Strengthening of RC Bridges

Part of the Building Pathology and Rehabilitation book series (BUILDING, volume 9)


During past seismic events several cases of concrete bridges with poor structural behaviour and severe damage were reported. In this chapter, common damage patterns in RC bridges are illustrated, with reference to several previous studies about the seismic performance of bridge components. The focus of the chapter is on pier behaviour, wherein damage is usually more significant and quite often there is a need to retrofit these elements. In this context, the main objective of this chapter is to present the most common retrofitting strategies for RC bridges and the resulting benefits to their structural behaviour. Several types of piers are considered, where the cross section ranges from solid to hollow and from circular to rectangular. One of the most common retrofit measures for RC bridge piers is the full or partial jacket, which can be made in FRP, steel or RC. Experimental and numerical tests were carried out to assess the benefits to bridge pier behaviour, resulting from shear strengthening of piers with hollow cross section. Moreover, analytical studies are presented on the performance of bridges retrofitted using different techniques, aiming at strengthening and/or confinement, and a method for assessing the seismic fragility of retrofitted bridges is described, along with an application to a bridge with circular piers.


Bridge damage Retrofit strategies Piers jacketing Experimental and analytical studies 



Part of this work reports to research financially supported by Project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007457—CONSTRUCT—Institute of R&D in Structures and Construction, funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020—Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) and by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT).


  1. 1.
    Seible F, Priestley M, Hegemier G, Innamorato D. Seismic retrofit of RC columns with continuous carbon fiber jackets. J Compos Constr. 1997;1:52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gergely I, Pantelides C, Nuismer R, Reaveley L. Bridge pier retrofit using fiber-reinforced plastic composites. J Compos Constr. 1998;2:165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parvin A, Wang W. Behavior of FRP jacketed concrete columns under eccentric loading. J Compos Constr. 2001;5:146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Santarosa D, Campos Filho A, Beber A, Camplagnolo J. Concrete columns confined with CFRP sheets. In: JG T, editor. International conference on FRP composites in civil engineering. Hong Kong, China; 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Teng J, Chen J, Smith S, Lam L. FRP strengthened RC structures. New York: Wiley; 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hadi MNS. Behaviour of FRP wrapped normal strength concrete columns under eccentric loading. Compos Struct. 2006;72:503–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ogata T, Osada K. Seismic retrofitting of expressway bridges in Japan. Cem Concr Compos. 2000;22:17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng CT, Yang JC, Yeh YK, Chen SE. Seismic performance of repaired hollow-bridge piers. Constr Build Mater. 2003;17:339–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mo YL, Yeh YK, Hsieh DM. Seismic retrofit of hollow rectangular bridge columns. ASCE J Compos Constr. 2004;8:43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pavese A, Bolognini D, Peloso S. FRP seismic retrofit of RC square hollow section bridge piers. J Earthq Eng. 2004;8:225–50.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yeh YK, Mo YL. Shear retrofit of hollow bridge piers with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets. J Compos Constr. 2005;9:327–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsionis G, Pinto AV. Numerical analysis of RC bridge piers with rectangular hollow cross-section retrofitted with FRP jackets. J Earthq Eng. 2007;11:607–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lignola GP, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Non-linear modeling of RC rectangular hollow piers confined with CFRP. Compos Struct. 2009;88:56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delgado P, Arêde A, Vila Pouca N, Rocha P, Costa A, Delgado R. Retrofit of RC hollow piers with CFRP sheets. Compos Struct. 2012;94(4):1280–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Priestley M, Seible F, Calvi G. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New York: Wiley; 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oliveira CS, Azevedo J, Delgado R, Costa AG, Costa AC. O Sismo de Northridge, Los Angeles, 17 de Janeiro de 1994—Ensinamentos para Portugal. Edição Conjunta dos IC-IST/IC-FEUP: Lisboa; 1995 (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    EASY. Earthquake Engineering Slide Information System; 1997.
  18. 18.
    NISEE. National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering, University of California, Berkeley; 2006.
  19. 19.
    EERI. Learning from Earthquakes: The Wenchuan, Sichuan Province, China, Earthquake of May 12, 2008, EERI—Special Earthquake Report—October, 2008.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISSN. General introduction of engineering damage of Wenchuan Ms 8.0 earthquake. J Earthq Eng Vib; 2008.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Delgado R, Delgado P, Vila Pouca N, Arêde A, Rocha P, Costa A. Shear effects on hollow section piers under seismic actions: experimental and numerical analysis. Bull Earthq Eng. 2009;7:377–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Delgado P, Monteiro A, Arêde A, Vila Pouca N, Delgado R, Costa A. Numerical simulations of RC hollow piers under horizontal cyclic loading. J Earthq Eng. 2011;15(6):833–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Delgado P, Sousa F, Rocha P, Arêde A, Vila Pouca N, Costa A, Delgado R. Experimental and numerical analysis on the cyclic behavior of bridge piers with and without CFRP retrofit. In: 5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and Earthquake engineering. COMPDYN 2015.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Faria R, Oliver J, Cervera M. A strain-based plastic viscous-damage model for massive concrete structures. Int J Solids Struct. 1998;35(14):1533–58.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seismosoft. SeismoStruct. computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures.
  26. 26.
    Yashinsky M. Performance of bridge seismic retrofits during Northridge earthquake. J Bridge Eng ASCE. 1998;3(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Federal Highway Administration (USA): Seismic retrofitting manual for highway structures: part 1—Bridges. Publication no. FHWA-HRT-06-032, McLean, VA; 2006.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim S-H, Shinozuka M. Development of fragility curves of bridges retrofitted by column jacketing. Probab Eng Mech. 2004;19(1–2):105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Padgett JE, DesRoches R. Methodology for the development of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2008;37(8):1157–74.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stefanidou SP, Kappos AJ. Methodology for the development of bridge-specific fragility curves. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2017;46(1):73–93.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stefanidou SP, Kappos AJ. Efficiency of different retrofit measures in reducing seismic fragility of bridges. In: 16th European Bridge conference, Edinburgh, June 2015, Paper no. 1477.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Papanikolaou VK. Analysis of arbitrary composite sections in biaxial bending and axial load. Comput Struct. 2012;98–99:33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stefanidou SP. Structure-specific Fragility Curves for As-Built and Retrofitted Bridges. Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece; 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, School of Technology and ManagementPolytechnic Institute of Viana do CasteloViana do CasteloPortugal
  2. 2.CONSTRUCT-LESE, Faculty of Engineering (FEUP)University of PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Research Centre for Civil Engineering StructuresCity University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations