Shear strengthening of RC hollow box viaduct columns

T. Isakovi, Z. Vidrih & M. Fischinger

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering

A. Bevc & U. Bohinc

Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute

ABSTRACT: A relatively large number of viaducts in Central Europe, built in 1970s, are supported with R.C. hollow box columns, which comprise non-standard structural details that are nowadays considered inappropriate for the seismic regions. The cyclic response and type of failure of these columns was studied experimentally and analytically. Combined shear-flexural failure was observed in a typical short column with low aspect ratio. The shear strength of this type of column was increased using the CFRP strips. The required amount of CFRP strips and the shear strength of jacketed column were determined using the procedure included into the Eurocode 8/3 standard. Both, analytical as well as experimental investigations of the strengthened column proved that the calculated amount of CFRP strips provided sufficient shear strength of the investigated column. Keywords: hollow box columns, viaducts, strengthening, shear strengthening, CFRP

1. INTRODUCTION A relatively large number of viaducts in Central Europe, which were constructed before the modern principles of the seismic design had been established, have non-standard structural details, which are nowadays considered inappropriate for the seismic regions. These non-standard details are mostly located in columns, which typically have hollow box cross-sections. Characteristic structural deficiencies in such columns are: 1) the transverse reinforcement which is placed on the inside of the longitudinal bars, 2) the amount of the transverse reinforcement which does not meet the requirements of the capacity design and which is gradually reduced from the base to the top of the column, 3) the lap splices which are constructed near the column foundation, in the region of potential plastic hinges, 4) plain bars that are used for the longitudinal as well as for the transverse reinforcement. These deficiencies can significantly affect the seismic safety of a bridge, reducing its strength and ductility. The available references related to the seismic response of hollow box columns are limited (e.g. Pinto et al. (2001a, 2001b); Mo et al. (2004), Calvi et al. (2005)). There are no references about the response of such columns with transverse bars placed at the inner side of the longitudinal reinforcement. Therefore the analytical and experimental research into the seismic safety and strengthening of the above-described columns was performed at the University of Ljubljana, and at the Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute. In this paper the experimental and analytical study of typical short column is briefly summarized in Chapter 2. Special attention is paid to the estimation of its shear strength. More details about this study can be found in Isakovi et al. (2008). An attempt was also made to strengthen the as-built short column. Due to the favorable shape of the cross-section with quite wide compression zone, the available displacement ductility of column (about 4) was satisfactory when compared to the seismic demand in the region of the maximum seismic intensity in Slovenia (PGAmax = 0.25g). Therefore it was decided to increase primarily its shear strength. For this purpose two possible solutions were considered: CFRP and concrete jacketing. In this paper only the CFRP strengthening is described.

The required amount of the CFRP sheets that would provide necessary shear strength of column was determined according to the standard Eurocode 8/3 (CEN 2005b). The results of analytical studies were justified with the results of the experiment, where the jacketed column was tested cyclically up to the failure. This study is presented in Chapter 3. 2. THE AS-BUILT COLUMN 2.1. Description of the experiment An experimentally tested column had an aspect ratio of 1.86. The main properties of its 1:4 scale model are presented in Fig. 2.1.

Figure 2.1. Specimen of the as built column

A specimen had hollow box cross-sections, with a cross-sectional area of 0.169 m2, and a moment of inertia of 0.0136 m4. The compressive strength of the concrete was 41.6 MPa. The yield stress of the steel was 324 MPa and 240 MPa for the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, respectively. The longitudinal reinforcement ratio at the base of the column was 1.5% of the gross cross-sectional area. At the top of the columns the amount of longitudinal reinforcement was reduced to 0.5%. At the base the transverse reinforcing bars had a diameter of 4 mm, and they were spaced at a distance of 5 cm. At the top the diameter of the transverse reinforcement was reduced to 2.5 mm, but the distance between the bars was kept the same as in the column base (5 cm). The shear reinforcement was placed inside the longitudinal reinforcing bars. The lap splices were constructed close to the column foundations (see Fig. 2.1.).

The axial load of 512 kN was applied at the top of the column, and was kept constant during the whole experiment. The level of the normalized axial forces was equal to about 7% of the compressive strength of the concrete. The model was subjected to a horizontal cyclic load. During the test, horizontal displacements were imposed cyclically at the middle of the column cap. Their absolute values were increased each time three full cycles had been completed. The column was loaded up to failure. Other basic data about the tested specimen are given in Fig. 2.1. and in Isakovi et al. (2008). 2.2. Cyclic response Although the column included several sub-standard construction details, its displacement ductility capacity was relatively large, and amounted to about 4. This ductility was provided first of all by the favourable hollow box cross-section with its large compression zone, by the low axial forces, and by the high strength of the concrete. The failure was mixed shear-flexural (see Fig. 2.2.). A buckling of the longitudinal bars did not occur prior to their yielding. The base shear force- top displacement curve, which was recorded during the experiment, is presented in Fig. 2.3. Comparison of the experimental and analytical results is presented in Section 2.3.

Figure 2.2. As built column after the experiment

600 500 400
Shear force [kN]

300 200 100 0 -100 0 -200 -300 -400 -500 Column top displacement [mm]

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

EC8/2(EC2)* EC8/3 UCSD

* shear strength of the concrete was taken into account Figure 2.3. Comparison of the shear strength, estimated according to different methods and experimentally observed shear demand

2.3. Shear strength Shear strength of the column was estimated using three analytical methods: 1) the procedure from Eurocode 8/2 (EC8/2 CEN 2005a), which is based on the procedure defined in Eurocode 2 (CEN 2004), 2) the procedure proposed in the standard Eurocode 8/3 (EC8/3 CEN 2005b) (Biskins et al., 2004), and 3) the UCSD procedure (Priestley et al. (1996)). The results are presented in Figure 2.3, where the shear capacity according to these methods is compared with the experimentally observed demand. The shear strength estimated according to the standard EC8/2 (EC2) was too small. If the shear strength of the concrete without shear reinforcement Vc was neglected when the demand exceeds this value (as is required by the standard) the estimated shear strength of the column was unrealistically low. When, however, Vc was taken into account, the shear strength of the column was comparable with the results obtained by using the other two methods, but only to those values which corresponded to larger displacement ductility demands. In the region of lower ductility demands the value of the shear strength was well below the values estimated by the other two methods. Whereas the standard EC8/2 (EC2) is suitable for the shear design of new elements, it is clearly over-conservative when used for the assessment of the shear strength of existing hollow box columns. A more suitable procedure for the estimation of the shear strength of existing columns is that proposed in the standard EC8/3. Using this procedure the shear strength of the bottom part of the investigated column was estimated quite accurately. However, the standard underestimated the shear strength of the top of the column, where the ductility demand was low, so the final conclusion about the type and the location of the failure was not accurate. Good estimates of the type and location of failures were obtained by using the UCSD method. However, the procedure was applied taking into account some modifications. The angle between the concrete compression strut and the longitudinal column axis was taken into account according to the experimental results (45o), instead of the value proposed by the authors of the method. More details about this study can be found in Isakovi et al. (2008). 3. COLUMN, STRENGTHENED BY CFRP SHEETS 3.1. Required amount of CFRP sheets The necessary amount of strips was calculated using the EC8/3 procedure. Based on the results of the experimental investigations of the as built column, the contribution of the concrete without shear reinforcement was not neglected when the available shear capacity of the column without CFRP strips was estimated and the required contribution of the CFRP strips was defined. The column was wrapped along its total length. The one layer 7.5 cm wide strips, which were placed at the distance of 10 cm (see Figure 3.1), and which were overlapped for 20 cm were used for strengthening as it is shown in Figure 3.1. Carbon fibers were oriented only in the horizontal direction, perpendicularly to the vertical axis of the column.

Figure 3.1. CFRP strips used to strengthen the column

3.2. Description of the specimen used in the experimental study The scheme of the jacketed column is presented in Figure 3.2. The scale of the specimen was kept the same as in the case of the as built column, as well as the cross-section dimensions and reinforcement details. The compressive strength of the concrete was 57 MPa. The yield stress of the steel was 324 MPa and 240 MPa for the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, respectively.

Figure 3.2. Specimen of the column jacketed by CFRP strips

The vertical load of 780 kN was applied at the top of the column. In this way the normalized axial force was kept approximately the same (8 % of the compressive strength of the concrete) as in the as built column. The testing procedure was similar as that used in the experiment of the as built column. The model was subjected to a horizontal cyclic load. During the test, horizontal displacements were imposed cyclically at the middle of the steel rod at the top of the column. Their absolute values were increased each time three full cycles had been completed (see Fig. 3.3). The column was loaded up to failure. Other basic data about the tested specimen is given in Fig. 3.2.

Figure 3.3. Load path of the cyclic test of jacketed column

3.3. Cyclic response The test specimen after the experiment is presented in Figure 3.4. The shear force top displacement relationship measured during the experiment is presented in Fig. 3.5. The first flexural cracks were observed at the bottom of the column when the force of 220 kN was reached. When the load was increased the flexural cracks were spread to the higher elevations (approximately 30 cm from the column foundation). Yielding of the first longitudinal bars was observed at the force level of 310 kN. No shear cracks were observed before the force level of 350 kN. The angle of the shear cracks was similar like in the as built column (45o). When the force level of 380 kN was reached all longitudinal bars close to the outer edges of the cross-section yielded. The flexural cracks were spread all over the height of 60 cm.

500 400 300

Shearfroce[kN]

200 100 0 20 10 100 0 200 300 400 10 20 30

30

Columntopdisplacement[mm]

500

Figure 3.4. Jacketed column after the experiment

Figure 3.5. The cyclic response of jacketed column

The maximum achieved force was 450 kN, which corresponds to the top displacement of 12 mm. In the cycles with maximum displacement of 12 mm a pull-out and fracture of few longitudinal bars was observed. The maximum achieved force was therefore reduced to 425 kN when the top displacement was further increased to 16 mm. When the top displacement of 20 mm was reached, the damage of the most bottom CFRP strip was observed at the edge of the cross-section, which was exposed to the high compression stresses. Simultaneously several longitudinal bars were buckled. Shear cracks were not changed and the CFRP strips did not exhibit any damage due to the shear. Further increase of displacement to 24 mm resulted to final fracture of the bottom strip. The force of 360 kN was reached in this cycle, which is 80% of the maximum registered force of 450 kN. Therefore, this level could be declared as the failure of the column. The failure occurred primarily due to the buckling of the longitudinal bars which was followed by their fracture. No significant shear damage of the column was observed. 3.4 Comparison of the cyclic response of the strengthened and as built column Based on the observed response, presented in Figs. 2.2 and 3.4 it can be concluded that the CFRP strips successfully protected the column against the shear failure. Contrary to the as built column, only minor shear cracks can be observed in the jacketed column. The shear capacity of the jacketed column was increased to more than 450 kN, while the shear capacity of the as built column was 390 kN. Note that relatively small (minimum) amount of CFRP strips was used to strengthen the column. It was sufficient to protect the column against the shear failure; however it was not able to improve also the available ductility of the column. The maximum displacement at the moment of failure was 24 mm and 20 mm for the jacketed and as built column, respectively. The buckling of the longitudinal bars was the main cause for the failure of the jacketed column. Relatively small amount of the strips was not sufficient to prolong the buckling to much larger displacements. Therefore, the available ductility of jacketed and as built column was similar. However, it should be emphasized that the enhancement of the column ductility was not of the interest in the investigated case.

4. CONCLUSIONS The experimental and analytical studies of the cyclic response of short reinforced concrete hollow box columns, constructed in a typical viaduct in Central Europe in the 1970s, were performed. The column comprises several construction details, which are nowadays considered inappropriate for seismic regions. After the analysis of the as built column its shear strengthening using CFRP strips was investigated analytically and experimentally. The experiment of the as built column demonstrated that it had a quite good displacement ductility capacity, which was acceptable for moderate seismic demand regions (e.g. Central Europe). This ductility was provided by the favourable hollow box cross section, with its large compression zone, by the low axial forces, and by the high strength of concrete, which resulted in the low compressive stresses. Because of these low compression stresses, buckling of the longitudinal bars did not occur prior to their yielding. The column failed in shear after yielding of the longitudinal bars. The shear strength of as built column was estimated by using standard models, which yielded quite different results. The procedures proposed in the European standards EC8/2 (EC2) and EC8/3, and UCSD were taken into account. The shear strength estimated according to the standard EC8/2 (EC2) was too low, because the shear strength of the concrete Vc was neglected when the demand exceeds this value. When, however, Vc was taken into account, the shear strength of the column was comparable with the results obtained by using the other two methods, but only to those values which corresponded to larger displacement ductility demands. In the region of lower ductility demands the value of the shear strength was well below the values estimated by the other two methods. A more suitable procedure for the estimation of the shear strength of investigated column is that proposed in the standard EC8/3. Using this procedure the shear strength of the bottom part of the the column was estimated quite accurately. However, the standard underestimated the shear strength of the top of the column, where the ductility demand was low. Good estimates of the type and location of failures were obtained by using the UCSD method proposed by Priestley et al. However, the procedure was applied taking into account some modifications. The angle between the concrete compression strut and the longitudinal column axis was taken into account according to the experimental results, instead of the value proposed by the authors of the method. Based on the large differences between the considered procedures, as well as other results presented elsewhere, it can be concluded that the problem of shear strength and deformability is, in general, not adequately solved and it demands further studies. It may be appropriate to reconsider this problem in the future developments of the Eurocode standards. The as built column was strengthened by CFRP strips. Only the shear strengthening was considered. The required amount of strips was determined according to the Eurocode 8/3 standard. In the investigated case the calculated amount of strips was sufficient to protect column against shear failure. However, a relatively small amount of jacketing was insufficient to enlarge also the column ductility. Therefore, the maximum reached top displacement of the jacketed column was only slightly larger than in the as built column. The strengthened column failed primarily due to the buckling of the longitudinal bars.

AKCNOWLEDGEMENT The research presented in this paper was funded by the Company for Motorways in the Republic of Slovenia (DARS) and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Slovenia. Strengthening of the investigated column was supplied and accomplished by SIKA, d.o.o, Slovenia. The authors express the gratitude for their help. REFERENCES Biskinis, D.E., Roupakias, G.K, Fardis M.N. (2004). Degradation of Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members with Inelastic Cyclic Displacements, ACI Structural Journal, 101:6, pp. 773-783. Calvi, G.M., Pavese, A., Rasulo, A., Bolognini D. (2005). Experimental and Numerical Studies on the Seismic Response of R.C. Hollow Bridge Piers, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, No 3, pp. 267-297. CEN (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1992-1-1. Comit Europen de Normalisation, Brussels. CEN (2005a). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 2: Bridges, EN 1998-2, Comit Europen de Normalisation, Brussels. CEN (2005b). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. EN 1998-3, Comit Europen de Normalisation, Brussels. Isakovi, T., Bevc. L., Fischinger M. (2008) Modelling the cyclic flexural and shear response of the R. C. hollow box columns of an existing viaduct, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12:7, pp. 1120-1138. Mo, Y. L., Yeh, Y. K., Cheng, C. T., Tsai, I. C. in Kao, C. C. (2004), Seismic Performance and Retrofit of Hollow Bridge Columns, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology, 3:1, 59-66. Pinto, A., Molina, J, Tsionis, G. (2001a). Cyclic Test on a Large-Scale Model of an Existing Tall Bridge Pier (Warth Bridge Pier A40), Report, Ispra: The European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA). Pinto, A., Molina, J. in Tsionis, G. (2001b). Cyclic Test on a Large-Scale Model of an Existing Short Bridge Pier (Warth Bridge Pier A40), Report, Ispra: The European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA). Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F. in Calvi, G. M. (1996). Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.