Alkhrdaji, T and A.

Nanni, "Flexural Strengthening of Bridge Piers Using

FRP Composites," ASCE Structures Congress 2000, Philadelphia, PA,
M.Elgaaly, Ed., May 8-10, CD version, #40492-046-008, 8 pp.
1
FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING OF BRIDGE PIERS USING FRP COMPOSITES
Tarek Alkhrdaji, Graduate Research Assistant/Ph.D. Candidate
Antonio Nanni, Ph.D., P.E., V&M Jones Professor of Civil Engineering, FASCE
Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies (CIES)
University of Missouri-Rolla
Abstract:
The effectiveness of FRP jackets for increasing the shear capacity and the
flexural ductility of reinforced concrete (RC) columns was demonstrated in many
studies. However, for smaller axial loads, the contribution of FRP jackets to flexural
strength is minimal. Using FRP sheets in the direction of a column with end
anchorage to improve its flexural capacity at the base is not easily achieved. This
paper reports on a research project aimed at upgrading the flexural capacity of RC
piers using near-surface mounted (NSM) FRP rods. Flexural strengthening and
testing to failure of the piers were carried out on a bridge that was scheduled for
demolition during the Spring of 1999. Three of the four piers of the bridge were
strengthened with different configurations using FRP rods and jackets. The flexural
strengthening was achieved using NSM carbon FRP rods that were anchored into the
footings. The piers were tested under static push/pull load cycles. An analytical
model was developed to determine the net forces acting on a bridge pier at a given
load level based on the measured response. Strengthening techniques, test results,
modes of failure, and sample analytical results of tested bridge piers are described
and the effectiveness of this technology is demonstrated.
Keywords:
Bridge piers, Carbon fibers, Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP), Flexural strengthening,
Near-surface mounted (NSM) reinforcement, Structural modeling.
2
INTRODUCTION
Many reinforced concrete (RC) bridge piers, constructed in the first half of
this century, were designed as gravity piers with minimal flexural capacity. The
potential risk of failure of these piers under a moderate earthquake is becoming a
growing concern to states DOTs
RC piers can be seismically deficient in shear and flexural strength, and
flexural ductility. Due to lack of seismic detailing requirement, it is common to find
minimal amount of transverse reinforcement in gravity piers constructed prior to
1970. However, they can be adequate to resist the earthquake induced shear forces
due to their large cross sections. Inadequate flexural strength, on the other hand, may
arise from the low seismic lateral forces that were typically considered in earlier
designs. Inadequate flexural strength may also arises from the premature termination
of the main reinforcement or its inadequate splicing. One method for retrofitting
piers with flexural strength deficiency consists of the addition of a RC jacket. This
method is also effective in improving the shear strength and the ductility of a pier.
However, it may not be very practical due to undesirable section enlargement or
construction constraint.
Previous work on strengthening of columns with FRP composites has
demonstrated the effectiveness of jacketing with FRP in the hoop direction in
improving the shear capacity and the flexural ductility of RC rectangular columns
(Seible et al, 1995). Since some gravity piers are designed to carry axial loads that
are only a small fraction of their axial load capacity, the influence of jacketing on
enhancing the flexural capacity is minimal. This is because jacketing can only
improve the flexural capacity through concrete confinement if failure was governed
by concrete crushing (compression-controlled failure). Strengthening of columns for
flexure using FRP sheets with the fibers aligned in the column direction is not
practical due to anchorage requirement at the base of column. New techniques for
the flexural retrofit of RC piers, especially gravity piers, are therefore required.
In an attempt to improve the flexural capacity of columns jacketed with FRP
sheets, researchers have used steel plates with bolt connections accompanied by
section enlargement at the base of the column (Hakamada, 1997). This method
resulted in a slight improvement of the flexural capacity. However, such mechanical
anchors, although effective in the laboratory, are not very practical for field
application due to drawbacks such as stress concentration, which can cause the
premature rupture of FRP. In addition, where carbon FRP is used, the likelihood of
galvanic corrosion due to steel-carbon fiber contact is an additional concern.
Strengthening of RC members with near-surface mounted (referred to as
NSM) FRP rods is another technique that consists of embedding FRP rods in grooves
made on the surface of the concrete and bonded in place with epoxy. This technique
was successfully used to upgrade Pier 12 at the Naval Station in San Diego, CA to
meet demand of operational changes accompanied by higher vertical loads (Naval
Facilities, 1998). The use of NSM rods is more practical than externally bonded FRP
laminates when the end anchorage of the FRP reinforcement is an essential design
requirement or when the installation of laminates involves extensive surface
preparation work.
3
A research program at the University of Missouri-Rolla was tailored to
investigate the applicability and effectiveness of NSM rods in improving the flexural
capacity of RC piers. Bridge J857, located in Phelps County-Missouri, was
scheduled for demolition during the Spring of 1999. The bridge was, therefore,
considered for the strengthening and testing to failure of its RC piers. A structural
model was developed to reflect the observed behavior of the bridge piers. The model
was analyzed using the matrix displacement method of structural analysis to
determine the internal forces (moments) and external force acting on the pier at any
applied load level by using the measured deformations as an input.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE PIERS
Bridge J857, was build during the early 1930s and represented typical
conditions of existing bridges in mid-America. It consisted of three simply supported
solid RC decks with an original roadway width of 7.6 m (25 ft). Each simply
supported deck spanned 7.9 m (26 ft). The bridge bents (see Figure 1) consisted of
two piers connected at the top by a RC cap beam. The piers had a 0.6 0.6 m (2 2
ft) square cross-section and were reinforced with four 19 mm (#6) deformed steel
rods. The transverse reinforcement consisted of 6 mm (#2) steel ties spaced at 457
mm (18 in). Each pier was supported by 1.2 1.2 0.75 m (4 4 2.5 ft) square
footing. The actual length of the piers varied from 1.8 to 3.4 m (6 to 11 ft). No
corrosion of reinforcement or concrete spalling was observed on the bridge piers.
STRENGTHENING SCHEMES
Seismic performance category (SPC) B was selected for the analysis of the
bridge piers since it is relevant to Missouri (AASHTO, 1996). Under SPC B
condition, the seismically induced lateral load at the top of the piers was determined
to be 160 KN (36 kips). The computed shear capacity of the piers was 338 KN (76
kips). For flexure, the capacity for lateral load applied at the top of the piers in the
longitudinal direction varied from 98 KN (22 kips) to 53 KN (12 kips) for the shortest
and tallest piers, respectively. The piers were therefore adequate in shear and
deficient in flexure. Three piers were strengthened and the fourth pier was used as a
benchmark.
Two piers were strengthened for flexure using near-surface mounted carbon
FRP rods. One pier was strengthened with 14 NSM rods, mounted on two opposite
faces, seven on each face. A second pier was strengthened with six NSM rods, three
on each face. The NSM rods considered for this application were 11 mm (7/16 inch)
diameter smooth carbon rods with surface roughened by sandblasting. The rods were
fully anchored (minimum 380 mm (15 in.)) into the footing of each pier. Finally, the
two piers were wrapped with 4-ply of carbon FRP jacket. The third pier was
externally jacketed with six plies of glass FRP sheets. As will be discussed later, the
test setup was designed such that the lateral movement of the piers was allowed at the
top while restrained at the base. Therefore, it was expected that the maximum
moment would occur at the base of the pier. Consequently, the NSM rods were only
anchored to the footing. In addition, anchoring the NSM rods to the top flare can not
4
be easily achieved due to its shape (see Figure 1). The mechanical properties of the
FRP sheets and rods are given in Table 1. Figure 2 summarizes the strengthening
schemes of the bridge piers.
Table 1: Mechanical properties of FRP reinforcement
FRP Type
Dimension

mm
[in]
Design
Strength
MPa [ksi]
Design Strain
mm/mm
or in/in
Tensile
Modulus GPa
[ksi]
Glass
sheets*
0.353
[0.0139]
1520
[220]
0.0210
72
[10,500]
Carbon
sheets*
0.165
[0.0065]
3800
[550]
0.0170
228
[33,000]
Carbon
rods**
11
[
7
/
16
]
1240
[180]
0.0105
119
[17,200]

Sheet thickness or bar diameter * Fiber properties ** Rod properties

STRENGTHENING PROCEDURE
The NSM FRP rods were embedded in grooves that were 19 mm ( in.)
deep, and 14 mm

(
9
/
16
in.) wide cut along the length of the piers. The grooves were
made using conventional hand-held tools. The grooves were cleaned using sand
blasting to remove all loose particles and dust. Surface preparation is important since
the tensile stresses are transmitted from the concrete to the FRP rod through the
binding paste by means of tangential stresses. To anchor the rods, 400 mm (16-in)
deep holes were drilled into the footings. The holes were aligned with the grooves on
the pier sides. The grooves and the drilled holes were then filled halfway with a
viscous epoxy grout and the carbon FRP rods were installed. Another layer of epoxy
grout was then applied and the surface was leveled.
All FRP jackets were installed by the wet lay-up process. The carbon and
glass FRP sheets covered the entire height of the piers with the fiber direction
perpendicular to the pier axis. The corners of the rectangular piers were rounded to 13
mm (0.5 in.) radius to prevent stress concentrations in the FRP sheets.
TEST SETUP
The loading system was designed such than it could apply a maximum load
much larger than theoretically predicted. This was done to account for the possibility
of higher actual material strengths than initially presumed as well as for the
strengthening effect. The desired level of loading could only be applied by means of
hydraulic jacks. The test setup was designed such that it could induce reversing
loading cycles in which the piers were allowed to displace laterally at the top. To
achieve this, a 250-mm (10-inch) strip of the deck was saw cut and removed. The
central portion of the cap beams were also saw cut and removed and a hydraulic jack
was inserted in the gap. A schematic of the test setup is shown in Figure 3. The
function of the internal jack was to apply the outward push force to the piers cap
5
beam. Saw cutting the bridge deck and the cap beam allowed for the relative
movement of the cap beams and the topping deck. To pull the piers together, a
reaction frame was constructed such that it confined the cap beams. A set of two
hydraulic jacks was then attached to the reaction frame. The internal and external
jacks were used alternately to create a static lateral loading cycles.
INSTRUMENTATION
The bridge piers were instrumented with electric strain gages installed on the
mounted rods as well as on existing steel reinforcement. Strain gages were also
installed on the FRP sheets. An 890 KN (200 kips) capacity load cell was used to
measure the applied force. The lateral displacement of the each pier was measured at
mid-height and at the top of the pier using linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDTs). The LVDTs were mounted on steel towers that were fixed to the footing
using conventional drop anchors. The rotation of the cap beam, the pier, and the
footing was measured by means of inclinometers at three locations (see Figure 4).
TESTING PROCEDURE
Once the setup was erected, instrumentation was connected to the data
acquisition system and zero reading were taken. For safety reasons, the first loading
cycle was always a pull-in load condition. When the desired lateral force was
achieved, the system was unloaded and the hydraulic hoses were disconnected from
the external jacks and connected to the internal jack. A push-out force was then
applied. These two loading cycles were repeated until the weaker pier failed. To test
the second pier of the same bent, a diagonal bracing was installed against the failed
pier, as shown in Figure 4. Prior to the testing of the piers of the second bent, the
deck slabs resting on the bent were jacked up using hydraulic jacks lubricated steel
plates were inserted between the cap beam and the deck slabs. This action was
intended to eliminate some of the frictional forces at the top of the piers.
TEST RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
The failure loads of the bridge piers exceeded in magnitude the predicted
loads. In addition, all the piers underwent a double curvature type of behavior. The
rotation restraint of the superstructure on the cap beam was larger than expected even
for the bent with reduced friction. For the piers with reduced friction, larger rotations
were measured on the cap beam. In these piers, as the cap beam rotated it pushed the
topping decks upward. As a result, the point of application of the vertical force due
to the deck weight shifted to the edge of the cap beam. This behavior resulted in an
additional moment that acted at the top of the pier.
For the unstrengthened pier, the applied lateral load at failure was 351 KN (79
kips) and the measured maximum lateral displacement at the top of the pier was
around 15.5 mm (0.61 in.). Figure 5(a) illustrates the measured rotations at the last
loading cycle (push-out) of the unstrengthend pier. The continuous rotation under
constant force was related to the yielding of the reinforcement as well as soil failure,
which is represented by the continuous rotation of the footing at failure. One major
6
crack was observed on the pier, which occurred at the upper third of the pier height,
close to the termination point of the flare reinforcement, as shown in Figure 5(b). For
the pier strengthened with 7 CFRP bars on opposite sides and CFRP jacketing, the
failure was initiated by a crack occurred at the pier-flare intersection where the
mounted rods were terminated. After the crack occurred, the pier went through a
continuous rotation with no increase in load carrying capacity. The applied lateral
load at failure was 360 KN (81 kips) and the measured lateral displacement at the top
of the pier varied from 1.5 mm (0.058 in.) just before cracking to 2.9 mm (0.116 in)
at loading termination. Figure 6 illustrate the measured rotation at the last loading
cycle (push-out) of this pier. This figure indicates that at maximum load, the whole
pier experience a rigid body rotation for a while, then a crack occurred at the top of
the pier causing the cap beam rotation to reduce significantly due to the yielding of
the reinforcement and the formation of a plastic hinge. After the formation of the
plastic hinge and the redistribution of moments, the pier and the footing continued to
rotate at a faster rate indicating soil failure.
For the pier strengthened with three CFRP bars on two opposite sides and
CFRP jacketing, cracks occurred at the top and the base of the pier, as shown in
Figure 7. The footing of this pier was originally cast in a bedrock therefore no
rotation was measured at this footing, as shown in Figure 8. The figure illustrates the
measured rotations at the last loading cycle (push-out) of this pier. As a result of the
large rotational stiffness of the footing, larger moment were developed at the base of
the pier. Failure was initiated by the rupture of the FRP rods at the base of the pier at
a load level of 382 KN (86 kips) with a maximum lateral displacement measured at
the top of 21.8 mm (0.86 in.). This indicates that the full capacity of the NSM rods
can be achieved, giving that the rods are adequately anchored. As for the pier with
GFRP jacket only, the pier started to rotate as a rigid body at 222 KN (50 kips). The
test was terminated when the lateral displacement exceeded 38.1 mm (1.5 in.). The
failure mode of this pier was, therefore, a soil failure. It should be mentioned that the
above given displacements at maximum loads are the absolute displacement without
accounting to the rotation of the footing. The variation in failure modes and lateral
load capacity may be related to the influence of superstructure/substructure
interaction, variation in the boundary conditions of each pier (e.g., footing rotation
stiffness and friction forces), and the skew effect of the bridge bents.
ANALYTICAL MODELING
The basic objective of modeling is to provide the simplest mathematical
formulation of the true behavior of the pier, which satisfies a particular set of known
values (in this case, the measured response) for quantitative determination of the
internal forces. The developed structural model simulating the observed behavior of
a bridge pier is shown in Figure 9(a). The pier is simulated by a column, which is
free to displace laterally at the top and is restrained laterally at the bottom. The
flexibility of the footing is represented by a rotational spring with unknown constant
k1 at the base of the column, which models the effect of footing rotation due to soil
deformation. Another spring with unknown stiffness k3 is used at the top of the
column to model the effect of cap beam rotation due to the applied loading. The
7
frictional force between the deck and the cap beam is represented by a linear spring
connected to the top joint. The spring constants, k5, may vary at each load level due
to softening of the boundary conditions under repeated loading cycles. The model is
analyzed using the matrix displacement method. The overall structural stiffness
matrix, internal forces, and external loading due to a given structural response can,
therefore, be determined by simple matrix operations. For simplicity, the unknown
internal forces are determined at the locations of the nodes were displacements and
rotations were measured experimentally. Accordingly, each pier is represented by a
two-element, three-node column, as shown in Figure 9(b). The unknown rotations of
the joints are denoted as X1, X2, and X3 and the unknown displacements of the joints
are denoted as X4 and X5. The nodal displacements are used as the degrees of
freedom (DOFs) of the column. Thus, the column has five degrees of freedom. This
model is only applicable prior to pier cracking, after which a non-linear analysis is
required. For the current investigation, the capacities of the piers were slightly larger
than the cracking capacity and for some cases failure was governed by the rigid body
rotation of the pier, therefore the elastic analysis approach was valid at higher load
levels.
An example of the analytical results is given in Figure 10 for the pier
strengthened with 7 NSM-rods on two opposite sides. Figure 10(a) shows the
measured deformations at the three nodes of the model due to a lateral load of 178
KN (40 kips). The effect of footing rotation was included in determining the lateral
displacements (X4 and X5) of the joints. Figure 10(b) shows the calculated external
loads and reaction of the column while Figure 10(c) shows a plot of the moment
diagram along the length of the column. The results indicated that the frictional force
is in the order of 57.6 KN (13 kips). However, this value was found to be reduced at
higher load levels. The maximum moment occurred at the top of the pier due to the
larger rotational stiffness exerted by the superstructure on the cap beam than the
rotational stiffness of the soil. The analytical behavior correlates well with the
experimental results where the first crack on this pier occurred at the pier-flare
intersection, the location of the maximum moment. Due to limited space, a
comprehensive documentation of the structural modeling, structural analysis and
analytical results will be reported in a future publication.
CONCLUSION
The objective of this research program was to demonstrate the use near-
surface mounted FRP rods to improve the flexural capacity of rectangular RC piers.
Prior, to demolition, full-scale bridge piers were strengthened with FRP rods and
sheets and tested to failure. Test results indicate that this strengthening technique is
effective in increasing the flexural capacity of the piers. Test results also indicate that
the capacity and failure modes of the bridge piers are closely related to the
superstructure/substructure interaction and the pier boundary conditions. Flexural
strengthening of piers may cause the structural deficiency problem to shift another
location within the structure. Therefore, flexural strengthening may require the
retrofitting of beam-pier joints and foundations to account for the upgraded flexural
capacity of the pier. In general, the determination of the elastic structural response
8
under any load value is quite achievable with a reliable model in terms of well-
defined boundary conditions and reasonably accurate material properties and
stiffness.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by the Missouri
Department of Transportation (MoDOT), Mid-America Transportation Center
(MATC), and the University of Missouri-Rolla/University Transportation Center
(UMR-UTC). Master Builders Technologies, Cleveland, OH, and Structural
Preservation Systems, Baltimore, MD, provided and installed the FRP systems,
respectively.
REFERENCES
Standard specifications for Highway Bridges. (1996). American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.
Hakamada, F. (1997), Experimental Study on Retrofit of RC Columns Using CFRP
Sheets. Proc., Third Int. Sym. on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3), Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, Japan, 1,
419-426.
Macrae, G. A., Nosho, K., Stanton, J., and Myojo, T. (1997), Carbon Fiber Retrofit
of Rectangular RC Gravity Columns in Seismic Regions. Proc., Third Int. Sym.
on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3),
Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, Japan, 1, 371-386.
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. (1998), Navy Advanced Composite
technology in Waterfront Infrastructure. Special Publication Sp-2046-SHR.
Seible, F., Hegemier, G., Priestly, M. J. N., and Innamorato, D. (1995), Rectangular
Carbon Fiber Jacket Retrofit Test of a Shear Column with 2.5% Reinforcement.
Report No. ACTT-95/05, University of California, San Diego.
9
Figure 1. The Two Bents of the Bridge
Figure 2. Strengthening Schemes of the Piers
Bent 2, pier 1
(6 CFRP rods, 4 CFRP hoop plies)
Bent 2, pier 2
(5 GFRP hoop plies)
Bent 1, pier 1
( 14 CFRP rods, 4 CFRP hoop plies)
Bent 1, pier 2
(No Strengthening)
10
26-3
2W14 90
Hydraulic
Jack
Hydraulic
Jack
Cut through
bridge deck
Dywidag
Rod
25
Saw Cut 3-6
Pier
Bent 1 Bent 2
Above bridge deck Below bridge deck
Figure 3. Schematic of the Test Setup (1 in. = 25 mm)
Figure 4. Diagonal Bracing of the Failed Pier.
6 steel pipe
5 x 5
54
o
P
LVDT
Inclinometer
F
steel pipe
RC footing
Failed
11

Figure 5. Behavior of the Unstrengthened Pier (1 KN = 0.225 kip)
Figure 6. Behavior of the Pier with 14 NSM rods (1 KN = 0.225 kip)
(a) Measured Rotations (b) Final crack
(a) Measured Rotations (b) Final crack at flare
12

Figure 7. Cracks at Failure of the Pier with 6 NSM Rods
Figure 8. Measured Rotation of the Pier with 6 NSM rods (1 KN = 0.225 kip)
(a) Top crack at pier-flare intersection (b) Pier base crack showing FRP rupture
13
Figure 9. Analytical model of a bridge pier
Figure 10. Measured deformation and analytical results for pier with 14 NSM rods
P
k
1
k
3
k
5
L
(a) structural model
X1
X2
X4
X3
X5
2
1
x
y
z
L/2
L/2
(b) two-elements analytical model
156.9 KN-M
194.7 KN-M
120.4 KN
(b) calculated external forces (a) measured response
P = 178 KN
2.97 m
X3 = 0.022 deg.
X5=0.515 mm
X2 = 0.046 deg.
X4=0.304 mm
X1 = 0.0306 deg.
194.7 KN-M
156.9 KN-M
(c) moment diagram