You are on page 1of 92

I.U.S.S.

Istituto Universitario Università degli


di Studi Superiori Studi di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN


REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK

ROSE SCHOOL

FRP SEISMIC RETROFIT


OF SQUARE HOLLOW SECTION
BRIDGE PIERS

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial


Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

By

SIMONE PELOSO

Supervisor: Ing. ALBERTO PAVESE

July, 2003
The dissertation entitled “FRP seismic retrofit of square hollow section bridge pier”, by
Simone Peloso, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master
Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Index

1. Introduction................................................................................................................3

2. The material: Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRP)........................................................5


2.1 General considerations ........................................................................................5
2.2 The fibres .............................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Carbon fibres.................................................................................................9
2.2.2 Aramid fibres .................................................................................................9
2.2.3 Glass fibres .................................................................................................10
2.2.4 Other types of fibres ....................................................................................10
2.3 The matrixes ......................................................................................................11
2.4 Manufacturing processes ...................................................................................13
2.5 Techniques for FRP strengthening ....................................................................14
2.6 Physical properties.............................................................................................16
2.6.1 Coefficient of thermal expansion .................................................................17
2.7 Mechanical properties........................................................................................17

3. Test set up and pier specimens...............................................................................21


3.1 General considerations ......................................................................................21
3.2 Test set up .........................................................................................................24
3.3 Piers with shear lacks ........................................................................................31
3.4 FRP retrofitting for shear lacks...........................................................................32
3.5 Piers with insufficient lap splice..........................................................................37
3.6 FRP retrofit for lap splice lacks ..........................................................................39
3.7 Piers with flexure / shear lacks...........................................................................43
3.8 FRP retrofit for flexural lacks.............................................................................45
3.9 FRP application technique .................................................................................49

4. Experimental tests and FRP improvements ............................................................52


4.1 General considerations ......................................................................................52
4.2 Pier with shear lacks under low axial load [S250 vs. S250 FRP] .......................52

I
4.3 Pier with shear lacks under high axial load [S500 vs. S500 FRP].....................60
4.4 Pier with insufficient lap splice under low axial load [T250L vs. T250L FRP] .....67
4.5 Pier with flexural lacks under low axial load [T250 vs. T250 FRP] .....................72
4.6 Pier with flexural lacks under high axial load [T500 vs. T500 FRP]....................81

5. Conclusions and next developments .......................................................................89

6. Bibliography.............................................................................................................92

II
1. Introduction

Last years strong earthquakes have underlined performance lacks in several


structures. Referring to those built between ’50s and ‘70s, the majority of the problems are
due to the fact that some seismic zones were not recognized like such, resulting in a
design just for gravity loads. Furthermore, also when the seismic codes were applied the
structures have problems due to the lacks of knowledge essentially about the definition of
the seismic input and the energy dissipation. About this last point, only recently, it has
been recognized that, entering the plastic domain, a structure can dissipate some of the
energy given by the earthquake, without losses of reliability thanks to the application of the
capacity design criterion. For all these reasons such structures do not meet the requisites
of modern earthquake resistant regulations and they are now calling for large strength and
ductility enhancements.
To obtain those improvements fibre reinforced polymer, referred to as FRP, have been
increasingly employed, over the past 20 years, both for retrofitting and repairing of
concrete and masonry structures in seismic prone countries. Extensive research
programmes have been carried out about the use of FRP and the achievable behaviour
enhancement. Several items have been treated, focusing primarily on the stress-strain
relationship of the FRP confined concrete and the improvement of the seismic capacity of
columns. However the majority of such research has not considered the case of square
hollow section bridge piers, very common in Europe featuring a construction date in the
years cited above. Even the modern seismic codes have not particular prescriptions about
the design of such type of piers, unfortunately this is due more to a lack of knowledge that
a real similar behaviour of hollow and solid section piers. Despite of the high flexural
stiffness and strength characterizing the hollow section piers, their displacement capacity
and shear behaviour are not well known.
Proofs of this lack of knowledge and of the traditional design codes shortcomings are a
number of failures, often due to shear, combined flexure-shear and insufficient lap-splice,
result of the seismic excitation of this type of piers.
It is thus clear that the development of efficient structural intervention methods to be
applied in the repairing and strengthening of square hollow bridge piers is of great

3
importance and relevance, in particular within the framework of European transport
infrastructures.
First step needed, it is the assessment of the capacity of the structure, both in strength
and displacement. Within this scope, during a previous research, quasi-static cyclic tests
were performed with increasing level of drift applied to scaled square hollow section bridge
piers. These specimens, designed according to the past years codes and having
slenderness ratio (H/L) of 2:1 and 3:1, have been tested in order to reproduce and better
understand some of the most common collapse modes, in particular the ones listed above
have been considered here. A good understanding of the involved mechanisms is
essential for the assessment of the pier capacity, in particular in our case, due to the fact
that most of the formulations in literature are based and set on tests involving just solid
section specimens and are not so reliable when used for hollow section piers.
Once the assessment has been carried out, the retrofit intervention can be designed.
Starting from the first tests, a different FRP reinforcement has been designed for each
collapse mechanisms varying also the fibre raw material to investigate as much different
solution as possible, in particular:
- for the shear failure the piers have been wrapped with aramid FRP;
- for the combined flexural-shear failure alkali resistant glass FRP has been used for
the retrofit, with the fibres disposed both longitudinally, for the enhancement of the flexural
strength, and transversally, to improve the shear resistance satisfying the capacity design
criterion;
- for the insufficient lap-splice carbon FRP has been applied longitudinally, to restore
the tensile stress path, and transversally, to respect the capacity design criterion.
To verify the effectiveness of the FRP in these cases, tests have been performed on
retrofitted specimens having the same characteristic of the previous. During the tests, it
has been took trace of the force displacement diagram and flexural and shear components
of the total deformation. Further, the effect of FRP intervention in the level of section
confinement, the efficiency of the anchorage, the energy dissipation, the achieved ductility
and horizontal strength of the retrofitted piers were all thoroughly scrutinised through
comparison with the response of the original specimens.

4
2. The material: Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRP)

2.1 General considerations

Recent developments in strengthening techniques involve improvement regarding both


materials and methods. A highly promising today state of the art retrofitting technique is
based on the use of composite materials like the fibre reinforced polymers, referred to as
FRP, consisting of a large number of small, directionalized non metallic fibres with
advanced characteristics, bundled in a resin matrix. For the strengthening of civil
structures, those goods are available mainly in form of thin unidirectional strips made by
pultrusion, and flexible sheets or fabrics, made of fibres respectively in one or at least two
directions and sometimes pre-impregnated with resin.
The fibres, which volume fraction equals about 50-70% for the strips and about 25-
35% for the sheets, are the principal stress bearing constituents, while the resin transfers
stresses among fibres and protects them; beyond these two components, the FRP is
made also by inorganic fillers, added to reduce the costs, and some additives, which role
is to enhance the FPR characteristics.
The selection of the materials to use is a critical step in the FRP realization. Fibres and
resin have to be studied so that they can work properly together. It has to be taken into
account that a good resin for a kind of fibre will not be necessary good for another and,
more than this, although the fibre and the resin work well together, the bonding to the
concrete is not automatically guarantied. For these reasons, only systems that are been
largely tested should be used for structural strengthening.
Despite the attention needed to realize an useful FRP, its utilize is constantly
increasing because of several reasons regarding different aspects of the FRP utilization,
here just some of these are reported:
− very high tensile strength: higher than the strength of the steel;
− low weight and manageability: the density of this kind of materials is about a
quarter of that relative to the steel, implying advantages for transportation,
easier application (specially in confined spaces), and lower final structural
weight;

5
− immunity to corrosion: high chemical inertia makes FRP a good material for all
the application with heavy environmental conditions, decreasing the
maintenance costs.
Obviously, also the FRP, as well as all the other construction materials, has not only
advantages in its utilization; some drawbacks characterize it, limiting its diffusion, among
these:
− high cost: this is the principal disadvantage, in any case, it is licit to wait for
costs decreasing due to larger diffusion and competition among the supplier.
More than this we have to consider that also now, thinking not only to the
realization but also to the maintenance of a structure, FRP is not so expensive,
specially with chemically aggressive atmospheres;
− low elastic modulus (for aramid and glass fibre reinforced polymers): this
implies that these materials have high deformability, that can result in not
desirable cracks opening when FRP is used to retrofit concrete structures;
− linear behaviour: composite in general are linear elastic up to failure (although
this latter occurs at large strains, about 4%) without any yielding or plastic
deformation;
− bonding problems: non perfect bonding can lead to premature fragile collapse
of the retrofitted member due to a mechanism referred to as debonding;
− durability: although the resistance to the chemical agents is very good, the
evolution in time of the FRP physical characteristics is not known. Further, a
limit is well known, ultraviolet rays exposure leads to a very fast deterioration of
the aramid fibres strength that must be protected with proper paint.
Furthermore, the thermal expansion coefficient need at least a brief discussion. For
standard FRP materials this value is very low, and although this characteristic can be
positive when the polymers are used alone, it can become a problem when FRP must
work with other materials, as concrete or steel. If the thermal dilatation of the FRP and RC
are incompatible, their exposure to high temperature (e.g. in case of fire) can result in a
premature deterioration of the materials, detachments and collapse. This problem can be
overcame with an adequate choice of the components, i.e. through an intervention on the
chemical composition of the FRP it is possible to modify this coefficient.
As well as the previous, there are some characteristics of the FRP that can be
modified during the manufacturing process, changing the chemical composition or adding
specific additives. This is an interesting opportunity that made theoretically possible to

6
study ad hoc the composition of the FRP to enhance its characteristic for each specific
application.
Up to now, FRP has used for strengthening of RC structures in thousands of
applications worldwide, specially in the seismic prone countries, when conventional
techniques may be problematic. If compared to the adoption of steel jackets or epoxy-
bonded steel plate, the FRP strengthening shows several advantages: the work with heavy
steel parts is avoided, such as all the risks related to the corrosion, not last the bonding
deterioration. Another common retrofit system is the adoption of concrete jackets, resulting
in a series of problems, like an undesirable increase of stiffness and weight, that can be
eliminated when FRP is used.
Next a brief description of each of the FRP components follows.

2.2 The fibres

A great majority of the materials are stronger and stiffer in fibrous form than as a bulk
material. A high fibre aspect ratio (length to diameter ratio) permits very effective transfer
of load via matrix material to the fibres, thus enabling full advantage of the properties of
the fibres to be taken. Therefore, fibres are very attractive and effective reinforcement
materials, involving the mechanical characteristics of the FRP. Fibres can be
manufactured both in continuous or discontinuous form with a diameter ranging between 5
and 20 µm.
Today most used fibres in strengthening of civil structure are carbon, glass and aramid
ones. Common properties are high tensile strength, low relaxation, great resistance to
chemical products.
As it is possible to note from the next graphic, these fibres used for strengthening all
exhibit higher strength than steel and linear elastic behaviour up to failure without the yield
plateau characteristic of the steel. Note that, for each material, more than one line is
present: distinction is made between the continuous and the dashed ones referring
respectively to high and low elastic modulus material.
Differently from the steel, the fibres have a high degree of anisotropy, due to the
particular, highly oriented microstructure involving different behaviour changing with the
direction of the actions. Previous table reassumes the principal characteristics, relative to

7
5000

4000
Stress [MPa]

3000

2000

1000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Strain [%]

Carbon fibres Glass fibres Aramide fibres Steel

Fig. II.1 - Comparison of the σ−ε diagrams relative to steel and fibres

Thermal
Ultimate
Density Elastic Modulus Tensile Strength expansion
Fibre Strain
coefficient

[kN/m3] [GPa] [%] [MPa] [x10-6/°C]


Carbon

Ultra high modulus 21 500 ÷ 700 0.2 ÷ 0.4 2100 ÷ 2400 1

High modulus 18 350 ÷ 500 0.5 ÷ 0.9 2500 ÷ 3100 1

Ultra high strength 18 214 ÷ 235 1.5 ÷ 2.3 3500 ÷ 6000 1

High strength 18 215 ÷ 235 1.4 ÷ 2 3500 ÷ 4800 1

Glass

E - electrical
26 70 3.0 ÷ 4.5 1900 ÷ 3000 4.8 ÷ 5.4
AR - alkali resistant

S-Glass 26 85 ÷ 90 4.5 ÷ 5.5 3500 ÷ 4800 2.9

Aramid

High modulus 14 115 - 130 2.5 ÷ 3.5 3500 ÷ 4000 -6.0 ÷ -2.0

Low modulus 14 70 ÷ 80 4.3 ÷ 5.0 3500 ÷ 4100 -6.0 ÷ -2.1

Tab. II.1 Characteristic of the most used fibres

8
the longitudinal direction, of the most commonly used fibres: it is important to underline
that these values are only indicative of static strength of unexposed fibres. The design
values must account both for the presence of resin in the mixtures, and for the reduction
due to long-term loading or environmental exposure.
From the previous graphic and table, it is possible to see that the elastic Young
modulus varies with the raw material, particularly it has to be noted that for glass and
aramid fibres the Young modulus is lower than for steel. This can involve problems in
reinforcing of structure, leading to high value of deformation: for this can happen that, if the
strengthening is used to improve the serviceability, the SLS governs the design rather than
the ULS.

2.2.1 Carbon fibres

The general characteristics of carbon fibres have a high degree of variation with the
raw material. It is possible to distinguish among several types of carbon fibres classified
with respect to the elastic modulus, referred to as high and ultra high elastic modulus, or
to the tensile strength, referred to as high and ultra high strength.
Independently from these classifications, these types of fibres have common
advantages: high strength to weight ratio, low thermal dilatation coefficients (both
transversal and longitudinal), good resistance to the fatigue and excellent behaviour
against chemical products and moisture.
The use of these fibres is nevertheless limited by some shortcomings as: low ultimate
strain, limiting the achievable ductility; low strength against impacts; high cost, increasing
with the quality, that suggests the use only if the mechanical properties are completely
utilized.

2.2.2 Aramid fibres

These fibres are in production since 1972: first, the american society Du Pont, using
as raw material a polymer, the aromatic polyamide or aramid, produced and
commercialised them as Kevlar™.
Peculiarities of this material are a good toughness and resistance to impact load, i.e.
damage tolerance, fatigue and thermal actions. Limitations of use are involved by the
exposure to moisture and to ultraviolet rays: the humidity increases the shrinkage due to

9
the interaction between the water and the fibre molecular structure, while the sun light
reduces the strength of the aramid to half in 200 days, fortunately this problem can be
overcame using a specific protective resin that has to be applied to the FRP just after the
placing.

2.2.3 Glass fibres

The glass fibres are the cheapest and the most widely used for their good
performance to cost ratio. They are obtained by extrusion of silicon material through holes
with decreasing diameter, the final value ranges from 20 to 3 µm. Just after the production,
this kind of fibres need a treatment with a protective product to avoid problems deriving
from the friction among fibres and to enhance the matrix bond.
The raw materials can be classified in three types: the E-glass, standing for “electrical”
glass and referring to alumino-borosilicate glass, having low alkali resistance, the S-glass,
stiffer and stronger but still not resistant to alkali, and the AR-glass, standing for alkali
resistant glass, characteristic obtained adding of a considerable amount of zircon, and with
characteristics similar to the E-glass: this type of glass, avoiding cement alkali corrosion, is
the one that have to be used for concrete reinforcement.
Besides this problem of corrosion, low Young modulus, low resistance to abrasion,
moisture, and long term or cyclic loads are the greatest shortcomings.

2.2.4 Other types of fibres

Besides the ones seen before, there are other raw materials, also if less used in
practice.
Fibres can be obtained from the polyethylene, showing good strength, low electric
conductibility, high resistance to water, chemical products, abrasion and impact loads. The
problem is that these fibres do not work well with heat and suffer slow deformation, due to
shrinkage and relaxation, more than this the resin impregnates them with some difficulty.
Another possibility is to use ceramic material: although this type of fibres exhibits very
interesting characteristics, e.g. tensile strength between 0.5 and 2 GPa also with
temperature of about 1200°C, in civil engineering they are not used for the high cost and
because their characteristics would not be in any case used.

10
2.3 The matrixes

The matrix has the function of protect the fibres against abrasion and chemical
actions, further binding them together it distributes the load. More than this, several
mechanical properties regarding the FRP behaviour in shear and in compression are
strongly influenced by the matrix characteristics, and again, physical and chemical
qualities of the matrix influence the choice of the fabrication process, as discussed
afterwards. Hence proper selection of the matrix material for a composite system requires
that all these factors are taken into account. Particular attention has to be paid to assure
complete correspondence among the characteristics of matrix and fibres: for instance, if
changes of temperature are expected during the manufacturing process or the design life
of the FRP, it is very important that the thermal dilatation coefficients are compatible to
avoid auto-stress in the final product.
The matrix for a structural composite material is essentially a polymeric paste: which
type of polymer has to be used is one of the fundamental decisions during the making of
the FRP. The polymers can be subdivided into great classes: thermoplastic and
thermosetting; to use one or the other to realize the matrix changes essentially the FRP
characteristic, starting from the behaviour with respect to the hot-working.
In the next table some characteristics of most used resins are reported.

Thermal
Tensile Elastic Ultimate
Density expansion
Matrix Strength Modulus Deformation
coefficient

[MPa] [GPa] [%] [kN/m3] [x10-6/°C]

Polyester 20 ÷ 100 2.1 ÷ 4.1 1.0 ÷ 6.0 10 ÷ 14. 5 55 ÷ 100

BMI 40 ÷ 100 2.7 ÷ 4.2 1.2 ÷ 6.6 12 21 ÷ 73

Polyamide 40 ÷ 190 3.0 ÷ 5.0 1.0 ÷ 60 13 ÷ 14 14 ÷ 50

Epoxy 55 ÷ 130 2.5 ÷ 4.1 1.0 ÷ 9.0 11 ÷ 13 45 ÷ 90

PEEK 103 1.1 30 ÷ 150 13 55

Tab. II.2 - Most used resins characteristics

11
Thermosetting polymers when exposed to heat change their molecular structure,
becoming a new infusible, insoluble material. Different behaviour characterizes the
thermoplastic polymers that, when hot treated, sustain reversible alterations, being able to
be subjected to repeated cycles of softening and hardening realized with heating and
successive cooling.
Without doubts, actually, the thermosetting resins are preferred because they are
easier to work than the thermoplastic. Polyester and vinyl-ester are two of the raw material
used to produce these resins, assuring workability and low cost. Greatest limitation of
some of the thermosetting resins is the high contraction of volume experienced during the
setting: if this is good to detach the final product from the moulds used in precasting, it
generates high level of residual stresses.
Among this kind of polymer, the epoxy resin is the most versatile used for the FRP
matrix. Its commercial fortune and diffusion are due to the easiness in changing the
physical characteristics of this material: strength, stiffness, resistance to chemical
products, thermal stability are only some of the properties that can be modified through an
intervention on the composition or on the manufacturing process. More than for the
excellent mechanical characteristics, epoxy resin is the most used polymer for FRP matrix
because of the fact that it exhibits almost no shrinkage during setting, involving no residual
stresses in the material.
To use the epoxy resin, some concepts have to be known and adequately take in
consideration, two regarding the time:
− the pot life, representing the time during which one can work with the adhesive,
after resin and hardener are mixed, before it starts to set in the mixture vessel;
− the open time, representing the time needed to join together adherents and
adhesive after this latter has been applied.
Not less important parameter to consider, characteristic of each polymer, is the glass
transition temperature: this is the temperature at which the polymers change from
relatively hard, elastic and glass-like to relatively rubbery materials.
It has to be noted that controlling the temperature during the setting, it is possible to
control these parameters: using an heating device it is possible to increase the velocity of
the chemical process that rules hardening and fibres impregnation as well as the
resistance of the polymer to the heat.
Although the polymer is the principal component of the matrix, it is not the only one:
fillers and additives are added during the manufacturing. Within the scope of cost

12
reduction, the fillers are introduced just as inert materials limiting the volume of polymer
needed to realize the matrix without losses in terms of behaviour. In the today’s practice
also additives are used with the function of behaviour modifying: increasing, for instance,
thermal stability or viscosity or workability of the final mix. Examples of these products are
the anti-oxidant, that protect the FRP from the degradation due to the atmospheric oxygen
action, and the phosphoric additives, protecting FRP from direct exposure to flames, in
event of fire, ultraviolet rays and moisture.

2.4 Manufacturing processes

Beyond that for components, the FRP can be classified also for the manufacturing
process. There are several way to realize FRP, although most of these techniques are
used to realize low quality non-structural goods, and are for these out of our interest.
Furthermore, it has to be noted that FRP is commercialised both as dry or preimpregnated
fibres: working with dry fibres, after the placing or the shaping, they have to be
impregnated with the resin.
Dry FRP fabric consists simply in yarns woven together by a power loom, it has to be
noted that dry fabric can be directly commercialised, but they are also one of the raw
materials for the fabrication of precured elements.
Between different techniques to obtain shaped FRP elements the simplest is, without
doubts, the one referred to as contact moulding: in a mould, layers of fibres and resin are
placed alternatively, starting with the resin that will be the external face of the element.
During the making, particular attention has to be paid to give to the resin the right viscosity:
if too fluid it does not remain on the vertical faces of the mould, while if too viscose it can
not impregnate uniformly the fibres. Within the scope of realize a better air expulsion and
fibres impregnation a vacuum bag can be used: this technique, referred to as vacuum bag
moulding, confers to the FRP element also a better superficial finishing and a higher fibre
content.
The pultrusion is another technique to obtain prefabricated elements: it is similar to the
extrusion used to realize steel elements, but, differently from that, the fibres have to be
pulled toward the extrusion device, from here the name of this technique. It permits to
realize elements with continuous section , straight or slightly curved axis and constant or
slightly varying thickness. Following this process, the fibres, yarns or fabrics, are immersed

13
in the resin and once impregnated are pulled through a series of guides that gives to the
FRP the desired shape. After the shaping a heating device provides to the hardening of
the resin, the element is then cut when it reaches the required length.

1
4 5
3

1. FRP yarns 2. Resin 3. Heating device 4. Pulling device 5. Cutter

Fig. II.2 - Pultrusion process

2.5 Techniques for FRP strengthening

The basic, most widely applied, FRP strengthening technique involves the manual
application of either wet lay up or prefabricated elements by means of cold cured adhesive
bonding. This technique involves the application of the FRP external reinforcement to the
concrete element surface with the fibres as parallel as possible to the direction of the
principal tensile stress. Several layers of fibres are superposed until the desired thickness
is reached, when dry fibres are used the resin has to be applied both to the structure that
need the reinforcement, and to the fibres after their positioning.
All the required operation can be done automatically using a special machine,
particularly helpful when the fibres must be applied on great areas. This automated
technique involves the wrapping with continuous wet fibres placed with a slight angle
around the element calling for retrofit. Although this technique involves good quality control
and velocity of installation, it needs elements with circular cross section to be applied.

14
Fig. II.3 - Automated wrapping system

When hand lay up is used, to achieve a better final product some options are
available, unfortunately implying higher costs. To provide a better elimination of the
eventual entrapped air, a roller can be passed on the fibres, after the application of the
epoxy resin. Otherwise, as well as for the moulding, the vacuum bag can be used for the
improvement of the longitudinal reinforcement. To obtain in-situ fast curing or good
bonding in those region where the temperature is too low to allow cold curing an heating
device can be used, conferring also a higher glass transition temperature to the FRP
system

Fig. II.4 - Strengthening with vacuum injection system

15
Fig.II.5 - Fast curing using heating device: (a) Schematic; (b) Photograph of end brackets

2.6 Physical properties

First general consideration about the physical characteristics of the FRP is that they
are different in longitudinal and in transversal direction, referring to the fibre disposition,
due to the heterogeneity and the anisotropy involved from the particular structure of the
material. Heterogeneity derives, clearly, from the fact that FRP is an ensemble of different
materials with very different characteristics. Anisotropy is due both to micro- and
macrostructure, the fibres exhibit themselves anisotropy due to the particular molecular

16
structure, beside of this, in most of the FRP elements the fibres are placed only in one
direction.

2.6.1 Coefficient of thermal expansion

Due to the anisotropy, the coefficients needed to characterize the behaviour of the
FRP when subjected to thermal actions are two: one longitudinal and one transversal.
Thermal behaviour is very important when the FRP is used together with concrete or
steel, as for our application, because of the different expansion of these materials high
stress level can develop at the interface between them increasing the risk of debonding.
Both the two expansion coefficients can be evaluated starting from the ones relative to
the constituent materials, their elastic modulus and their volume fraction in the compound:

1
αL = (α f v f E f + α m v mE m ) ;
EL

α T = (1 + ν f ) α f v f + (1 + ν m ) α m v m − α L ν LT ;

where α is the thermal expansion coefficient, ν is the Poisson modulus, E is the Young
modulus and v is the volume fraction; the subscripts L, T stand respectively for longitudinal
and transversal direction with respect to the fibres direction, LT is the maximum between
the two; finally the subscripts m, f indicate the material which the parameter refers to:
matrix or fibres, if no material is specified FRP is understood.

2.7 Mechanical properties

Although the FRP is a non homogeneous material, working with its mechanical
properties it is better to consider it like such referring in this way to the classical continuum
mechanic schematisation. Unfortunately the anisotropy can not be neglected, leading to a
higher number of strictly necessary parameters to characterize the behaviour: transversal
and longitudinal values of normal and shear elastic modulus, Poisson modulus and bulk
modulus are coefficients normally utilized among which five are independent.

17
All the required coefficients are often evaluated starting from the characteristics of the
FRP components and their volume fraction, instead of testing the FRP itself, obviously the
problem becomes now to determinate the characteristics of the fibres and matrix. All the
formulations in literature involve critics but also clear advantages: for instance, it is
possible to reduce the testing time when the some materials are used to produce different
FRP compounds varying the percentages of fibres and resin involved in the
manufacturing. This may be accomplished by applying the so call “rule of mixtures”
simplification as follows:

E = E f ⋅ v f + Em ⋅ v m

σ = σ f ⋅ vf + σ m ⋅ vm ≅ σ f ⋅ vf

where σ is the tensile strength in fibre direction, E is the Young modulus and v is the
volume fraction; the subscripts m, f stand for the material which the parameter refers to:
matrix or fibres, if no material is specified FRP is understood. Note that in the previous
equations v f + v m = 1 , and typical values for the fibre volume fraction are in the order of
about 50-70% for the strips and about 25-35% for the sheets.
It remains clear that with the equations above we can obtain just an approximation of
the desired value, a more detailed prediction should be obtained through tensile testing,
this is the only way to take into account all the fibres and matrix characteristics as well as
the micro-structural aspects such as fibre diameter, distribution and parallelism of fibres,
volume fractions and the fibre-matrix interfacial properties.
Due to the fact that the stiffness and strength of the fibres is much larger than the
respectively values relative to the matrix, the properties of the FRP are governed by the
properties and the cross sectional area of the bare fibres. When the FRP characteristics
are based on the total area, this means that, compared to the properties of the bare fibres,
the stiffness and the strength is less, obviously the total stiffness of the system is not
affected because this reduction is compensated by an increase of the cross sectional area.
It is so evident that exist a strong relation between the FRP properties and the fibre
volume fraction, as shown in the next table and figure.
It is so evident that in case of uncertainty about the thickness, like with in-situ resin
impregnated system, it is convenient to base all the calculation on the properties and the
cross sectional area of the bare fibres, rather than on the values relative to the total
18
system. If this approach is adopted the resultant properties should be multiplied by a
reduction factor r accounting for the efficiency of the fibres bonding, such that:

tf Ef r = t E

where t is the thickness, nominal for the fibres, and after the impregnation for the FRP, E is
the Young modulus and r is the reduction factor; the subscripts f stand for fibres, no
subscript for the FRP.
The reduction factor should be provided by the supplier based on testing, alternatively
the properties of the in-situ impregnated system should be given, again based on tests.

Chosen properties for the constituent materials of the FRP composite:


Ef = 220 GPa σf = 4000 MPa
Em = 3 GPa σm = 80 MPa

Cross sectional area FRP properties Failure load

Af Am A vf E σu εu
2 2 2
[mm ] [mm ] [mm ] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [%] [kN] [%]
70 0 70 100 220000 4000 1.818 280.0 100.0
70 30 100 70 154900 2824 1.823 282.4 100.9
70 70 140 50 111500 2040 1.830 285.6 102.0
Note that in case of a strip with a width of 100mm, the FRP cross sectional areas
correspond to thickness of the strip respectively equal to 0.7mm, 1.0mm and 1.4mm

Tab II.3 - Effect of the volume fraction of fibres on the FRP properties

19
4000

3000
Stress [MPa]

2000

1000

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2

Strain [%]
vf = 100% (bare fibres) vf = 70% vf = 50%

Fig. II.6 - Stress - strain relations corresponding to various fibre volume fractions

20
3. Test set up and pier specimens

3.1 General considerations

As a result of the lack of knowledge of the design codes of the years between the '50s
and the '70s, several piers were underdimensioned so that they collapsed during the past
years earthquakes. In order to understand some the most frequent failure modes, like
shear failure, combined flexural-shear failure, failure due to insufficient lap-splice, some
square hollow section bridge piers has been designed, following those codes and their
prescriptions, and scaled specimens have been realized and tested.
Five specimens, part of a previous research campaign, were tested to evaluate the
reliability, in case of hollow piers, of some common formulation used for assessment.
Once the capacity of those piers was determined, FRP strengthening intervention was
designed, and other five specimens, copies of the previous, have been retrofitted and
tested. The objective of this second test series was, primarily, to evaluate the effectiveness
of this strengthening technique and the performance improvements conferred by the FRP.
All the specimens are assumed to be square hollow section piers scaled with a
reduction factor of 4; in real scale the characteristics of the piers are the following:
- external dimension of the section 1800 x 1800 mm and thickness equal to 300 mm;
- height equals 3600 mm or 5400 mm;
- longitudinal steel reinforcement consisting in 40 or 24 bars with 30 mm diameter;
- transversal steel reinforcement consisting in stirrups with 2 or 4 legs, diameter
equal to 12 mm and spacing of 300 mm.
Note that the last three characteristics vary with the associated failure mechanism.
Obviously, with the pier dimensions also the granulometry of the inert materials has
been adequately scaled to avoid undesired local effects and enhanced inert interlocking
leading to increased shear resistance.
Next figure and table summarize the characteristics of each of the tested piers.

21
45 45
30 30

120
20 20

100
80
145
125 45

105

60
Unità di misura espresse in centimetri

Fig. III.1 - Specimens geometrical characteristic

Specimen Failure mechanism Height Axial load


[mm] [kN]
S250 and S250 FRP Shear 900 250
S500 and S500 FRP Shear 900 500
T250L and T250L FRP Insufficient lap-splice 1350 250
T250 and T250 FRP Mixed flexure/shear 1350 250
T500 and T500 FRP Mixed flexure/shear 1350 500
Tab. III.1 - Specimen characteristics

The specimen names, reported in the previous table and used in the following pages,
describe their characteristic and behaviour: starting with S or T for squat and tall, i.e.
having respectively problem with shear or flexure, then the number shows the applied axial
load and the suffix L, standing for lap-splice , indicates the pier dealing with this problem;
finally the postponed extension FRP characterizes the retrofitted specimens.
Besides the characteristics reported before, ulterior details regarding the pier top and
foundation are opportune. In the previous figure it is possible to see that the section at the
pier top is not hollow to avoid local collapses at the point of application of the force. In
order to use the same test setting, described in the next paragraph §[3.2], the point of
application of the force has been placed at 1350 mm from the floor level independently

22
from the height of the pier, this is the reason that involves different height of the
foundation, see the previous figure.
In the next two figures the reinforcement of the foundation is shown both for squat and
tall piers, its disposition is displayed in the figures in the following paragraphs describing
the different specimens. It has to be noted that the foundation was dimensioned to fix the
specimen to the floor of the laboratory and to permit stress penetration such as in real
situation.

Fig. III.2 - Foundation reinforcing bars of the tall piers

Fig. III.3 – Foundation reinforcing bars of the squat piers


23
3.2 Test set up

Firstly, all the tests that we have carried out are cyclic quasi-static tests, with series of
three cycles at increasing drift level, performed in displacement control. The displacements
have been applied to the pier top with a hydraulic actuator with the following
characteristics:
- maximum force equal to 500 kN;
- maximum stroke equal to 400 mm (i.e. ± 200 mm).
The displacement and the force, that the actuator enforces to the specimen, are
directly measured by a displacement transducer (LVDT) and a load cell respectively,
connected to the actuator itself. Obviously that force is equal to the reaction of the pier,
while the movement of the actuator is not the pier displacement we are interested in,
involving also some "noise" represented by the movement of the top of the pier due to
translation and rotation of the foundation. Despite of the fact that the pier is fixed to the
laboratory strong floor using four diameter 40 mm post-tensioned steel bar, the movement
of the foundation are not negligible and they have to be kept in consideration during the
data analyses.
The hydraulic actuator applies the displacement at the pier top: here, the connection is
realized through two steel plates applied to the two faces of the pier perpendicular to the
direction of the movement, the two plates are joined each other with four tie beams
tensioned prior to the test begin.
To apply the axial force to the pier, a hydraulic jack is used; clearly, as well as for the
actuator, also in this case the value of the applied force is acquired to allow us to check in
the data analysis phase that everything worked well during the test. It utilizes as contrast a
32 mm diameter steel bar crossing longitudinally the pier through the central hole and
post-tensioned before that the test starts. The use of this jack is necessary to allow for the
compensation of the axial load that varies when the specimen leaves the undeformed
configuration.
Next two figure shows the test set-up: both a section along the pier axis and a plan
view are reported, the last one specifies also the cardinal points used in the following to
refer to the pier faces.

24
Hydraulic Jack
Hydraulic Actuator

Load Cell
Post-tensioned Ø 32 Steel Bar
Reaction Wall

Strong Floor

Fig. III.4 - Vertical section of the test set up

North Side

Hydraulic Actuator
East Side
West Side
Reaction Wall

South Side

Fig. III.5 - Plan of the test set up and cardinal points

25
To study the flexural and shear components of the deformation, chains of linear
potentiometers (LP) with stroke equal to 25 and 50 mm have been placed on the north and
south sides. The total displacement of the pier has been monitored with respect to a fixed
point at three different height along the pier: at one and two third and at the pier top. This
movements have been monitored to know the deflected shape of the pier consequently to
the application of the drifts, more than this the values relative to the pier top work also a
check for the correct functioning of the governing and data acquisition system of the
actuator. Three other linear potentiometers have been applied to the foundation to
measure its displacement and rotation allowing the evaluation of the real displacements
experienced by the pier, once that the contributions given by the foundation movements
has been removed. Beside all the instrumentation described up to this point and applied to
the pier just before the test, some strain-gauges have been placed on reinforcing bars
prior to the concrete casting: four longitudinal bars in the plastic hinge region on the east
and west sides near to the pier edges have been monitored, as well as three stirrups at
various pier heights along the legs parallel to the north and south faces. Next pictures,
reported for sake of completeness, show the distribution of instruments and strain-gauges
for a squat and a tall pier; the table contain the information about the connections with the
data acquisition system.

North side South side

60 24 19 60
150

37 0 13
25
32
20 Load cell
5 9
150

38 42 46 33 1 14
59 21 59 Linear potenziometer
26
1000

LVDT
900

300

39 34 2 16
43 48 6 10

58 27 22 58

40 44 49 35 3 11 17
7
28 23
300

41 36
150

45 50 4 8 12 18
100
50

55 54 30 29 51 52 52 51 29 30 54 55

56 56
53 53
57 57

Fig. III.6 - Instruments and channel numeration on a squat pier

26
NORTH SIDE WEST SIDE
375 450 375 375 450 375

212.28
200

200
3

staffe Ø 3/7.5cm
1000

1000
2
800

1 7 8

30
1050

1050
1200 1200

SOUTH SIDE EAST SIDE


375 450 375 375 450 37.5

212.28
200

200

6
stirrups Ø 3 / 75 mm
1000

1000

5
800

10 9
4
30
1050

1050

1200 1200

Fig. III.7 - Positions of the strain-gauges on a squat pier

27
North side South side

60 24
19 60
225

37 32
0 13 Load cell
25

5 Linear potenziometer
225

38 42 46 33 9
1 14
59 26 21 59 LVDT
1450

39 34
1350

450

2 16

43 48
6 10

58 27 22 58

40
225

35
44 49 3 17
7 11
28 23
225

41 36
45 50
150

4 12 18
100

8
50

55 54 30 29 51 52
52 51 29 30 54 55

56
53
57 53 56
57

Fig. III.8 - Instruments and channel numeration on a tall pier

28
NORTH SIDE WEST SIDE
375 450 375 375 450 375

200 217

200
stirrups Ø 3 / 75mm
1250

1250

40.93
600

600
1200 1200

SOUTH SIDE EAST SIDE


375 450 375 375 450 375
200

200
stirrups Ø 3 / 75mm
1250

1250
600

600

1200 1200

Fig. III.9 - Positions of the strain gauges on a tall pier

29
Channel N° Instrument type Channel N° Instrument type
0 L.P. 50 mm 38 L.P. 50 mm
1 L.P. 50 mm 39 L.P. 50 mm
2 L.P. 50 mm 40 L.P. 50 mm
3 L.P. 50 mm 41 L.P. 50 mm
4 L.P. 50 mm 42 L.P. 50 mm
5 L.P. 50 mm 43 L.P. 50 mm
6 L.P. 50 mm 44 L.P. 50 mm
7 L.P. 50 mm 45 L.P. 50 mm
8 L.P. 50 mm 46 L.P. 50 mm
9 L.P. 50 mm 48 L.P. 50 mm
10 L.P. 50 mm 49 L.P. 50 mm
11 L.P. 50 mm 50 L.P. 50 mm
12 L.P. 50 mm 51 L.P. 50 mm
13 L.P. 50 mm 52 L.P. 50 mm
14 L.P. 50 mm 53 L.P. 50 mm
16 L.P. 50 mm 54 L.P. 50 mm
17 L.P. 50 mm 55 L.P. 50 mm
18 L.P. 50 mm 56 L.P. 50 mm
19 L.P. 25 mm 57 L.P. 50 mm
20 L.P. 25 mm 58 L.P. 250 mm
21 L.P. 25 mm 59 L.P. 250 mm
22 L.P. 25 mm 60 L.P. 250 mm
23 L.P. 25 mm 61 Horizontal Load Cell
24 L.P. 25 mm 62 LVDT MTS
25 L.P. 25 mm 65 Strain gauge 1
26 L.P. 25 mm 66 Strain gauge 2
27 L.P. 25 mm 67 Strain gauge 3
28 L.P. 25 mm 68 Strain gauge 4
29 L.P. 25 mm 69 Strain gauge 5
30 L.P. 25 mm 70 Strain gauge 6
32 L.P. 50 mm 71 Strain gauge 7
33 L.P. 50 mm 72 Strain gauge 8
34 L.P. 50 mm 73 Strain gauge 9
35 L.P. 50 mm 74 Strain gauge 10
36 L.P. 50 mm 76 Vertical Load Cell
37 L.P. 50 mm Where :
L.P. Linear Potentiometer
Tab. III.1 - Channel - instrument correspondence

30
3.3 Piers with shear lacks

The prototypes S250 and S250 FRP, S500 and S500 FRP have the following
characteristics:
- pier height equal to 1000 mm;
- distance between the pier base and the point of application of the horizontal load
equal to 900 mm;
- foundation height equal to 1050 mm;
- longitudinal reinforcement consisting in one layer of 24 diameter 8 mm bars
uniformly distributed around the section, the steel used is FeB44K;
- transversal reinforcement consisting in two legs stirrups with diameter 3 mm and
spacing 75 mm, realized with smoothed steel bars.
In the following pictures the reinforcement details are reported.

Fig. III.10 - Longitudinal section of the specimen with shear lacks

31
Staffe Ø3/7.5cm

Fig. III.11 - Transversal sections of the specimen with shear lacks and detail of the stirrups

3.4 FRP retrofitting for shear lacks

The primary objective of the retrofit is in this case the ductility enhancement. As
expected for element suffering in shear, very low achievable ductility characterize the
behaviour of the element itself, as also underlined by the hysteretic loops relative to the
pier specimen prior to the retrofitting reported in the next paragraphs §[4.2] and §[4.3]. The
ductility relative to the specimens before to the FRP application is about 4 for the pier with
low axial load, increasing the axial, as expectable, the ductility decreases. Working in a
32
seismic contest, the displacement capacity of each element is important and high ductility
is the first aim that have to be pursued.
This wanted increase in ductility can be achieved changing the collapse mechanism
from shear to flexural failure. More in general, independently from our scopes involved by
the consideration of seismic action, the shear failure is commonly recognized as a brittle
mechanism that have to be avoided.
To change the failure mechanism the shear capacity of the piers have to be improved.
This can be done with a complete wrapping of the element with horizontal layers of FRP.
Considering the FRP wrapping just as additional equivalent stirrups, as proposed by
Priestly-Seible-Calvi, it is easy to evaluate the contribute of the FRP to the shear
resistance. Following this approach, the effect of the FRP can be easily represented on a
force displacement graphic, representing, together with the predicted behaviour in flexure,
the shear domains relative to the unretrofitted specimen and to the different possible
retrofit intervention, see next graphic.

S250 - Possible retrofit solutions

700
flexural
prediction
600
unretrofitted
shear domain
500
1 CFRP layer
Force [kN]

400
1 GFRP layer

300
2 GFRP layer

200
1 AFRP layer

100
2 AFRP layer

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Displacement [mm]

Fig. III.12 - Shear domains relative to possible different retrofit solution

It is possible to see that a single layer of fibres wrapped around the specimen would
be enough to achieve the desired improvement of the shear capacity, independently from

33
the fibre raw material. So, up to this point, it seems that all the fibre materials can be used
involving no difference. Despite of this the aramid has been chosen due to the fact that this
polymeric material is the one less sensitive to local failure involved by the fragility of the
fibres. Wrapping on square section involves that particular attention has to be paid to avoid
the breaking of the fibres along the element edges. It is for this reason, that the corners of
the section have to be rounded prior to the FRP application: for our specimens a radius of
curvature equal to 25 mm has been used.
Unfortunately, due to technological problems to guaranty the realization of a good
impregnation and bonding, the FRP supplier strongly advised for the application of at least
two layers. This clearly leads to an overdimensioned retrofit intervention, making
impossible to test the precision of the design formulation for the FRP contribute to the
shear strength.
Another point that needs at least a little discussion is the optimal time sequence of
application of axial load and FRP wrapping, particular important for this type of pier. The
idea of these tests is to reproduce the retrofit of an existent bridge pier: this implies that at
the moment of the intervention the pier is already carrying part of the expected axial load,
i.e. the portion representing the permanent loads. For this the right sequence should be to
apply the axial load prior to the FRP wrapping. Unfortunately, for practical reason, this is
not feasible: there was the necessity of retrofit all the specimen together to reduce the
costs of intervention, while not all the pier could be kept under compression together being
the axial load applied by an hydraulic jack. Although it is clear that to apply the wrapping
on an element before or after the axial load leads to different level of transversal
confinement and so to different behaviour, the point is to evaluate whether this difference
is negligible or not, at least in our case.
Fortunately, as understandable also with rough calculation, it is easy to note that the
confinement stress activated by the transversal strain of the section involved by the axial is
very little and can be neglected. Further, the fibre element program, used for all the
evaluations of the flexural behaviour of the piers, has been used also for two elements
similar to the piers under discussion here: the first with the FRP wrapping applied after the
axial and the second viceversa. The two curves representing the correspondent flexural
behaviour of these two element are reported in the next figure: as one can see the two
curves are coincident underlining that the difference deriving from the adopted time
sequence is totally negligible.

34
Behaviour modification involved
by the time sequence of retrofit intervention

400

300
Force [kN]

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement [mm]

wrapping - loading loading - wraping

Fig. III.13 – Behaviour modification due to the time sequence in the retrofit intervention

Next pictures show the drawings used to realize the FRP retrofit intervention.

Transversal fibres
1 AFRP Strips - 40mm x 3800mm

40
3800

1 AFRP Strips - 130mm x 3800mm


130

3800

1 AFRP Strips - 280mm x 3800mm


280

3800

1 AFRP Strips - 140mm x 3800mm


140

3800

Fig. III.14- FRP strips needed to retrofit the shear lacks

35
All sides

40
20
130
20
280
20
130
20
140

Fig. III.15 - FRP application scheme for the shear Fig. III.16 - Retrofitting for shear lacks
retrofit intervention

Note that, due to the presence of the screws used for the connection of the linear
potentiometers, a continuous wrapping can not be adopted. A localised change of direction
of the fibres can create weak points because of the fragility characterizing their raw
material. For this reason, four different dimensions have to be used to match the distance
between the screws, as shown in the figure.

36
3.5 Piers with insufficient lap splice

The prototypes T250L and T250L FRP have the following characteristics:
- pier height equal to 1450 mm;
- distance between the pier base and the point of application of the horizontal load
equal to 1350 mm;
- foundation height equal to 600 mm;
- longitudinal reinforcement consisting of 40 diameter 8 mm bars uniformly
distributed in two layers around the section, the steel used is FeB44K;
- lap splice length equal to 160 mm;
- transversal reinforcement consisting in four legs stirrups with diameter 3 mm and
spacing 75 mm, realized with smoothed steel bars.
In the following pictures the reinforcement details are reported.

Fig. III.17 - Longitudinal section of the specimen with insufficient lap splice

37
ferri longitud. esterni 24Ø8
staffe Ø3/7.5cm
ferri longitud. interni 16Ø8

m
m
60
Ø

Fig. III.18 - Transversal section of the pier with insufficient lap splice and detail of the stirrups

38
3.6 FRP retrofit for lap splice lacks

As it is possible to see from the hysteresis loops relative to the pier tested before the
retrofit intervention, see next paragraph §[4.4], the pier specimen T250L was not able to
reach even the yielding point. This is due to the fact that being the length of overlapping of
the longitudinal bar insufficient, the realization of an adequate stress path, able to transfer
the tensile force to the foundation, becomes impossible limiting the flexural capacity.
Within the scope of realize a new stress path able to lead the pier to higher level of
horizontal force, i.e. higher bending moment at the base, and higher displacement, i.e.
higher displacement ductility, the FRP has been applied to the pier.
To reach our aim, between different possible interventions the chosen is represented
in the next drawings, used to realize the retrofit.

East and West sides North and South sides


340

340
200

200
250

250
200

200
20

20
200

200
40

40
500
450
400

200

200

175 175
45 10 45

Fig. III.19 - FRP application scheme for the lap splice retrofit intervention

39
Transversal fibres
4 CFRP Strips - 200mm x 2000mm

200
2000

Longitudinal fibres: 2 Strips of each type


on both East and West sides

175mm x 550mm

175mm x 500mm
175mm x 600mm

4 CFRP Strips

4 CFRP Strips
4 CFRP Strips

600

550

500
175 175 175

Fig. III.20 - FRP strips needed to retrofit the pier with lap splice lacks

Our idea was to retrofit the pier base in order to avoid that any tensile stress was kept
by the longitudinal steel bars, saving the specimen from the bar slippage: to do that,
carbon fibres have been applied longitudinally to the zone of bar overlapping. Three layers
of CFRP are needed to reach the complete stress taking, each layer is provided with
different length in order to realize a progressive stress transfer from the steel to the fibres.
For this longitudinal reinforcement, the carbon fibres have been chosen for their extreme
stiffness: to have an elastic modulus higher than the steel is the only way to avoid stresses
in the steel itself.
With this kind of FRP reinforcement the pier base should remain elastic, having
damages only to the superficial concrete, but to have a good level of damping a plastic
hinge have to form. For this reason, the retrofit is studied with limited length of the
longitudinal FRP strips to create a new critical section: the longitudinal carbon fibres are
applied only to the lower part of the pier. In this way the plastic hinge shifts up, where the
steel bars are well anchored and yielding can be achieved guarantying a good level of
dissipated energy.
Obviously the capacity design criterion has to be taken into account: longitudinal
reinforcement, although limited to part of the pier, leads to enhanced flexural behaviour
and for this also a reinforcement in shear has to be applied to the pier. An eventual change

40
of the failure mechanism from insufficient lap-splice to shear will lead the pier to
performance that can not be considered as satisfying.
To improve the shear capacity, a single layer of carbon FRP has been applied.
Despite of the eventual problem of fragility characterizing this type of fibres when they
have to be applied to zones with little radius of curvature, the carbon has been chosen for
practical reasons. Between these, it is the fact that a good adhesion FRP to concrete can
be achieved when only a type of fibre is used.
Further, good bonding must be guarantied, especially for the longitudinal strips. This is
another function of the horizontal wrapping: in particular the second strip from the pier
base has been applied just for the reason.
But from the point of view of bonding the critical section is the pier base where the
longitudinal reinforcement has to be anchored to foundation. In the next figure the drawing
of that detail is reported, realized as suggested by the FRP supplier. To realize this
anchorage a cut has to be realized in the foundation transversally with respect to the
direction of the longitudinal fibres, then a layer of primer and matrix has to be placed under
the longitudinal fibres passing through there; note that for this all the longitudinal FRP
strips are 100 mm longer than how required for the application on the east and west sides
of the pier. The anchoring system is then completed by the placing of a carbon fibre bar,
transversal to the fibre direction, and the filling of the cut with epoxy matrix that after the
setting realize the anchorage.

Longitudinal fibres

Ø 7 CFRP bar

Epoxy resin filling

Fig. III.21 - Longitudinal fibres anchoring system at the pier base

41
Fig. III.22 - Cut in the foundation for the anchorage Fig. III.23 - Cut in the foundation after the painting
of the longitudinal fibres with the primer

Fig. III.24 - Pier retrofitted for insufficient lap splice

42
3.7 Piers with flexure / shear lacks

The prototypes T250 and T250-FRP, T500 and T500-FRP have the following
characteristics:
- pier height equal to 1450 mm;
- distance between the pier base and the point of application of the horizontal load
equal to 1350 mm;
- foundation height equal to 600 mm;
- longitudinal reinforcement consisting of 40 diameter 8 mm bars uniformly
distributed in two layers around the section, the steel used is FeB44K;
- transversal reinforcement consisting in four legs stirrups with diameter 3 mm and
spacing 75 mm, realized with smoothed steel bars.
In the following pictures the reinforcement details are reported.

Fig. III.25 - Longitudinal section of the pier with flexural lacks

43
ferri longitud. esterni 24Ø8
staffe Ø3/7.5cm
ferri longitud. interni 16Ø8

m
m
60
Ø

Fig. III.26 - Transversal sections of the pier with flexural lacks and detail of the stirrups

44
3.8 FRP retrofit for flexural lacks

As it is possible to see from the hysteresis loops relative to the pier tested before the
retrofit intervention, see next paragraphs §[4.5] and §[4.6], the specimens T250 and T500,
suffering in flexure, were not able to pass the 2.4% drift level without heavy damages.
Although the capacity design criterion was satisfied an improvement in the displacement
capacity is desirable, also considering that it leads to a higher level of energy dissipation.
Within this scope the FRP has been applied to the pier as represented in the next
drawings.

East and West sides North and South sides


200

200
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1250

50

50

75 100 100 100 75

Fig. III.27 - FRP application scheme for the flexural retrofit intervention

45
Transversal fibres
6 GFRP Strips - 100mm x 2000mm

100
3800

1 GFRP Strips - 50mm x 2000mm


3800

50
Longitudinal fibres: 4 Strips on both East and West sides
8 GFRP Strips - 100mm x 1250mm
100

1350

Fig. III.28 - FRP strips needed to retrofit the flexural lacks

The longitudinal strips are the essential part of the applied FRP reinforcement: taking
part of the tensile force they work as additive longitudinal reinforcement, helping the steel
and allowing the achievement of higher level of force and displacement. To obtain a good
ultimate displacement the glass fibres have been chosen, having higher ultimate strain.
Using the carbon fibres the strength of the pier increases, but the same does not happen
for the displacement capacity because of the extreme low ultimate strain characterizing
this raw material. On the contrary, using the aramid, although the deformation capacity is
comparable to that of the glass, the low elastic modulus involves low stiffness and for this
low increase in strength can be expected.
Obviously the capacity design criterion has to be taken into account: the longitudinal
reinforcement leads to enhanced flexural behaviour and for this also a reinforcement in
shear has to be applied to the pier. An eventual change of the failure mechanism from
flexure to shear would lead the pier to performance that can not be considered as
satisfying, involving sudden collapse.
To improve the shear capacity of the pier, a transversal horizontal FRP reinforcement
has been applied to the pier. Two layers of glass fibre have been wrapped to the pier with
interval of 100 mm. All the wrapped strips are 100 mm wide, with exception of the first
layer wrapped at the pier base which width is only 50 mm.

46
The glass FRP has been used for both longitudinal and transversal reinforcement:
practical reasons justify this choice, as the fact that a good adhesion of the FRP to the
concrete can be achieved when only one type of fibre is used.
Last but not least, good bonding must be guarantied as for all the application involving
the use of the FRP. Along the pier length the bonding is assured by the horizontal
wrapping. But from this point of view the critical section, as for the pier suffering for
insufficient lap-splice, is the pier base where a stress path has to be established from the
longitudinal reinforcement to the foundation. In the next figure the drawing of the detail of
that anchorage is reported, realized as suggested by the FRP supplier and described in
the previous paragraph §[3.6].

Longitudinal fibres

Ø 7 CFRP bar

Epoxy resin filling

Fig. III.29 - Longitudinal fibres anchoring system at the pier base

Fig. III.30 - Pier retrofitted for flexural lacks Fig. III.31 - Detail of the anchorage of the
longitudinal fibres to the foundation

47
After the experience of the test on the pier retrofitted for insufficient lap splice an
additional anchoring system has been designed and applied to achieve the desired stress
transfer from the longitudinal fibres to the foundation. That anchorage consisted in two
steel collar, made with L shaped steel beams. The connection to the foundation is realized
through 8 bolts per collar, each one of those carrying a maximum tensile load of about 15
kN. Unfortunately this further intervention can not be avoided because the load carrying
capacity of the anchorage proposed by the FRP supplier was totally insufficient to match
our request in term of force, as underlined in the next paragraph §[4.4] where the test on
the T250L FRP is described. Also in this case, although the used fibres are glass fibres
and so the force demand on the anchorage is lower, the additional anchorage system is
indispensable. From the tests on the retrofitted specimens, it has been noted that the
external bolts lost tension after the last drift levels, demonstration of the fact that the
anchoring system works during the displacement application. In the next picture the
drawing of the steel collar is reported. Note that the collars are placed near to the pier but
with a gap large enough to assure that the pier never touches the collars: this is essential
to avoid modification of the stiffness of the specimen. It has to be understood that the
collars are used only to allow a good bonding and stress transfer from the fibres to the
foundation, but they does not work as additional pier reinforcement: the retrofit intervention
on the pier is limited to the application on the FRP.
5

L shaped steel beam


L100 x 10
total length= 1070mm
45 45

n°10 triangular stiffning flanges 740

90 x 90 x 10 95 145 130 130 145 95

40 40
130 140 120 140 130

10
45 45

45 45
100

100
10

10
90

90
165

165
75

75

90 45 45
10 10
100 100

Fig. III.32 - Additional anchoring system for the longitudinal glass fibres

48
Fig. III.33 - Additional anchoring system before and after the test

3.9 FRP application technique

To retrofit the pier specimens the FRP has been applied using the hand wet lay-up
system. Following this procedure some steps have to be carried out, here a brief
description of the procedure is reported.
First of all the external surface of the concrete elements calling for retrofit have to be
sand blasted to remove the external part of the concrete that cannot assure a good
bonding. After the sand blasting, the surface appear uniformly rough, being visible the
external part of the inert material. After the dust removal, the surface is ready for the
application of the first layer: the so call primer. This product has a smoothing function of
the concrete surface to allow a better adhesion of the resin. The primer needs about 12
hours to set, time after that it appears like glass-plastic material and the retrofit
intervention can proceed.
Eventually, as in our case, an ulterior layer, referred to as putty, can be applied to the
surface to smooth it further.
49
Just after the application of this layer the resin can be spread. Attention has to be paid
to the fact that the resin set quickly and so not too resin can be mixed, otherwise the
setting happens in the mixture vessel; further the fibres have to be placed on the resin as
soon as possible to achieve a good impregnation. Care in the fibres placing is required to
avoid that some air is entrapped, this because air pocket can be removed difficultly and
eventual entrapped air can lead to lower FRP performances. The FRP placing is
completed alternating layers of fibres and resin, eventually a layer of a protective material
can be applied: for the aramid this is necessary to protect the fibres against the action of
UV-rays.
It has to be noted that the resin have to be protected from the water during the setting
process. If some water came into contact the hardening cannot complete resulting in high
deterioration of the FRP due to the fact that the consistency of the fibres-resin system is
conferred by the resin itself.
Next, some photos of the retrofitting phases are reported to give a better idea of the
process.

Fig. III.34 - T250 FRP after the sand blasting Fig. III.35 - Piers after the painting
with the primer

50
Fig. III.36 - Wrapping of the pier after the placing of the longitudinal fibres

51
4. Experimental tests and FRP improvements

4.1 General considerations

The object of next paragraphs is the comparison in terms of behaviour between the
piers with and without FRP reinforcement: to underline the behaviour differences is
probably the better way to understand which is the achievable improvement that FRP can
confer to square hollow section piers.
In particular in the following paragraphs we will analyse:
− piers with shear lacks
S250 vs. S250 FRP;
S500 vs. S500 FRP;
− piers with insufficient lap-splice
T250L vs. T250L FRP;
− piers with flexural lacks
T250 vs. T250 FRP;
T500 vs. T500 FRP.

4.2 Pier with shear lacks under low axial load


[S250 vs. S250 FRP]

Next, hysteretic loops relative both to S250 and S250 FRP are reported with a brief
description of the behaviour of the piers during the tests.
Talking about the unretrofitted pier, it does not exhibit visible damages during the
cycles at drift 0.4%. Despite of this, the first cracks have to be formed exceeding the
cracking force: this is shown more from a change in stiffness than from a cracking path on
the pier, not visible because it is so thin that, once the pier is unloaded, it completely close.

52
S250 - Hysteresis Loops

300

250

200

150

100
Force [kN]

50 FEM Prevision
drift 0.4%
0
drift 1.2%
-50 drift 2.4%

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Displacement [mm]

S250 FRP - Hysteresis Loops

350

300

250

200

150

100 FEM Prevision


Force [kN]

drift 0.4%
50 drift 1.2%
0 drift 2.4%
drift 3.6%
-50
drift 4.8%
-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Displacement [mm]

Comparison S250 - S250FRP

350

300

250

200

150

100
Force [kN]

50 FEM Prevision
S 250 FRP
0 S250
-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Displacement [mm]

Fig. IV.1 - Hysteresis loops of the specimens S250 and S250 FRP and their comparison

53
Increasing the drift level to 1.2%, the first shear cracks start to form: as expected the
inclination of such cracks is about 30° with respect to the axis of the pier. These cracks
also modify the force-displacement diagram that becomes more irregular just after the
0.4% drift maximum displacement. Further, horizontal cracks form on the two pier sides
perpendicular to the force direction as result of a flexural behaviour.
Pushing the pier to drift 2.4%, it crosses the threshold of the yielding moment, as
clearly shown in the previous graph. Reversing the load direction, the pier crushes just
prior to the reaching of the target displacement, the maximum force level is slightly lower
than the one relative to the opposite direction. Although the pier is heavily damaged, it
shown a little increase in force after the cracks formation: this let us suppose that the pier
has to be considered only as partially collapsed. Starting the second cycle, total collapse
takes place due to the rupture of some of the stirrups, as visible through the cracks on the
north side.
Next the pictures of the north and south sides show the crack paths due to shear at
the end of the test.

Fig. IV.2 - Shear cracks on north and south sides after the test

54
Referring now to the test on the retrofitted specimen, no damages take place during
the 0.4% drift: no evidence of them are present both on the pier and on the force-
displacement diagram.
Pushing the pier to 1.2% drift, during the first cycle, a horizontal crack appears at
about 30 mm from the pier base, cutting the FRP strips in their weak direction. Probably
this is due to concrete crushing in compression, despite of this the confining effect of the
FRP does not seem to be much affected by this, resulting in very stable hysteretic cycles
also at the successive drift levels.
Passing to 2.4% drift new damages do not appear: the existing ones simply tend to
enlarge but without effects on the specimen behaviour.
Increasing the drift level to 3.6%, on the force-displacement diagram a sudden
unexpected increase in strength takes place, it has to be noted that this peak of the force
is not due to the FRP action but to a malfunctioning of the servo-valve controlling the axial:
at that instant the pier was subjected to about 500 kN instead of 250 kN of vertical force
resulting in an increased arch effect, and consequently in an increased lateral stiffness, i.e.
higher resistance to horizontal load.
Reaching then 4.8% drift at the pier base a bulge blows up, where the FRP fracture
took place. After the first cycle the shear resistance decreases quickly, and the pier failed
in compression for concrete crushing at the base. After the failure the pier seems to be not
extremely damaged, clearly with the exception of the base. The fracture of the FRP and
the bulge are reported in the next photographs.

Fig. IV.3 - Horizontal cracks in the FRP reinforcement at 1.2% and at 3.6% drift [south face]

55
Fig. IV.4 - Bulge at the pier base at the end of the test [east face]

A slight increase in strength and a good ductility improvement are the most evident
results of the FRP application, note that the achieved displacement ductility is about 8,
double with respect to the value relative to the unretrofitted pier.
In the next figure 4.5 and tables 4.1 and 4.2, the dissipated energy is reported with the
relative achieved damping per each drift level. It is so evident that, more than increasing
the strength, the FRP, in this case, acts increasing the displacement capacity, i.e. the
ductility, through the conferred confinement. Furthermore, it is important to note how the
retrofitted pier has an energy dissipation capacity higher than the unstrengthened thanks
to the possibility of support a higher number of cycles without loss of bearing capacity.
Note that for the cycles experienced by both the two specimens the damping is more or
less the same, but the results of these cycles is very different before and after the FRP
application. In particular it is possible to see how the shape of the first cycles is stable after
the retrofitting, letting us suppose that no meaningful damages takes place, nevertheless
the damping of the pier is good.
In the graphics, the dissipated energy and damping are reported as function of the
number of cycles, being in this way possible to obtain also the drift level once we
remember that three cycle are experienced by the pier at each drift.
It is possible to observe that, for each drift, the trend remains the same having, as
expected, both the dissipated energy and the damping increasing with the drift level and
decreasing with the number of cycles within the same drift. Only the tenth cycle, the first at
3.6% drift, does not respect this trend: the low damping value can be explained thinking to
the high axial load applied during this cycle that, increasing the stiffness of the pier, leads
to higher elastic energy while the dissipated energy does not vary so much.

56
S250 - Dissipated Energy and Damping

25 25

20 20
Dissipated Energy [kJ]

Damping [%]
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 3 6 9

Progressive number of cycle


Dissipated Energy Damping

S250 FRP - Dissipated Energy and Damping

25 25

20 20
Dissipated Energy [kJ]

Damping [%]
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15

Progressive number of cycle


Dissipated Energy Damping

Fig. IV.5 - Dissipated Energy and Damping relative to S250 and S250 FRP

57
S250

Drift Cycle Dissipated Energy Elastic Energy Damping Average Damping


[%] n° [kJ] [kJ] [%] [%]
1 0.23 0.15 12.5
0.4 2 0.12 0.15 6.3 8.0
3 0.10 0.15 5.3
1 1.43 0.80 14.3
1.2 2 0.86 0.79 8.6 10.0
3 0.71 0.79 7.2
1 5.21 2.04 20.3

2.4 2 4.17 1.71 19.4 19.9

3 1.79 -- --
Total 12.83 11.7

Tab. IV.1 - Dissipated energy and damping relative to the specimen S250

S250 FRP

Drift Cycle Dissipated Energy Elastic Energy Damping Average Damping


[%] n° [kJ] [kJ] [%] [%]
1 0.14 0.12 9.2
0.4 2 0.07 0.13 4.4 5.8
3 0.06 0.13 3.7
1 1.15 0.69 13.3
1.2 2 0.70 0.68 8.2 9.6
3 0.62 0.68 7.3
1 5.08 1.92 21.1
2.4 2 4.19 1.90 17.5 18.5
3 3.97 1.88 16.8
1 9.18 3.66 20.0
3.6 2 8.61 3.23 21.2 20.6
3 8.24 3.17 20.7
1 13.79 4.72 23.2
4.8 2 10.85 4.44 19.5 20.1
3 9.03 4.10 17.5
Total 75.68 14.9

Tab. IV.2 - Dissipated energy and damping relative to the specimen S250 FRP

58
4.3 Pier with shear lacks under high axial load
[S500 vs. S500 FRP]

Next, hysteretic loops relative both to S500 and S500 FRP are reported with a brief
description of the behaviour of the piers during the tests.
During the cycles at 0.4% drift, no meaningful damages take place on the unretrofitted
pier: only few, very tight horizontal cracks form on the east and west sides during the first
cycle, but they completely close once the pier is unloaded. The little change in slope of the
force-displacement diagram is the only proof of the occurred damages.
Increasing the drift to 1.2%, the number of the horizontal cracks due to flexure
increases as well as their width. Simultaneously shear cracks take place on both the north
and south sides of the pier with a variable inclination ranging from 30° to 50°: at the
maximum displacement the shear cracks reach a width of about 1 mm. A decrease in
stiffness can be observed in the hysteresis loop relative to the first cycle of this drift: this is
certainly due to the shear damages, because the yielding of the longitudinal bars is not yet
reached.
Pushing the pier to the target drift of 2.4%, the failure of the pier is reached slightly
over the maximum displacement of the previous drift: the sudden decrease in strength of
the pier is due to a shear crack that cut all the pier. Changing the direction of application of
the displacement, the behaviour of the pier is quite symmetric, only the level of force
change a little encountering the concrete crushing at about 200 kN instead of 250 kN. At
this point the test is stopped because the pier can be considered completely failed.
Looking at the pier after the test end it is possible to see that along the shear cracks,
as well as at the pier base, the concrete has spalled out, showing some buckled
longitudinal bars and some ruptures in the stirrups on the north and south sides. Next
photo shows the pier at the end of the test.
Looking now to the test on the retrofitted specimen, during the 0.4% and 1.2% drifts no
damages have been found on the pier faces because of the FRP wrapping that cover all
the pier. Only some creaking has been listened during this two drifts when the FRP starts
to keep tensile force. Obviously the concrete cracking and the steel yielding are not
avoided by the FRP application, as also understandable looking to the slope changing in
the hysteresis cycles.

59
S500 - Hysteresis Loops

300

250

200

150

100
Force [kN]

50 FEM Prevision
drift 0.4%
0
drift 1.2%
-50 drift 2.4%

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Displacement [mm]

S500 FRP - Hysteresis Loops

350
300
250
200
150
100 FEM Prevision
Force [kN]

50 drift 0.4%
drift 1.2%
0
drift 2.4%
-50 drift 3.6%
-100 drift 4.8%

-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Displacement [mm]

Comparison S500 FRP - S500

350
300
250
200
150
100
Force [kN]

50
FEM Prevision
0 S 500 FRP
-50 S 500

-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Displacement [mm]

Fig. IV .6 - Hysteresis loops of the specimens S500 and S500 FRP and their comparison

60
Fig. IV.7- Shear induced cracks and concrete spalling (south side)

At 2.4% drift some horizontal cracks appear on the east and west side of the pier
probably due to the concrete cover that starts to crush. Together with these cracks bulges
starts to form on the same sides.
These latter increase during the 3.6% drift cycles while the cracks open more and
more. The most evident damage on the FRP happens during the second cycle at this drift
level when, at the point where the lowest external linear potentiometer is jointed to the
pier, a FRP strip tears for about 5 mm of height. Furthermore during these cycle the axial
starts to vary: as a result of the concrete crushing the pier tends to shorten and so the
hydraulic jack can not longer apply a constant compression, fortunately this variation is
limited enough to infer that it has no effect on the pier behaviour.
Increasing the drift level to 4.8%, the damages, started during the previous cycles,
increase resulting in a big bulge at the base of the pier, while a second FRP strip tears,
just over the previous, for a height of about 15 mm. It has to be noted that due the bulge
formed in correspondence of the plastic hinge any of the instruments fixed in the lower part
of the pier stop their function, as clearly understandable from the next photos depicting the
state of damage at the end of the test.

61
After the 4.8% drift cycles the test has been interrupted, considering the pier as failed
for the critical situation of the plastic hinge formed at the base. Despite of this, the three
cycles at the last drift have a very stable shape: from one cycle to the other the only
change regards the maximum force that decreases a little, about 10% of reduction from
the first to the third cycle.
As a result of the FRP retrofitting, it is possible to note an increase in strength of about
50 kN, 20% with respect to the value relative to the unretrofitted sample. More than this
the ductility is greatly enhanced, being once more the primary effect of the FRP
confinement: note that the achieved displacement ductility is about 8. Further, it has to be
noted that through the FRP intervention, it has been possible to change the failure
mechanism from shear to flexure. Although the pier has failed due to concrete crush at the
base and not for the achievement of the ultimate stress in the tensile reinforcement, the
result can be considered as satisfying, considering the great ductility shown by the
specimen and the fact that, to reach that displacement and base curvature, the longitudinal
steel has to be deeply yielded.

Fig. IV.8 - Horizontal cracks in the FRP reinforcement at 2.4% and 3.6% drift [south face]

62
Fig. IV.9 - Bulges after 4.8% drift cycles at the pier base [east and west faces]

Fig. IV.10 - FRP failure at the base of the pier at the end of the test [west face]

Fig. IV.11 - Pier base after the FRP removal

63
The fact that the pier has entered the plastic domain is also demonstrated by the
dissipated energy represented in the next graphics and tables. This is a very interesting
result also looking to the value of the damping: slightly lower than 20% during both the last
two drifts. About the damping, it can be also noted that the values at 0.4% drift relative to
the retrofitted pier are lower than those of the original specimen, this is probably due to the
fact that, after the retrofit, the pier works essentially in the elastic range so that a great
dissipation can not take place.

S500 - Dissipated Energy and Damping

25 25

20 20
Dissipated Energy [kJ]

Damping [%]
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 3 6

Progressive number of cycle


Dissipated Energy Damping

S500 FRP - Dissipated Energy and Damping

25 25

20 20
Dissipated Energy [kJ]

Damping [%]

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15

Progressive number of cycle


Dissipated Energy Damping

Fig. IV.12 - Dissipated Energy and Damping relative to S500 and S500 FRP

64
S500

Drift Cycle Dissipated Energy Elastic Energy Damping Average Damping


[%] n° [kJ] [kJ] [%] [%]
1 0.17 0.12 11.8
0.4 2 0.11 0.11 7.4 8.7
3 0.10 0.11 6.8
1 1.33 0.87 12.1
1.2 2 0.72 0.87 6.6 8.2
3 0.63 0.85 5.9
Total 3.05 8.4

Tab. IV.3 - Dissipated energy and damping relative to the specimen S500

S500 FRP

Drift Cycle Dissipated Energy Elastic Energy Damping Average Damping


[%] n° [kJ] [kJ] [%] [%]
1 0.24 0.20 9.5
0.4 2 0.13 0.19 5.4 6.6
3 0.12 0.19 4.8
1 1.71 1.01 13.5
1.2 2 1.10 1.01 8.7 10.1
3 1.00 1.00 8.0
1 5.63 2.63 17.0
2.4 2 4.92 2.59 15.1 16.1
3 4.57 2.57 14.1
1 10.95 4.40 19.8
3.6 2 10.07 4.32 18.6 18.9
3 9.80 4.27 18.3
1 16.64 6.19 21.4
4.8 2 13.90 5.86 18.9 19.1
3 12.01 5.61 17.0
Total 92.78 14.0

Tab. IV.4 - Dissipated energy and damping relative to the specimen S500 FRP

65
4.4 Pier with insufficient lap splice under low axial load
[T250L vs. T250L FRP]

Next the hysteresis cycle relative to T250L and T250L FRP are reported with a brief
description of the behaviour of the piers during the tests.
The unretrofitted pier experiences no damages during the first three cycles performed
at 0.4% drift: nothing is visible on the pier sides with exception of some horizontal cracks,
so thin that even the initial stiffness does not seem to be affected by them.
Increasing the drift to 1.2%, the longitudinal bars start to slip as demonstrated by the
degradation of the hysteresis cycle in which the displacement increase without force
increase. Cycle after cycle, once the bar slippage has been triggered, the maximum force
decreases and the number of cracks increases on all the pier faces: horizontal at the base
of east and west sides, with a slope of about 30° on the north and south ones.
Trying to push the pier up to 2.4% drift, the behaviour remains almost the same until a
stable hysteretic loops is obtained during the second cycle when the residual force, due to
the arch effect, is the only that counteracts the imposed displacements. The bar slippage,
during these three cycles, cause the complete detachments of the concrete cover on the
bottom 160 mm, that is the length of the bars rising from the foundation, i.e. the lap splice
length. It has to be noted that during these cycles, at the maximum displacement, the main
horizontal crack open of about 10 mm as shown in the next photo.

Fig. IV.13 - Horizontal crack at the pier base at the maximum displacement of the 2.4% drift

66
T250L - Hysteresis Loops

250

200

150

100

50
Force [kN]

FEM Prevision
drift 0.4%
0
drift 1.2%
-50 drift 2.4%

-100

-150

-200

-250
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Displacement [mm]

T250L FRP - Hysteresis Loops

250

200

150

100

50
Force [kN]

FEM Prevision
drift 0.4%
0
drift 1.2%
-50 drift 2.4%

-100

-150

-200

-250
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Displacement [mm]

Comparison T250L FRP - T250L

250

200

150

100

50
Force [kN]

FEM Prevision
0 T 250 L FRP
T 250 L
-50

-100

-150

-200

-250
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Displacement [mm]

Fig. IV.14 - Hysteresis loops of the specimens T250L and T250L FRP and their comparison

67
After the retrofit with the FRP, the situation remains unfortunately essentially the same.
Due to the confinement conferred to the base section by the horizontal wrapping, the force
level achieved by the pier, before the bar slip begin, is higher of about 50%. Nevertheless
after the first cycle at 1.2% drift the slippage starts and the maximum horizontal force
decreases with the number of cycles. The hysteretic loops begins to take the characteristic
shape showing that the pier starts to suffer for the insufficient lap-splice and the problem
becomes more and more evident passing to the successive drift.
The lack of efficiency of the adopted reinforcement has to be attributed to the
insufficient anchorage of the longitudinal fibres at the pier base. Relying on the FRP
supplier, we have used the anchoring system shown in the previous paragraph §[3.6], but
this anchoring system is absolutely not enough for our force requirement, being unable to
transfer the fibre stress to the foundation. Clearly, being not designed for that, the
additional confinement given by the horizontal strips wrapped to the pier is not enough to
allow the formation of a stress path between the longitudinal interrupted steel bars. This
leads to the same situation of the unretrofitted specimen.
No photographs relative to the test are reported being the pier totally undamaged. The
loss of bonding of the anchoring system at the pier base is not visible looking to the pier,
but it can be appreciated only from the hysteresis loops.
The additional steel anchoring system, described in the paragraph §[3.8], can not be
used in this case to solve the problem allowing us to perform again this test. That system
is designed to transfer to the foundation the tension in the longitudinal glass fibre used to
retrofit the piers having problem in flexure: that stress is lower than the one expected in
this case in which carbon fibres are used. More than this the steel collar relies also on the
contribution of the original anchoring system, here completely compromised.
For completeness, as well as for the other tests, the dissipated energy and the relative
damping are reported in next graphics and tables, although in this case it is not possible to
see meaningful difference between the behaviour of the original and of the retrofitted
specimen. It can be only noted that, after the retrofitting, due to the transversal FRP
wrapping the pier experiences lower damages resulting in slightly lower values of
damping.

68
T250L - Dissipated Energy and Damping

25 25

20 20
Dissipated Energy [kJ]

Damping [%]
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 3 6 9

Progressive number of cycle


Dissipated Energy Damping

T250L FRP - Dissipated Energy and Damping

25 30

25
20
Dissipated Energy [kJ]

20

Damping [%]
15
15
10
10

5
5

0 0
0 3 6 9

Progressive number of cycle


Dissipated Energy Damping

Fig. IV.15 - Dissipated Energy and Damping relative to T250L and T250L FRP

69
T250L

Drift Cycle Dissipated Energy Elastic Energy Damping Average Damping


[%] n° [kJ] [kJ] [%] [%]
1 0.32 0.15 16.5
0.4 2 0.20 0.14 11.6 12.9
3 0.18 0.14 10.4
1 2.33 0.76 24.5
1.2 2 1.18 0.63 14.9 17.3
3 0.85 0.54 12.6
1 1.98 0.89 17.7
2.4 2 1.59 0.77 16.4 17.1
3 - - -
Total 8.63 15.8

Tab. IV.5 - Dissipated energy and damping relative to the specimen T250L

T250L FRP

Drift Cycle Dissipated Energy Elastic Energy Damping Average Damping


[%] n° [kJ] [kJ] [%] [%]
1 0.26 0.31 6.6
0.4 2 0.17 0.31 4.5 5.1
3 0.16 0.30 4.2
1 2.58 1.39 14.7
1.2 2 1.66 1.24 10.6 11.8
3 1.41 1.11 10.1
1 5.08 1.53 26.4
2.4 2 - - - 26.4
3 - - -
Total 11.32 11.0

Tab. IV.6 - Dissipated energy and damping relative to the specimen T250L FRP

70
4.5 Pier with flexural lacks under low axial load
[T250 vs. T250 FRP]

Next, hysteretic loops relative both to T250 and T250 FRP are reported, with a brief
description of the behaviour encountered during the tests.
Starting to talk about the unretrofitted pier, during the first cycle at 0.4% drift, once the
force correspondent to the cracking moment is reached, the first horizontal cracks form on
the two sides of the pier perpendicular to direction of the imposed displacement. They
completely close once the pier is unloaded, and their presence is shown more from a
change of slope of the first hysteretic loop than from a crack path on the pier.
Increasing the drift level to 1.2% the first shear cracks develop with an inclination of
about 30°. They induce a stiffness decrease, well visible on the first hysteresis loop
relative to this drift, that affect the pier behaviour before the yielding point is reached. The
horizontal flexural cracks, until now limited to the pier base, start to develop also in the
middle part of the pier up to 900 mm of height from the foundation. Again, once the pier is
unloaded, these latter tend to disappear; in this case the damages due to the shear are the
most severe.
At the 2.4% drift level, the existent cracks enlarge becoming more evident on all the
pier sides. During these three cycles, at the pier base, the concrete cover starts to crush
and detach and the longitudinal reinforcing bars start to buckle; they are deeply yielded as
underlined from the shape of the second and third hysteretic loops in which the pinching
effect is evident. These three cycles have quite stable shape, showing only a slight
decrease in strength limited to about 10-15% of the maximum force reached during the
first cycle.
During the first cycle with target drift 3.6%, the behaviour does not change up to the
displacement of the previous drift, but once this threshold is crossed a sudden decrease in
strength affects the pier due to concrete crushing in compression at the base. After this,
the damages at the pier base increases more and more, while the stiffness becomes
smaller. At the third cycle, the strength of the pier is reduced to about one quarter of the
maximum force reached during the previous drift. Because of the great reduction both in
stiffness and strength, the concrete crushing at the base happened during the first cycle at

71
T250 - Hysteresis Loops

250

200

150

100

50
FEM Prevision
Force [kN]

0 drift 0.4%
drift 1.2%
-50 drift 2.4%
drift 3.6%
-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Displacement [mm]

T250 FRP - Hysteresis Loops

300

250

200

150

100 FEM Prevision


drift 0.4%
Force [kN]

50
drift 1.2%
0 drift 2.4%
drift 3.6%
-50
drift 4.8%
-100 drift 6.0%

-150

-200

-250

-300
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Displacement [mm]

Comparison T250 - T250 FRP

300

250

200

150

100
Force [kN]

50
FEM Prevision
0 T 250 FRP
T 250
-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Displacement [mm]

Fig. IV.16 - Hysteresis loops of the specimens T250 and T250 FRP and their comparison

72
this drift can be considered as pier failure. Also the shear cracks increase during this drift,
becoming thicker and wider and involving partial detachments of the concrete cover as
shown in the following photos depicting the pier at the end of the test.

Fig. IV.17 - Concrete crushing at the pier base at the end of the 2.4% drift (east and west sides)

Fig. IV.18 - Flexural cracks at the end of the test (east and west sides)

73
Fig. IV.19 - Shear cracks at the end of the test (north and south sides)

Looking to the hysteresis cycles relative to the retrofitted pier is quite easy to
understand the improvement conferred by the FRP intervention.
During the cycles performed at 0.4% and 1.2% no damages take place and, in
particular, it is interesting to note that the change in stiffness due to the pre -yielding shear
cracking totally disappears underlining the effectiveness of the FRP for the confinement
After the 2.4% the first consequences start to appear: the four external bolts of each of
the additional anchoring systems lose part of their tension, needing to be tightened. This
shows clearly that also in this case, as well as for the pier suffering for the lap-splice, the
anchoring system proposed by the FRP supplier is not sufficient to meet our strength
requirements, being unable to sustain the level of force acting on the fibres. Furthermore, it
has to be underlined that a system like the additional anchorage we have used it is not a
simple thing to realize in real scale.
Going beyond this drift level, toward the target of 3.6%, the pier experiences concrete
crushing more or less at the same displacement of the previous unretrofitted test. Despite
of this, the confining action of the FRP wrapping allows the pier to continue the cycles

74
without meaningful loss of strength, and only after the last of the three cycles at this drift
level the concrete crushes on the opposite side of the pier.
Although the concrete is crushed and the longitudinal steel is yielded and buckled at
the pier base, the FRP retrofitting intervention is so efficient to allow the specimen to reach
and complete the 4.8% drift. Obviously, the base of the pier is not undamaged but no loss
of strength can be found, also when the concrete cover is completely expelled. Even the
vertical bearing capacity is not compromised, and the axial load can be kept quite constant
by the hydraulic jack placed on the pier top, proving the fact that the pier is not seriously
damaged.
Only pushing the pier toward the 6.0% drift the failure is reached showing a softening
branch. After just half of the first cycle at this drift level the test is stopped in order to
preserve the instrumentation placed on the pier, but primarily because the specimen can
effectively considered as failed. At this point, not only the concrete, but also the FRP
reached its failure at the pier base: looking at the pictures relative to the test end it is
possible to see the FRP rupture experienced by the specimen.
At the end of the test the pier shows heavy damages only on the west and east sides,
the ones perpendicular to the direction of the displacement: here the concrete cover is no
longer existing, being completely crushed and expelled. On the contrary, on the other two
pier faces, as it is possible to note from the last two photos reported below and
representing the south pier face, more light damages can be found: only cracks pass
through the zone between the two horizontal FRP wrapping, being underlined by the
presence of primer and matrix that here have no structural function.
The displacement ductility increases to about 6, if computed at the point of failure, this
can be considered a very good result. For completeness we have also to note that a slight
increase in the maximum strength can be pointed out, about 15% increment with respect
to the maximum force relative to the unretrofitted specimen.
From the previous hysteresis loops the dissipated energy has been derived: the
resulting values are reported in the next graphics and tables with the relative values of
damping. From there, more than from the hysteresis, it can be understood that the FRP
can be effective in retrofit, conferring high ductility and energy dissipation capacity to the
pier. In particular, it is interesting to note that the FRP retrofitted specimen has very stable
hysteretic loops up to 4.8% drift level, maintaining quite constant values of energy and
damping drift after drift.

75
Fig. IV.21 - Longitudinal bar and FRP buckling at
4.8% drift and instrument for the measure of
Fig. IV.20 - Tightening of the anchor bolts after the vertical movement of the supplementary
the 3.6%drift anchoring system [west side]

Fig. IV.22 - FRP failure at the base of the pier at the end of the test [east and west faces]

Fig. IV.23 - Test end [side view of the east and front view of the south face]

76
As for the previous specimens, the trend of the values of damping and dissipated
energy is the same, showing values increasing with the drift level and decreasing cycle
after cycle within the same drift. The only point that does not respect this trend is the last
relative to the unretrofitted pier, but this is probably due to the high damage level that
perturbs that situation.

T250 - Dissipated Energy and Damping

25 25

20 20
Dissipated Energy [kJ]

Damping [%]
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 3 6 9 12

Progressive number of cycle

Dissipated Energy Damping

T250 FRP - Dissipated Energy and Damping

25 25
Dissipated Energy [kJ]

20 20
Damping [%]

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15

Progressive number of cycle

Dissipated Energy Damping

Fig. IV.24 - Dissipated Energy and Damping relative to T250 and T250 FRP

77
T250

Drift Cycle Dissipated Energy Elastic Energy Damping Average Damping


[%] n° [kJ] [kJ] [%] [%]
1 0.30 0.23 10.2
0.4 2 0.15 0.23 5.3 6.6
3 0.13 0.22 4.5
1 1.65 1.33 9.9
1.2 2 0.97 1.33 5.8 6.8
3 0.76 1.29 4.7
1 6.43 3.34 15.3
2.4 2 4.54 3.12 11.6 12.7
3 4.00 2.81 11.3
1 10.99 3.96 22.1
3.6 2 5.68 3.15 14.4 18.7
3 4.50 1.82 19.7
Total 40.09 11.2

Tab. IV.7 - Dissipated energy and damping relative to the specimen T250

T250 FRP

Drift Cycle Dissipated Energy Elastic Energy Damping Average Damping


[%] n° [kJ] [kJ] [%] [%]
1 0.26 0.27 7.7
0.4 2 0.14 0.26 4.1 5.1
3 0.11 0.25 3.5
1 1.84 1.55 9.5
1.2 2 0.99 1.37 5.8 6.8
3 0.83 1.26 5.2
1 7.20 3.29 17.4
2.4 2 5.43 3.09 14.0 14.6
3 5.01 3.21 12.4
1 14.06 5.55 20.2
3.6 2 12.03 5.05 19.0 19.2
3 11.62 4.97 18.6
1 19.60 7.54 20.7
4.8 2 16.45 7.04 18.6 19.2
3 15.97 6.90 18.4
Total 111.57 13.0

Tab. IV.8 - Dissipated energy and damping relative to the specimen T250 FRP

78
4.6 Pier with flexural lacks under high axial load
[T500 vs. T500 FRP]

Next, hysteretic loops relative both to T500 and T500 FRP are reported, with a brief
description of the behaviour of the piers during the tests.
On the unretrofitted pier, during the first cycle at 0.4% drift, once the cracking force is
reached, horizontal cracks start to form at the pier base involving a little decrease of the
stiffness: the cracking path is then stable during the second and third cycles. The variation
of the slope on the force-displacement diagram is the main effect of these cracks that
totally disappear once the pier is unloaded.
Pushing the pier to 1.2% drift, the zone with horizontal cracks extends from the base to
the lower 800 mm. Furthermore, once the lateral force exceed the threshold of 150 kN,
shear cracks start to form on the north and south sides of the pier with a slope slightly less
than 30°. Although the longitudinal bars are not yet yielded the stiffness decrease: this is
certainly due to the shear damages affecting the pier.
Increasing the drift to 2.4%, the crack paths, both flexural and shear, evolve: the
existing cracks become larger and new ones form involving heavy damages and partial
detachment of the concrete cover at the pier base. Reaching this target displacement the
longitudinal bars yield and the pinching effect becomes well evident on the hysteretic
loops. The second and third cycles are stable and only a slight decrease of the maximum
strength can be observed.
Despite of the stable behaviour that the pier has shown up to this point, pushing the
specimen toward the 3.6% drift, prior to the exceeding of the maximum displacement of
the previous drift, a sudden decrease in strength affects the pier due to the concrete
crushing at the base on the east side; after that, a softening branch leads to the target
displacement. Reversing the displacement direction, the pier is unable to reach the same
level of force of the previous drift, and, almost at the maximum displacement, the
hysteretic loop shows another little jump downward when the specimen experiences the
concrete crushing at the base on the west side. Trying to push the pier again, it can not
sustain any load being completely failed. Next photos show the pier specimen at the end
of the test.

79
T500 - Hysteresis Loops

300

250

200

150

100
FEM Prevision
Force [kN]

50
drift 0.4%
0 drift 1.2%
drift 2.4%
-50
drift 3.6%
-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement [mm]

T500 FRP - Hysteresis Loops

350
300
250
200
150
100
FEM Prevision
Force [kN]

50
drift 0.4%
0 drift 1.2%
-50 drift 2.4%
drift 3.6%
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement [mm]

Comparison T500 - T500 FRP

350
300
250
200
150
100
Force [kN]

50
FEM Prevision
0 T 500 FRP
-50 T 500

-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement [mm]

Fig. IV.25 - Hysteresis loops of the specimens T500 and T500 FRP and their comparison

80
Fig. IV.26 - Flexural cracks at the end of the test (east and west sides)

Fig. IV.27 - Shear cracks at the end of the test (north and south sides)

81
The retrofitting intervention modifies essentially the specimen behaviour, resulting in
very stable cycles up to 3.6% drift, the one at which the test has been stopped.
During the 0.4% and 1.2% drift no damages can be detected on the pier, only some
creaking can be listened: proof of the fact that the FRP start to work. Obviously, during the
first drift the concrete cracks, as well as the longitudinal reinforcing bars yield during the
second drift: of both of this two events it kept trace on to the hysteretic loops. It is
interesting to note that the stiffness change, affecting the unretrofitted specimen during the
1.2% drift due to the formation of shear cracks, is here completely lost underlining the FRP
effectiveness for the concrete confinement.
At 2.4% drift, no serious damages can be detected on the pier. Just some cracks can
be seen when the pier is at the maximum displacement on the west and east faces, those
perpendicular to the direction of the applied displacement, see also the photos: these very
little cracks are not meaningful involving just the resin applied to the pier between the fibre
strips, resin without structural function, and the superficial concrete.
Despite of the good situation of the pier, the external bolts of the additional anchoring
system suffer a little loss of tension, resulting in about 1 mm upward displacement of the
steel collar ends. Once more, it can be understood that the anchoring system proposed by
the FRP supplier does not match our force requirements, being insufficient to transfer the
tensile stresses of the fibres to the pier foundation. It has to be noted that before to start
the new displacement sequence the anchoring bolts have been tightened in order to
guaranty a good bonding at the base section, see the photo reported afterwards.
During the first cycle at 3.6% drift the concrete cover crushes at the pier base resulting
in a little strength decrease of the pier. Despite of this, the confinement given to pier by the
FRP wrapping is enough to guaranty the surviving of the pier, in particular it can be noted
that the following two cycles are very stable.

82
Fig. IV.28 - Pier at the beginning of the test Fig. IV.29 - Supplementary anchoring system

Fig. IV.30 - Cracks opening at 2.4% drift maximum Fig. IV.31 - Tightening of the anchor bolts after
displacement the cycles at 2.4% drift

83
Fig. IV.32 - Pier base after the 3.6% drift cycles [east and west sides]

Fig. IV.33 - Pier base after the removing of the instrumentation

and crushed concrete cover [east and west sides]

As for all the tests on retrofitted specimen the fundamental improvements are two: first
a slight increase in strength has been got, approximately 50 kN, or about 20% of the
strength of the unretrofitted pier, last and most important FRP effect is the increase in
ductility: though the test has been interrupted before the pier has reached the failure, the
obtained displacement ductility is about 4, and it is licit to wait for larger ductility thinking to
the fact that at this drift the pier is more or less undamaged.
Further, it can be noted that the hysteretic loops relative to the last drift level show
evident pinching underlining that the longitudinal steel is yielded. It is very important that

84
the FRP improvements have as consequence a deep penetration of the plastic domain for
the pier, in general, and for the longitudinal steel, in particular: this is the most important
mechanism leading to energy dissipation. From next graphics and tables it is possible to
note how the FRP action takes to high damping value, constant cycle after cycle, reaching
more than 16% as average value for the last drift. Very high damping and dissipated
energy characterize also the last cycle of the unretrofitted pier, but this is simply due to the
very heavy damages experienced by the pier during that cycle: because of the final
damage level that damping is useless.

T500 - Dissipated Energy and Damping

25 40

35
20
Dissipated Energy [kJ]

30

Damping [%]
15 25

20
10 15

10
5
5

0 0
0 3 6 9 12

Progressive number of cycle


Dissipated Energy Damping

T500 FRP - Dissipated Energy and Damping

25 40

35
20
Dissipated Energy [kJ]

30
Damping [%]

15 25

20
10 15

10
5
5

0 0
0 3 6 9 12

Progressive number of cycle


Dissipated Energy Damping

Fig. IV.34 - Dissipated Energy and Damping relative to T500 and T500 FRP

85
T500

Drift Cycle Dissipated Energy Elastic Energy Damping Average Damping


[%] n° [kJ] [kJ] [%] [%]
1 0.29 0.35 6.5
0.4 2 0.14 0.35 3.3 4.1
3 0.11 0.35 2.5
1 1.94 1.52 10.1
1.2 2 1.27 1.51 6.7 7.5
3 1.07 1.50 5.7
1 7.09 3.54 15.9
2.4 2 5.34 3.39 12.5 13.4
3 4.75 3.24 11.7
1 13.55 3.08 35.0
3.6 2 -- -- -- 35.0
3 -- -- --
Total 35.56 11.0

Tab. IV.9 - Dissipated energy and damping relative to the specimen T500

T500 FRP

Drift Cycle Dissipated Energy Elastic Energy Damping Average Damping


[%] n° [kJ] [kJ] [%] [%]
1 0.29 0.31 7.3
0.4 2 0.15 0.32 3.8 4.7
3 0.13 0.32 3.2
1 1.86 1.71 8.7
1.2 2 1.03 1.69 4.8 5.9
3 0.85 1.66 4.1
1 7.54 4.20 14.3
2.4 2 5.54 4.04 10.9 11.8
3 5.10 3.96 10.3
1 15.14 6.41 18.8
3.6 2 12.45 6.13 16.2 16.8
3 11.63 6.00 15.4
Total 61.71 9.8

Tab. IV.10 - Dissipated energy and damping relative to the specimen T500 FRP

86
5. Conclusions and next developments

Test on square hollow section bridge piers, retrofitted with the FRP hand lay-up
system have been carried out within this research campaign. Our objective was, primarily,
to evaluate the effectiveness of this type of intervention with the FRP: material widely
studied in the last 20 years, but not for strengthening of hollow section bridge piers. More
than this, it has to be underlined that most of the piers around Europe have this type of
section and, being designed between the '50s and the '70s, suffer lacks in shear,
combined flexure-shear and insufficient lap splice. For these three types of problem we
have attempted a solution for the retrofit using dry FRP strips: different types of fibres have
been used, choosing, each time, the one with the better characteristics for the specific
case. High elastic modulus carbon, alkali resistant glass and aramid have been employed,
testing in this way some of the most common raw materials used in the manufacturing of
structural FRP.
All the tests underline that the FRP can be very efficient within a retrofit intervention.
Independently from the type of lacks affecting the pier calling for retrofit, an appropriate
design of the intervention can pursue both the two following basic objectives:
− to restore the capacity design criterion, if not accomplished by the original
structure;
− to increase the performances of the retrofitted element, both in terms of
strength and ductility.
Despite of the brittle nature of the fibre materials the most important improvement
regards the ductility enhancement, essentially conferred to the pier through the additional
confinement due to the FRP wrapping. Essential advantage of this achievable ductility is
the deep penetration in the plastic domain of the retrofitted element, particularly referring
to its longitudinal steel. The yielding of the element makes possible to dissipated a great
quantity of the energy given by the earthquake to the structure, being in this way possible
to reduce the risk of collapse. The energy dissipation is a very important result when, as in
this case, it is achieved through mechanisms that do not seriously affect the element: for
instance, in our case a fundamental requirement was that the bearing capacity of the pier
was not too much affected.

87
As expected, the greatest limit for the FRP resides in the difficult realization of the
bonding. This kind of problem does not affect the horizontal wrapping, that having almost
constant thickness has no peaks of stress; on the contrary, the strips applied longitudinally
to the element show bonding problems at their end in correspondence to the pier base
where they have to be fixed to the foundation. This limit appears clearly in the pier
retrofitted for insufficient lap splice, where the anchorage system advised by the FRP
supplier failed because of the high stress level after the completion of the second drift
level, making the retrofit intervention completely useless.
For the sequent tests involving longitudinal reinforcement an additional anchoring
system has been designed and applied to the pier. The problem of this further intervention
would be the realization in real scale of an equivalent system; furthermore if something
similar was realized, one of the major advantages of the FRP would be lost, because this
new anchoring system would involve the handling of heavy steel parts, source of
disruption and problems in placing.
As direct consequence of this, the first desirable next development regards the design
of an alternative solution for the insufficient lap splice.
A theoretically possible solution is the adoption of a sufficient number of FRP layers
wrapped around the pier with an initial tension, i.e. pre-tensioned FRP. This type of
intervention should be enough to restore the stress path between the interrupted bars
thanks to the active confining action of the fibres. Unfortunately this type of intervention
leaves some doubts, at least about the evolution in time of the FRP performances: an
excessive relaxation of the wrapping involves loss of confinement of the section and so
that the insufficient lap splice becomes again a problem for the pier. More than this, it has
to be noted that to use prestressed FRP involves higher costs and skilled workers; the
advantages due to simplicity and quickness of the FRP application would be lost also with
this solution.
Another possibility of intervention for the insufficient lap splice should be the use of the
so call near surface mounted FRP bars. Using bars instead of strips for the longitudinal
FRP reinforcement the steel bars can be in any case unloaded, and, with an adequate
anchorage length of the FRP bars deep in the foundation, the stress transfer can be
achieved. The problem of this type of intervention is from the technological point of view:
the realization of the holes in the foundation in complanate position with the concrete cover
of the pier, so that the near surface mounted FRP bars can be placed with uncurved axis,

88
can not be realized with a standard drill; more than this, it is very difficult to place the FRP
bars in the foundation without breaking or damaging the reinforcing steel bar.
Except for the longitudinal fibres at the base of the retrofitted pier, the debonding has
never took place, despite of the heavy damages experienced by the pier in the plastic
hinge region. This means that, at least for this type of intervention, the horizontal wrapping
is plentifully efficient in avoiding this dangerous collapse mechanism.
Another source of rupture in the FRP is the delamination: only in the test on the pier
with flexural lacks and low axial load this problem has been met. Note that it has took
place after the 6% drift, being for this almost acceptable.
Desirable development of the research campaign is also some large scale tests: a limit
met in our tests is the impossibility of realize a calibrated intervention. The increase in
strength due to the application of a single FRP layer is too high with respect to the original
pier capacity, so that becomes impossible to test the accuracy of the formulations used for
the design. Large scale involves also larger cracks, that could cause peeling-off so that the
risk of debonding increases and the formulations oriented to the debonding force
evaluation could be tested.

89
6. Bibliography

[1] Calvi G.M., Pavese A., Rasulo A., “Experimental and numerical studies on the
seismic response of R.C. hollow bridge piers”, not yet published

[2] Calvi, G.M., Pavese, A., "Experimental and numerical studies on the response of
reinforced concrete hollow bridge piers", Chapter 3, CAFEEL-ECOEST2/ICONS Report 2,
Seismic Assessment, Strengthening and Repair of Structures, Laboratorio Nacional de
Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, Dec. 2001

[3] Priestley M.J.N., F. Seible, G.M. Calvi, “Seismic design and retrofit of bridges”,
John Wiley & Sons, 1996

[4] Wang Y.C., J.I. Restrepo, “Investigation on concentrically loaded reinforced


concrete columns confined with glass fiber-reinforced polymer jackets”, ACI Structural
Journal, May-June 2001

[5] Mirmiran A., M. Shahawy, “Behavior of concrete columns confined by fiber


composites”, Journal of Structural Engineering, May 1997

[6] fib, “Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures”, Technical report on
the design and use of externally bonded fibre reinforced polymer reinforcement (FRP
EBR) for reinforced concrete structures, July 2001

90

You might also like