history analysis and using
capacity-protected section. The final step involves the design of the the top column displacement from the analysis as the actuator mo-
strengthened section, which will be discussed in detail later tion. In the case of Column 2, the specimen was also subjected to an

© ASCE A4013001-2 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Column specimen reinforcement details

Table 1. Material Properties

Longitudinal steel Composite CFRP sheets CFRP anchors
Yield Ultimate Transverse steel Concrete Tensile Tensile Tensile Tensile
(MPa) (MPa) [yield (MPa)] [ fc9 (MPa)] strength (MPa) modulus (GPa) strength (MPa) modulus (GPa)
469 654 511 42.1 834 82 745 61.5

Table 2. Description of Columns Used in This Study and Their Condition Prior to Repair
Specimen
Parameter 1 2 3
Load history Kobe 1995 Chile 2010 Cyclic aftershock Chichi 1999
Peak displacement (mm) 210 184 169 188
Displacement ductility 10 8.7 8 8.9
Peak tensile strain 0.059 0.051 0.048 0.052
Buckled bars 2 2 2
Ruptured bars 0 0 3

additional cyclic loading (referred to as a cyclic aftershock) prior
to repair. Each of the columns contained buckled longitudinal re-
inforcement prior to repair, with one column containing ruptured
longitudinal bars as can also be seen in Table 2. Figs. 1(a–c) show
Columns 1, 2, and 3 prior to repair, respectively. As previously
noted, the repair systems were designed to relocate the plastic hinge
to a location higher in the column where the longitudinal reinforce-
ment has a much higher reserve strain capacity relative to that at the
original hinge location near the base of the column.
Three columns were repaired with the goal of relocating the plastic
hinge. The first column, which contained buckled, but not fractured,
reinforcement was repaired to increase the flexural strength of the
original hinge while also providing additional confinement to the new
hinge location. The second column, which also contained only
buckled reinforcement and no ruptured bars, was repaired to increase
the flexural strength of the original hinge without attempting to in-
crease the ductility of the new hinge. The third column, which con-
tained buckled and ruptured bars, was repaired in the manner similar
to the second column.
Repair Design Philosophy
The design philosophy of the repair for the three columns was to
relocate the plastic hinge to a higher location in the column, yet still
achieve the same displacement capacity and strength as the original
undamaged column. As previously noted, the hinge was relocated
a distance of one plastic hinge length [as obtained by Eqs. (2)–(4)]
away from the footing, which corresponds to approximately 400 mm
(two-thirds of a column diameter for the columns in this study).
Strains at this location were about half of the peak strains measured
just prior to bar buckling at the location of the original hinge. To
force the plastic hinge to this location, the base of the column was
strengthened with vertical CFRP reinforcement anchored into the
footing. The use of CFRP in this manner is appropriate because this
strengthened original hinge is designed to remain elastic after the
repair. In accordance with capacity design principles, it becomes
a capacity protected location, with the plastic hinge forming in
a section that contains only longitudinal steel for moment strength.
For the vertical fibers to develop their full capacity at 400 mm above

© ASCE A4013001-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng.
 the footing, a development length of 200 mm was provided for the
vertical fibers above the 400-mm location, with the carbon fiber
anchors developing the vertical fibers from the base of the column.
This development length was determined using American Concrete
Institute (ACI) 440.2R-08 (American Concrete Institute Committee
440 2008). Conveniently, the CFRP sheets were 600 mm wide,
allowing for fibers in the hoop direction to cover the inner layers of
vertical fiber and the splayed anchor fans, starting from the base of
the column, which will be discussed in further detail later.
Because of this repaired and strengthened elastic region at the
base of the column, it was initially assumed that higher curvature is
therefore required by the column section at the new plastic hinge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
location to achieve the same displacement at the top of the column.
As a consequence, it was felt that additional confinement should be
provided to the new hinge location to allow for the expected in-
crease in curvature for the first test. Therefore, the design process
began by conducting a moment-curvature analysis of the column
incorporating a confinement model that considers the effect of both
the internal steel spiral and the external CFRP hoop reinforcement
(Hu 2011). It was found that six layers of CFRP in the hoop di-
rection were needed to achieve the required curvature, with each
layer having a gross laminate thickness of 1 mm. Therefore, six
layers of hoop reinforcement were applied from the base of the
column up to 1,200 mm for the first test specimen. A moment-
curvature analysis was then conducted to design the number of
layers of CFRP sheets in the vertical direction in the bottom 400
mm of the column to ensure that the moment capacity at the new
plastic hinge location could be reached corresponding to the
curvature required to achieve the same column displacement as in
the original column. This moment-curvature analysis assumed that
the vertical fibers carried no force in compression and used cyclic
stress-strain curves as modeled by Filippou et al. (1983) for the
longitudinal steel reinforcing bars to represent the stress-strain
characteristics based on their residual strain from the original test.
The steel and CFRP confinement model (Hu 2011) was used for the
confined concrete in compression, any tensile force contribution
from the concrete was ignored, and all CFRP fibers used a linear-
elastic stress-strain relationship for analysis. It was determined that
three layers of vertical fibers were required; again, each layer of
CFRP has a gross laminate thickness of 1 mm. The moment de-
mand versus moment capacity used for the design of the repair
system can be seen in Fig. 2. The repaired region of the column is
overstrengthened so that the capacity exceeds the demand at this
location, forcing the hinge to form at the intended critical location.
It is important to note that for the second and third tests, no ad-
ditional confinement in the 600- to 1,200-mm region was provided
as will be discussed later.
To develop the full tensile capacity of the three layers of vertical
fibers at the base of the column, postinstalled anchors were needed to
transfer the tensile force down into the footing. Carbon fiber anchors
were designed to resist the total rupture force of the vertical fibers. A
total of 12 30-mm-diameter anchors were needed: six on each side of
the column. These anchors were embedded into the footing 350 mm
with an anchor fan length of 350 mm splayed on the column. The
anchor design was based on work done by Kim and Smith (2010) on
the pullout resistance of single FRP anchors, which were signifi-
cantly smaller than the anchors used in this work. Specific details of
the entire repair system design may be found in Rutledge (2012).
Repair Procedure
The repair of the columns began by removing any loose concrete
from the column and the footing. The concrete cross section was
then restored using a commercial cementitious patching system. No
© ASCE A4013001-4
J. Bridge Eng.
special attention was given to the buckled longitudinal steel rein-
forcing bars. A wet layup technique was used to apply the CFRP
system to the columns where the fibers were first impregnated by the
epoxy resin and then applied to the column.
A single layer of vertical fibers was first placed on the column from
the base up to 600 mm around the circumference. The dry carbon fiber
anchors were then impregnated with the same epoxy and inserted into
evenly distributed holes that were 38 mm in diameter and 350 mm
deep that were previously drilled into the footing. The anchor fans
were then splayed onto the column. Two more layers of vertical fibers,
600 mm long, were then applied to the repair region sandwiching the
anchor fans between the layers of vertical fibers. The final step was to
wrap the repaired region with six individual CFRP sheets with fibers
in the hoop direction, each with a 300-mm overlap. As mentioned
earlier, for Column 1 only, six layers of hoop fibers were also wrapped
around the 600- to 1,200-mm region of the column to confine the
expected new plastic hinge region. The repair procedure can be seen in
Figs. 4(a–f), and additional information concerning the repair pro-
cedure may be found in Rutledge (2012).
Test Setup and Procedure
The columns were stressed to the laboratory strong floor through the
footing, and a 980-kN MTS (Eden Prairie, Minnesota) hydraulic
actuator connected via high strength steel rods to a loading cap
applied the lateral load. For the axial load, a spreader beam was
placed on top of the column with two bars running through it into the
laboratory strong floor. An axial load of 756 kN was used, corre-
sponding to an axial load ratio (P=fc9Ag ) of 6%. The axial load was
controlled and held constant throughout the test at this level. These
bars were tensioned by two hydraulic jacks on top of the spreader
beam. The test setup can be seen in Fig. 5.
A displacement-controlled symmetric three cycle set load history
was used for the testing of the repaired specimens based on the
original yield displacement of the undamaged column (21 mm). The
loading protocol consisted of single push and pull cycles to 1=4 Fy ,
1=2 Fy , 3=4 Fy , and Fy followed by three cycles of m1 , m1:5 , m2 , m3 ,
m4 , m6 , m8 , m10 , and m12 , where m refers to displacement ductility
and the subscript refers to the level of displacement ductility.
Results
During the prior research program that damaged the columns used in
this investigation (Goodnight et al. 2012), Column 2 was subjected
to a record from the Chile 2010 earthquake and then subjected to
a three-cycle set aftershock load history to induce buckling of the
longitudinal reinforcement. Aftershock is the name given to the
subsequent loading; this test was performed in a static manner and
no high rate loading was imposed on the specimens. This aftershock
load history serves as a useful comparison with the repairs conducted
in this research as it indicated the performance of a damaged column
subjected to cyclic loading without any repair.
The force-displacement response for the first repaired column is
shown in Fig. 6. Also shown in Fig. 6 is the force-displacement re-
sponse of a damaged column subjected to cyclic loading without any
repair (referred to as the cyclic aftershock test). For Column 1, there is
a 34% average increase in lateral force capacity compared with that of
the aftershock test. While flexural cracking was visible in the region
near 600 mm from the column base, the plastic hinge eventually
formed at a location just below the top of the footing. This is evidence
that the confinement provided by the six layers of hoop reinforcement
in the 600- to 1,200-mm region of the column exceeded the predicted
capacity, thus forcing the failure back into the footing.
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Repair procedure: (a) clean column prior to repair; (b) restoring of cross section with patching material; (c) drilled holes into footing for anchors;
(d) insertion of CFRP anchors; (e) splaying of anchors onto vertical fibers; (f) completion of repair with fibers wrapped in the transverse direction

Fig. 5. Column specimen test setup

Fig. 6. Test 1 force-displacement response Fig. 7. Test 2 force-displacement response

As a consequence of the results from Column 1, the repair of
Column 2 was the same as that of Column 1, except that no hoop
fibers were provided for confinement of the 600- to 1,200-mm re-
gion of the column. Fig. 7 shows the force-displacement response
of repaired Column 2. Interestingly, a similar increase in strength
was achieved and the plastic hinge was fully relocated to a location
approximately 700 mm above the top of the footing, as seen in Fig. 8.
It is important to note that the hinge formed at a higher location than
the expected 400 mm from the base, which can be attributed to
the efficient confinement of the original hinge location. The lack of

© ASCE A4013001-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Peak displacement: (a) Test 1; (b) Test 2; (c) Test 3

additional hoop confinement in the higher location of the column,

allowed the plastic hinge to fully form with ruptured and buckled
longitudinal reinforcement above the level of the CFRP.
With regard to Column 3, recall from Table 2 that the column
contained three ruptured longitudinal bars on one side of the column;
therefore, the demand on the carbon fiber anchors during testing
proved too great, resulting in rupture of the anchors during testing.
The force-displacement response for Test 3 can be seen along with
the aftershock response in Fig. 9. The same repair system that was
used in Test 2 was used for Test 3, because of the heavily congested
footing, the anchor size, and quantity of anchors could not be in-
creased. It is important to note that the repaired third column ex-
perienced rupture of the CFRP anchors on both sides of the column.
This is attributed to the increase in rotation at the base of the column
after the initial rupture of the anchors on the side of the column con-
taining the ruptured bars. It is thought that the compression cycles Fig. 9. Test 3 force-displacement response
damaged the anchor fibers, leading to rupture in tension on reversal. All
of the repaired columns were able to exceed the force and displacement
capacity of the original columns. method, as presented by Priestley et al. (2007). This method replaces
For comparison, the force-displacement envelopes for the repaired the actual curvature distribution with an equivalent distribution of
columns and the aftershock column, as well as a three-cycle set of an curvature that provides the same displacement as integrating the
undamaged reference column, can be seen in Fig. 10. It can be seen actual curvature distribution. This method is based on a plastic
that the repair restored the initial stiffness up to the level of the original hinge length, Lp , over which the maximum strain and curvature
column, as well as increased the displacement and force capacities. from the base section of the column is considered to be constant.
Fig. 11 presents the Jacobsen hysteretic damping (Jacobsen 1960), The plastic hinge length incorporates the strain penetration length,
which is obtained by calculating the ratio of the area of hysteretic loops Lsp , which is a function of the yield stress and diameter of the
at each ductility level to that of the rigid plastic loop that encircles it longitudinal reinforcement. The equations for the strain penetra-
and multiplying the result by 2=p. The hysteretic damping is plotted tion length and plastic hinge length may be seen in Eqs. (2) and (3),
versus the displacement ductility factor for the column subjected to respectively.
cyclic loading without any prior damage; the column subjected to Eq. (4) expresses the ratio of the ultimate tensile stress of the
cyclic loading after having been damaged by an earthquake time longitudinal reinforcement to the yield stress. This is an important
history, but without any repair, and the repaired second column cyclic factor in the calculation of the plastic hinge length because if this
loading test (where the plastic hinge was successfully relocated). It can value is lower, or close to 1, the plastic hinge length is shorter and
be seen that the aftershock and column subjected to cyclic loading plasticity is focused on the critical section, whereas if this value is
without any prior damage have very similar levels of damping high, the plastic hinge length is greater in length because of strain
throughout testing, with the Test 2 column having a slightly lower hardening at the critical section, and plastic deformations are spread
level of damping. With only a single virgin column having undergone away from the critical section.
a three-cycle set, the variability in damping, which could be observed
after testing multiple columns, is unknown and the repaired column
may be within this variability. Lsp ¼ 0:022 fy dbl (2)

LP ¼ kLC þ Lsp (3)

Force-Displacement Predictions  
f
A reliable method for predicting the force-displacement response k ¼ 0:2 u 2 1 # 0:08 (4)
in a RC member subjected to single bending is the plastic hinge fy

© ASCE A4013001-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng.
 Above the plastic hinge region, the curvature is considered to be Beyond yield, the conditions change and the total displacement is
linear, which is extrapolated from the yield curvature at the column defined by
base, as seen in Fig. 12. At yield, the curvature and displacement H
may be defined as D ¼ Dy þ Dp (7)
Hy
2:25ɛ y
fy ¼ (5) where H=Hy 5 extrapolation to the lateral force greater than the yield
D
force; and Dp 5 plastic displacement component, where plastic
fy L2eff displacement and curvature are defined as
Dy ¼ (6) Dp ¼ fp Lp LC (8)
3

H
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fp ¼ f 2 fy (9)
Hy

Therefore, the ultimate displacement is given by

 
H H
Du ¼ fu 2 fy Lp Lc þ Dy u (10)
Hy Hy

Fig. 10. Force-displacement envelopes
Fig. 11. Jacobsen damping versus displacement ductility
When observing the vertical axial strain profiles for each col-
umn specimen, it was apparent that peak strains were occurring just
above the level of the repair system in the intended plastic hinge
region, as seen in Figs. 13 and 14. Curvature values for each of the
instrumented sections were then computed by plotting the vertical
strains on their respective sides of the column. As can be seen in
Fig. 15, it is clear that higher levels of curvature were reached at this
new hinge location, and therefore, this needed to be accounted for
when calculating the force-displacement predictions. In addition
to the curvature profile, which presents the location of hinging,
Figs. 16 and 17 present the hoop strain values for Tests 2 and 3,
respectively. It is apparent that the peak hoop strains occurred at the
location just above the level of the repair system, indicating a lo-
cation of increased dilation and therefore hinging.
The force-displacement responses for the repaired columns were
found using a modified plastic hinge method. The curvature distri-
bution in the modified method uses two plastic hinge locations, one
just above the level of the repair system or at the intended location and
one at the column-footing interface, as seen in Fig. 12. In this instance,
two sections of the column must be analyzed; the original column
cross section above the level of the repair system and the strengthened
section at the column-footing interface. Using the moment-curvature
responses from these two cross sections with the modified plastic
hinge method, the force-displacement predictions for Tests 1, 2, and 3
are shown in Figs. 18(a–c), respectively.

Fig. 12. (a) Plastic hinge method; (b) modified plastic hinge method

© ASCE A4013001-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. Test 2 hoop strains m3 : tension face

Fig. 13. Vertical compression strain profile: Test 3

Fig. 17. Test 3 hoop strains m1 : tension face

Fig. 14. Vertical tensile strain profile: Test 3

assume that the failure of the column occurs above the level of the
repair system, which was not the case for Tests 1 and 3, which resulted
in rupture of the carbon fiber anchors at the base of the column. From
these predictions it can be seen that the modified plastic hinge method
yields accurate predictions when accurate moment-curvature respon-
ses are used.

Design Considerations
From this experimental program, the following are design consid-
erations that should be considered when designing CFRP repair
systems that incorporate carbon fiber anchors and unidirectional
carbon fiber sheets:
1. Locate the new plastic hinge a single plastic hinge length away
from the column-footing joint. Consider the effects of capacity
design to ensure that the relocated hinge has sufficient rotation
capacity and that capacity protected members and actions have
sufficient strength to avoid undesirable modes of failure.
2. The horizontal CFRP fibers should run from the column footing
up above the level of the vertical fibers and at a minimum have an
overlap of the development length as presented by ACI 440.2R-08
Fig. 15. Curvature profile: Test 3 (American Concrete Institute Committee 440 2008).
3. The carbon fiber anchor cross-sectional area should be designed
using an equivalent area of vertical fibers to withstand the rupture
It can be seen that the predicted responses for all three tests fit of the vertical fibers. The design of such anchors should be
fairly well, with the Test 2 prediction fitting the best. The force- completed with care, given their unknown response at this time.
displacement prediction analysis is based on the moment-curvature 4. When considering reinforced footings with concrete compressive
responses of the repaired section as well as the original column sec- strengths between 35 and 50 MPa, the carbon fiber anchors
tion just above the repair system. From these responses, the predictions achieved rupture when embedded ten times the anchor diameter.

© ASCE A4013001-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 18. (a) Test 1 force-displacement prediction; (b) Test 2 force-displacement prediction; (c) Test 3 force-displacement prediction
5. The CFRP layers in the hoop direction should extend from the
column footing up to the intended hinge location, covering the
vertical fibers completely.
6. Provide at least a development length for the overlap of the
hoop fibers and specify that the overlapped regions should be
staggered around the column when using more than one layer.
Conclusions
This paper presents the results of a study on the repair of damaged
circular RC bridge columns by plastic hinge relocation. Although
only a small number of tests have been conducted, the results are
promising. By strengthening the base section of columns that contain
buckled reinforcing bars with FRP anchors, it was possible to relocate
the plastic hinge to a location in the column that sustained a much
smaller degree of inelastic action during the original seismic loading.
The proposed method has the advantage of quick installation while
retaining the benefit of ductile response of traditional reinforcing steel.
Care must be taken to ensure that the repaired section is capacity
protected. The research presented in this paper demonstrated this to
be possible with buckled bars; however, from Test 3, where multiple
bars had fractured prior to repair, it was not possible to place suffi-
cient anchors to ensure that failure ultimately occurred in the relo-
cated hinge. As a result, until further research is conducted to more
accurately quantify anchor capacity and resolve the issue of con-
gestion of anchors into the adjacent footing member, application of
this technique should be limited to columns without fractured bars.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Alaska DOT and Alaska University Transporta-
tion Center that provided the funds for the initial construction of the test
columns as part of a different research program and Fyfe Co. LLC for
its support of this research through the National Science Foundation
Industry/University Cooperative Research Center on Integrating Com-
posites in Infrastructure, as well as the entire technical staff of the Con-
structed Facilities Laboratory at North Carolina State University.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
D 5 column diameter;
dbl 5 longitudinal bars diameter;
fu 5 longitudinal bars ultimate stress;
fye 5 longitudinal bars yield stress;
© ASCE A4013001-9
J. Bridge Eng.
H 5 lateral force greater than yield force;
LC 5 cantilever length of member (Leff 5 LC 1 LSP );
Lr 5 height of repair system;
MO 5 ultimate capacity of original section;
Dp 5 plastic displacement component;
Du 5 ultimate displacement;
Dy 5 yield displacement;
ɛ y 5 yield strain of the longitudinal reinforcement;
f 5 curvature past yield curvature;
fp 5 plastic curvature;
fu 5 ultimate curvature; and
fy 5 yield curvature.
References
American Concrete Institute Committee 440. (2008). “Guide for the design
and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening
concrete structures.” ACI 440.2R-08, Farmington Hills, MI.
ASTM. (2009). “Standard specification for low-alloy steel deformed and
plain bars for concrete reinforcement.” A706/A706M-09b, West Con-
shohocken, PA.
Filippou, F. C., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. (1983). “Effects of bond
deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints.” Rep.
EERC 83-19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of Cal-
ifornia, Berkeley, CA.
Goodnight, J. C., Feng, Y., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2012). “The
effect of load history on reinforced concrete bridge column behavior.”
Final Rep. to AUTC and AKDOT, No. FHWA-AK-RD-12-09, Alaska
Univ. Transportation Center, Fairbanks, AK.
Hose, Y. D., Seible, F., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1997). Strategic relocation
of plastic hinges in bridge columns, Rep. SSRP-97/05, Structural Sys-
tems Research Project, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of Cal-
ifornia, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
Hu, H. (2011). “Development of a new constitutive model for FRP-and-
steel-confined concrete.” M.S. thesis, Civil Engineering, North Carolina
State Univ, Raleigh, NC.
Jacobsen, L. S. (1960). “Damping in composite structures.” Proc., 2nd
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2, 1029–1044.
Kim, S. J., and Smith, S. (2010). “Pullout strength models for FRP anchors
in uncracked concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000097, 406–411.
Mahini, S., and Ronagh, H. (2011). “Web-bonded FRPs for relocation of
plastic hinges away from the column face in exterior RC joints.” Compos.
Struct., 93(10), 2460–2472.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced concrete
and masonry buildings, Wiley, New York.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displacement-
based seismic design of structures, Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori
Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. (1996). Seismic design and
retrofit of bridges, Wiley, New York.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Rutledge, S. T. (2012). “FRP repair of circular reinforced concrete columns by
plastic hinge relocation.” M.S. thesis, Civil Engineering, North Carolina
State Univ., Raleigh, NC.
Vosooghi, A., and Saiidi, M. (2010). “Post-earthquake evaluation and emer-
gency repair of damaged RC bridge columns using CFRP materials.” Rep.
No. CCEER-10-05, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV.

© ASCE A4013001-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng.