Vehicular Impact Resistance of FRP-Strengthened

RC Bridge Pier
Ruiwen Li1; Nan Zhang2; Hao Wu3; and Pengcheng Jia4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: As-built bridge piers are likely to be subjected to vehicular collisions, causing severe damage to the bridge substructure and even
resulting in the collapse of the entire bridge. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) strengthening in
enhancing the vehicular impact resistance of as-built bridge piers. A typical local, refined finite-element (FE) model of a simply supported
two-span, double-column, reinforced-concrete (RC) bridge was established. The adopted material constitutive models and the FE analytical
approaches were then validated through reduced vehicle model lateral impact tests on bare and carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP)-
strengthened RC columns. The effective schemes for FRP strengthening of bridge piers against vehicle impact are discussed from the aspects
of fiber orientation, number of layers, and strengthened height as well as by FRP type. Based on the FRP strengthening scheme, 48 vehicle–
bridge collision scenarios were designed to evaluate the collapse of bridges with/without FRP-strengthened piers. It was found that (1) external
FRP wrapping can effectively enhance vehicular impact-resistance of as-built bridge piers (e.g., reducing the degree of damage and deforma-
tion of the impacted pier); (2) for typical bridge piers, the effective strengthening scheme comprised a fiber orientation of 0° in reference to the
circumferential direction, a 3-m strengthened height, and four-layer CFRP wrapping; (3) compared with bare bridge piers, FRP-strengthened
piers could improve the vehicular impact-resistant safety redundancy of as-built bridges and, to some extent, avoid bridge collapses under
truck collisions at high speed. Furthermore, through introducing the dynamic increase factors of concrete strength, reinforcement rebars,
and FRP, and considering the nonuniform distributions of the strain rate of FRP-strengthened bridge piers caused by vehicular collision,
the dynamic shear capacity of strengthened bridge pier was formulated. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001901. © 2022 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Bridge pier; Vehicular collision; Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP); Collapse evaluation.

Introduction Transport of the People’s Republic of China 2015)]. Therefore,

As-built reinforced-concrete (RC) bridge piers face extreme load-
ings during service life, for example, through vehicular collision.
Statistics (Hosseini et al. 2019) show that vehicle collisions with
bridge piers can cause severe damage to the bridge substructure
and even result in the collapse of the entire bridge [as shown in
Fig. 1 (Li et al. 2020b)], which significantly affects traffic circula-
tion and public safety. However, existing studies (El-Tawil et al.
2005; Chen et al. 2019; Li et al. 2021) and collision accidents
(Buth et al. 2010; Chen and Xiao 2012) have demonstrated that cur-
rent vehicular impact-resistant standards, guidelines, and design
methods cannot effectively protect bridge piers from medium and
heavy truck crashes at high speed [e.g., AASHTO-LRFD
(AASHTO 2017), CEN (2002) and JTG D60-2015 (Ministry of
1
Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Xi’an Univ. of
Technology, Xi’an 710048, China. Email: ruiwenli@xaut.edu.cn
2
Graduate Student, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Xi’an
Univ. of Technology, Xi’an 710048, China. Email: zn15682696989@163
.com
3
Professor, Dept. of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, College of
Civil Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China (correspond-
ing author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8629-2053. Email:
wuhaocivil@tongji.edu.cn
4
Graduate Student, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Xi’an
Univ. of Technology, Xi’an 710048, China. Email: pengchengjia@tongji
.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 29, 2021; approved
on March 24, 2022; published online on June 3, 2022. Discussion period
open until November 3, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
how to improve the vehicular impact resistance of bridge piers re-
quires thorough, urgent investigation.
Compared with typical measures to enhance the seismic perfor-
mance of structural members, for example, enlarging the pier di-
ameter and refining the stirrup, the external retrofitting approach
has been found to be more feasible and practical for as-built struc-
tures. Due to the high strength–weight ratio, excellent corrosion
resistance, ease of installation, and relatively low cost, external
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite wrapping is used to
strengthen RC members to improve seismic performance (Teng
et al. 2002). For instance, Promis et al. (2009) evaluated the con-
tribution of carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) jackets to the
mechanical and energetic performances of RC short columns
under combined compressive and flexural loading. They showed
that the columns reinforced with CFRP jackets exhibited a lesser
degree of damage than the reference column, and that seismic per-
formance mainly depended on the CFRP configuration (e.g.,
Young’s modulus and the thickness, width, and band spacing of
CFRP). Shin and Andrawes (2011) investigated the lateral cyclic
behaviors of FRP-wrapped RC columns, and demonstrated that
the ductile capacity and energy dissipation capability significantly
improved.
Later, owing to the remarkable stain-rate effect on increasing the
dynamic tensile stress and modulus of FRP (Kimura et al. 2001;
Gilat et al. 2002), the FRP strengthening method discussed attracted
a great deal of attention in the field of impact engineering. For ex-
ample, Erki and Meier (1999) performed a series of impact tests
by raising one end of a beam to a specified height and then dropping
it to examine the dynamic behaviors of CFRP-wrapped RC beams.
They found that CFRP can reduce the maximal deflections of the

© ASCE 04022062-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Vehicular collision with bridge pier. (Reprinted from Engineer-
ing Failure Analysis, Vol. 109, R. Li, D. Zhou, and H. Wu, “Experi-
mental and numerical study on impact resistance of RC bridge piers
under lateral impact loading,” pp. 104,319, © 2020, with permission
from Elsevier.)
strengthened beam. Subsequently, Tang and Saadatmanesh (2003)
reported the results of drop hammer impact tests on RC beams
strengthened with CFRP or Kevlar fiber–reinforced polymer
(KFRP) laminates, where the FRP laminates were only bonded on
the tops and the bottoms of the specimens. FRP laminates were
found to enhance the impact resistance of RC beams and to reduce
midspan deflection by about 22%. Soleimani et al. (2007) conducted
the drop hammer impact tests on sprayed glass fiber–reinforced
polymer (GFRP) shear-strengthened RC beams, in which three
strengthening schemes were investigated including spraying
GFRP on two lateral sides, as well as on two lateral sides and the
bottom with/without anchors. It was found that no sprayed GFRP
fracture was observed during the loading process, and an increase
in sprayed GFRP layer in the three-side strengthened beams can en-
hance its impact resistance but not to the two-side strengthened
beams. Pham and Hao (2016) and Liu and Xiao (2017) examined
the impact behaviors of CFRP-strengthened RC beams without
transverse rebars, and found that CFRP can effectively increase
shear capacity, and significantly decrease maximal and residual dis-
placements, as well as reduce the degree of damage of the strength-
ened beams. Kabir and Shafei (2009) presented an analytical and
numerical study of the dynamic response of simply supported RC
beams retrofitted with CFRP unidirectional laminates. The results
showed that CFRP laminate improved the initial and residual stiff-
ness of the retrofitted beam and led to the final failure mode being
more ductile by increasing the number of flexural-shear cracks
and extending the yielded lengths of the reinforcement rebars.
Xu et al. (2020) and Zhou et al. (2021) recently carried out the
reduced vehicle model lateral impact tests to investigate the impact
resistance of CFRP-wrapped RC columns. They found that CFRP
wrapping can reduce the vulnerability, deformation, and damage
degree of RC columns under lateral impact loading and can transfer
the failure mode from shear (brittle failure) to flexural (ductile fail-
ure). In addition, based on numerical simulations, Zhang and Hao
(2019) observed that FRP wrapping can provide the effective con-
finement required to increase the ultimate compressive strength of
core concrete and thus improve the impact resistance of RC
columns.
© ASCE 04022062-2
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062
To date, although experimental, numerical, and analytical ef-
forts have evidenced the effectiveness of external FRP wrapping
in enhancing the impact resistance of RC beams and columns,
the results have not been directly applied to strengthen bridge
piers against vehicular collisions. The main reasons for this are
(1) vehicular collision speeds in accidents typically range from
80 to 120 km/h (22 to 33 m/s), whereas existing work is mainly
focused on low-speed (2 to 9 m/s) impact scenarios; (2) the dy-
namic capacities of FRP-strengthened bridge piers are critical to
evaluate vehicular impact resistance, these are currently lacking
in relevant studies; (3) under vehicular collision, the ultimate
goal of FRP-strengthened bridge piers is to prevent partial or
total bridge collapse by reducing the degree of damage. However,
existing studies concentrate on the member level, for example,
evaluations of single RC columns; analyses on the global damage
and failure of bridges with/without FRP-strengthened pier are rel-
atively rare.
This study tackled the aforementioned issues by performing
high-fidelity numerical simulations of actual vehicle impacts on
bridges with/without FRP-strengthened piers. Firstly, a typical
local refined finite-element (FE) model of a simply supported two-
span double-column RC bridge was developed, in which verified
medium and heavy truck models (NCAC 2010; Li et al. 2020a)
were employed. The adopted material constitutive models, numer-
ical algorithms, and element sizes were validated by comparisons
with a series of reduced vehicle model lateral impact tests on RC
columns with/without external FRP wrapping. The effective
scheme for Figs. FRP strengthening of bridge piers was then
explored by changing the fiber orientation, number of layers,
strengthened height, and FRP type. Finally, the dynamic shear
capacity of FRP-strengthened bridge piers was examined; the
collapse of bridges with/without FRP-strengthened piers was also
evaluated by performing numerical simulations of a series of
vehicle–bridge collision scenarios.
FE Models and Validations
Bridge
FE Model
A typical, simply supported two-span double-column RC bridge
designed according to Chinese code CJJ 166-2011 (Ministry of
Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic
of China 2011) was utilized for the present numerical analyses,
as illustrated in Fig. 2. The bridge substructure of each span con-
sists of a double-column bent and two footings. The bent cap is
13.5 × 1.32 × 1.22 m (l × w × h), in which 20- and 30-mm diameter
main rebars and 16-mm diameter stirrups are arranged. The bridge
piers, with a diameter of 1.07 m and a height of 4 m, are reinforced
by 36-mm diameter longitudinal rebars and 16-mm diameter dis-
crete transverse rebars at a spacing of 300 mm from the footing
to the bent cap, resulting in the corresponding volumetric ratios
of 1.13% and 0.52%, respectively. The cylinder compressive
strength of concrete in the bridge substructure is 32 MPa, and the
yield stress of both the longitudinal and transverse rebars is
414 MPa. The bridge decks are 21.6 × 14.15 m (l × w), which
are supported by six T-sectional RC girders in each span. The
bridge substructure and decks are connected by six elastomeric
bearings.
Consolazio and Davidson (2008) found that a bridge model
composed of a double-column bent and two spans provides reliable
predictions of the dynamic responses of multispan bridges under
barge collisions, in which only the collided column needed to be
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. FE model of typical simply supported two-span double-column RC bridge (unit: mm).
modeled elaborately. Therefore, a local refined FE model of the de-
scribed bridge was established using the commercial programs
LS-DYNA (LSTC 2013) and Hypermesh (Altair HyperWorks
2014), as illustrated in Fig. 2. In this model, the footings, double-
column bent, and elastomeric bearings were all modeled by solid
elements with one integration point (Solid_64), and the longitudi-
nal and transverse rebars were modeled using three-node beam el-
ements with 2 × 2 Gaussian quadrature integration (Beam_161). To
improve the computational efficiency, apart from the bridge sub-
structure, the bridge decks and RC girders were simulated using
four-node quadrature shell- (Shell_163) and beam elements, re-
spectively, in which the Beytschko-Tsay element formulation
was employed for the Shell_163 element. Following previous
studies (Promis et al. 2009; Li et al. 2020a), the perfect bond was
enforced between the reinforcement rebar- and surrounding
concrete elements by adopting the keyword *CONSTRAINED_
LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID (LSTC 2013). Moreover, the
*CONTACT_ERODING_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE algorithm
(LSTC 2013) was used to reflect the contact between the bridge
and the truck, and the *CONTACT_AUTO_SURFACE_TO_
SURFACE algorithm (LSTC 2013) was employed to realize the
interaction between the bridge’s superstructure and its substructure.
The keywords *LOAD_BODY_Z (LSTC 2013) and *CONTROL_
DYNAMIC_RELAXATION (LSTC 2013) were adopted to apply
gravity and enable structural stabilizations, respectively, in the FE
model.
Based on a balance between simulation accuracy and compu-
tational efficiency, the systematical convergence test was previ-
ously conducted (Li et al. 2021) to determine the optimal mesh
size of steel rebar- and concrete elements. The numerical results
were found to converge when a 25-mm element size was used
for the collided bridge pier and 50- to 100-mm element sizes
were employed for the other components. Therefore, the total el-
ement number of the present FE model was 820,192, comprising
776,685 solid elements, 27,072 shell elements, and 16,435 beam
elements.
Material Models and Strain-Rate Effects
In this FE model, the footings, bridge decks, and RC girders
were modeled using the elastic constitutive model: *MAT_
ELASTIC (*MAT_001) (LSTC 2013). Previous studies (Li
et al. 2020a; Chen et al. 2020) have proved that such a simplifi-
cation can have a slight influence on the simulated vehicular im-
pact force, damage, and deformation of the impacted bridge pier.
The concrete of the double-column bent and bridge piers were
described by the plastic damage constitutive model:
© ASCE 04022062-3
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062
*MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE (*MAT_159) (LSTC 2013). Six
general categories of formulations are needed to form the
*MAT_159 model, including the elastic update, plastic update,
yield surface definition, damage, strain-rate effect, and kinematic
hardening. The specific parameters of the *MAT_159 model
are given in Table 1. The elastomeric bearings were simulated by
the *MAT_VISCOELASTIC (*MAT_006) model (LSTC 2013).
The longitudinal and transverse rebars were modeled using the plas-
tic kinematic constitutive model: *MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC
(*MAT_003) (LSTC 2013). The *MAT_003 model was accessed
for the yielding and kinematic hardening plasticity of the reinforce-
ment rebar under intensive dynamic loading. The dynamic incre-
ment stress of the reinforcement rebar at different strain rates was
obtained using the Cowper and Symonds model (C-S model;
Symonds 1967), illustrated in Eq. (1). The specific values of
the*MAT_003 model are given in Table 1.
⎡ ⎤

1
⎢ ε̇ p ⎥
σ y = ⎣1 + ⎦ σ 0 + βEp εeff o (1)
c
Validation
Xu et al. (2020) carried out a series of reduced vehicle model lat-
eral impact tests on bare and CFRP-strengthened RC columns.
One bare column (i.e., Specimen C3H0) was used here to vali-
date the concrete constitutive model. All the columns had a di-
ameter of 330 mm and height of 1,700 mm, as illustrated in
Fig. 3(a). The cylinder compressive strength of the concrete,
and yield strengths of the longitudinal and transverse rebars
are given in Table 2. The reduced vehicle model, made of Chi-
nese mild steel (Q235), had a weight of 1,582 kg and a rectan-
gular striking head of sectional dimension 580 × 200 mm. All
the specimens were tested with cantilever boundary conditions
without applying axial loads. Six laser displacement sensors
were installed at a spacing of 200 mm along the specimen’s
height to record lateral displacement–time histories, as shown
Fig. 3(b).
An FE models of the reduced vehicle model lateral impact test
on a bare RC column is illustrated in Fig. 4(a). The boundary con-
straints and impact location of the column were kept consistent
with those of the test. A 25-mm element size was adopted, and
the total element number was 117,304, comprising 112,424 solid
elements and 4,880 beam elements.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 1. Parameter values of the material constitutive models
Model Parameter Meaning Magnitude
*MAT_001 3
RO (t/mm ) Mass density 2.38 × 10−9
E (MPa) Young’s modulus 3.25 × 10−9
PR Poisson’s ratio 0.2
*MAT_159 RO (t/mm3) Mass density 2.38 × 10−9
NH Hardening initiation 1
CH Hardening rate 0
G (MPa) Shear modulus 1.171 × 104
K (MPa) Bulk modulus 1.282 × 104
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

α (MPa) Triaxial compression surface constant term 14.76

θ Torsion surface linear term 0.3029
λ (MPa) Triaxial compression surface nonlinear term 10.51
β (MPa−1) Triaxial compression surface exponent 0.01929
α1 (MPa) Torsion surface constant term 0.7473
θ1 Torsion surface linear term 0.001097
λ1 (MPa) Torsion surface nonlinear term 0.17
β1 (MPa−1) Torsion surface exponent 0.06855
α2 (MPa) Triaxial extension surface constant term 0.66
θ2 Triaxial extension surface linear term 0.001323
λ2 (MPa) Triaxial extension surface nonlinear term 0.16
β2 (MPa−1) Triaxial extension surface exponent 0.06855
R Cap aspect ratio 5
X0 (MPa) Cap initial location 91.48
W Maximum plastic volume compaction 0.05
D1 (MPa−1) Linear shape parameter 2.5 × 10−4
D2 (MPa−1) Quadratic shape parameter 3.49 × 10−7
B Ductile shape softening parameter 400
GFC Fracture energy in uniaxial stress 8.8699
D Brittle shape softening parameter 0.1
GFT Fracture energy in uniaxial tension 0.1774
GFS Fracture energy in pure shear stress 0.1774
pwrc Shear-to-compression transition parameter 5
pwrt Shear-to-tension transition parameter 1
pmod Modify moderate pressure softening parameter 2.8
η0c Rate effects parameter for uniaxial compressive stress 1.03 × 10−4
Nc Rate effects power for uniaxial compressive stress 0.78
η0t Rate effects parameter for uniaxial tensile stress 6.36 × 10−5
Nt Rate effects power for uniaxial tensile stress 0.48
Overc (MPa) Maximum overstress allowed in compression 22.29
Overt (MPa) Maximum overstress allowed in tension 22.29
Srate Ratio of effective shear stress to tensile stress fluidity 1
repow Power that increases fracture energy with rate effects 1
*MAT_006 RO (t/mm3) Mass density 2.3 × 10−9
BULK (MPa) Elastic bulk modulus 182
G0 (MPa) Short-time shear modulus 18.35
GI (MPa) Long-time (infinite) shear modulus 17.32
*MAT_003 RO (t/mm3) Mass density 7.85 × 10−9
E (MPa) Young’s modulus 2.0 × 10−5
PR Poisson’s ratio 0.3
SIGY (MPa) Yield stress 414
ETAN (MPa) Tangent modulus 2,000
BETA Hardening parameter 0
SRC Strain-rate parameter, c 40.4
SRP Strain-rate parameter, p 5
FS Failure strain for eroding elements 0.2
VP Formulation for rate effects 0
*MAT_054 (CFRP) (Nanjing Hitech Composites 2021) RO (t/mm3) Mass density 1.8 × 10−9
E1 (MPa) Young’s modulus, longitudinal direction 2.35 × 105
E2 (MPa) Young’s modulus, transverse direction 9.65 × 103
E3 (MPa) Young’s modulus, normal direction 9.65 × 103
ν21 Poisson’s ratio, ba 0.021
ν23 Poisson’s ratio, cb 0.3
ν31 Poisson’s ratio, ca 0.021
ft (MPa) Longitudinal tensile strength 3.55 × 103
G21 (MPa) Shear modulus, ab 5.24 × 103

© ASCE 04022062-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

 Table 1. (Continued.)
Model Parameter Meaning Magnitude
G23 (MPa) Shear modulus, bc 2.24 × 103
G31 (MPa) Shear modulus, ca 5.24 × 103
ɛt Maximum strain for fiber tension 0.015
*MAT_054 (GFRP) (Han et al. 2007) RO (t/mm3) Mass density 1.8 × 10−9
E1 (MPa) Young’s modulus, longitudinal direction 3.09 × 104
E2 (MPa) Young’s modulus, transverse direction 8.3 × 103
E3 (MPa) Young’s modulus, normal direction —
ν21 Poisson’s ratio, ba 0.0886
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ν23 Poisson’s ratio, cb —

ν31 Poisson’s ratio, ca —
ft (MPa) Longitudinal tensile strength 798
G21 (MPa) Shear modulus, ab 2.8 × 103
G23 (MPa) Shear modulus, bc 3.0 × 103
G31 (MPa) Shear modulus, ca —
ɛt Maximum strain for fiber tension 0.014
*MAT_054 (KFRP) (Alkhatib et al. 2020) RO (t/mm3) Mass density 1.3 × 10−9
E1 (MPa) Young’s modulus, longitudinal direction 7.5 × 104
E2 (MPa) Young’s modulus, transverse direction 6.0 × 103
E3 (MPa) Young’s modulus, normal direction —
ν21 Poisson’s ratio, ba 0.309
ν23 Poisson’s ratio, cb 0.0193
ν31 Poisson’s ratio, ca 0.0193
ft (MPa) Longitudinal tensile strength 1,300
G21 (MPa) Shear modulus, ab 1.055 × 103
G23 (MPa) Shear modulus, bc 1.055 × 103
G31 (MPa) Shear modulus, ca 1.055 × 103
ɛt Maximum strain for fiber tension 0.017

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. Schematic of RC columns and horizontal collision facility (units: mm): (a) RC columns; and (b) horizontal collision facility.

© ASCE 04022062-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

 Table 2. Specific design parameter values of each column
Cylinder compressive Yield strength of Yield strength of Impact
Longitudinal Transverse strength of concrete longitudinal rebars transverse rebars velocity Impact height
Specimen rebar (mm) rebar (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (m/s) (mm)
C3H0 16D12 D6@330 29.6 471 427 4.5 400
C3H2 16D12 D6@330 32.2 471 427 4.5 400
C3H4 16D12 D6@330 32.2 471 427 4.5 400
Source: Reprinted from Composite Structures, Vol. 242, J. Xu, C. Demartino, B. Shan, Y. Heo, and Y. Xiao, “Experimental investigation of performance of
cantilever CFRP-wrapped circular RC columns under lateral low-velocity impact,” pp. 112,143, © 2020, with permission from Elsevier.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. FE models of reduced vehicle model lateral impact tests on (a) bare; and (b) CFRP-strengthened RC columns (unit: mm).

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 5. Comparisons of experimental and simulated: (a) impact force–time history; (b) column lateral displacements at different heights; and (c) dam-
age development and failure mode (C3H0).

© ASCE 04022062-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 6. Comparisons of experimental and simulated: (a) impact force–time history; (b) column lateral displacements at different heights; and (c) dam-
age development and failure mode (C3H2).

The comparisons between the experimental and simulated results model, the fiber orientation is controlled by the material axes op-
for Specimen C3H0 are presented in Fig. 5. Figs. 5(a and b) indicate tion: AOPT = 2 in the present FE model. Since there was no prema-
that the adopted FE approach was able to capture the characteristics ture debonding between the FRP and the concrete substrates
of the tested specimen’s impact response well: the profile and peak observed in the tests [similar observations were found in impact
value of the impact force as well as the deformation contour of the tests conducted by Soleimani et al. (2007) and Liu and Xiao
specimen. In detail, the experimental peak impact force and the (2017)], the perfect bond between the CFRP- and concrete ele-
maximal lateral displacement at the impact location and the column ments was assumed (Mohammed and Parvin 2020; Jin et al.
top, that is, 983 kN, 35 and 23 mm, were comparable to those of the 2021), that is, connecting the adjacent nodes of shell elements
simulated results: 924 kN, 30 and 25 mm, respectively. Moreover, and solid elements to share the same nodes.
as shown in Fig. 5(c), damage to the tested specimen was also 1. For the tensile fiber mode:
predicted well by FE analyses, including the damage evolution,

2

crack position, and shear failure mode. σ aa σ ab
σ aa > 0, then,e2f = +β −1
Xt Sc
 (2a)
FRP ≥ 0 failed |Ea = Eb = Gab = νba = νab = 0
Material Model and Strain-Rate Effect <0 elastic
The *MAT_ENHANCED_COMPOSITE_DAMAGE (*MAT_054)
model (LSTC 2013) embedded in LS-DYNA and Shell_163 were 2. For the compressive fiber mode:
adopted to describe the material properties of the FRP composite.

2
In the*MAT_054 model, four types of failure criteria can be spec- σ aa
ified following the Chang–Chang criteria (LSTC 2013), that is, ten- σ aa < 0, then, e2c = −1
Xc
sile fiber-, compressive fiber-, tensile matrix-, and compressive 
≥ 0 failed |Ea = νba = νab = 0
matrix modes, as expressed in Eq. (2). Moreover, the fiber orienta- (2b)
tion and strain-rate effect can be also considered. In the *MAT_054 <0 elastic

© ASCE 04022062-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 7. Comparisons of experimental and simulated: (a) impact force–time history; (b) column lateral displacements at different heights; and (c) dam-
age development and failure mode (C3H4).

3. For the tensile matrix mode: Table 2. The two- and four-layer CFRPs were used to wrap Spec-

2
2 imens C3H2 and C3H4, respectively, and the strengthened heights
σ bb σ ab of 900 mm. The CFRP, provided by Nanjing Haituo Composite
σ bb > 0, then, e2m = + −1
Yt Sc Material LLC (Nanjing Hitech Composites 2021), was used to
 (2c)
wrap the columns; its specific material properties are given in
≥ 0 failed |Eb = νba = 0  Gab = 0
<0 elastic Table 1.
An FE model of the reduced vehicle model lateral impact test on
4. For the compressive matrix mode: an CFRP-wrapped RC column is shown in Fig. 4(b). The boundary

2

2 
2 constraint, impact location, and element size were identical to those
σ bb Y c σ bb σ ab of the bare RC column. The 25-mm element size was also adopted,
σ bb < 0, then, ed =
2
+ −1 + −1
2Sc 2Sc Yc Sc and the total element number was 119,080: 112,424 solid-, 1,776

≥ 0 failed |Eb = νba = νab = 0
<0 elastic
Xc = 2Yc , for 50% fiber volume (2d)
Validation
Two reduced vehicle model lateral impact tests on
CFRP-strengthened RC columns (i.e., Specimens C3H2 and
C3H4), were adopted here to validate the FRP constitutive model
and its strengthening effect. The design parameters were consistent
with those of Specimen C3H0, and the impact velocity is given in
shell-, and 4,880 beam elements.
The comparisons between the experimental and simulated re-
sults for Specimens C3H2 and C3H4 are illustrated in Figs. 6
and 7, respectively. It can be seen that the predicted peak impact
force and lateral displacement at different heights agreed well
with the test data. In detail, the average deviations of the peak im-
pact force and maximal lateral displacement at the impact location
of Specimens C3H2 and C3H4 were 6% (911 versus 894 kN, and
884 versus 793 kN) and 8% (25 versus 28, and 25 versus 24 mm),
respectively. As shown in Figs. 6(c) and 7(c), the damage pattern
and CFRP strengthening effect were adequately reproduced by
the FE model.

© ASCE 04022062-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

Fig. 8. FE models of (a) medium-; and (b) heavy trucks. (Reprinted from Engineering Structures, Vol. 220, R. Li, H. Wu, Q. Yang, and D. Wang,
“Vehicular impact resistances of seismic designed RC bridge piers,” pp. 111,015, © 2020, with permission from Elsevier.)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9. Vehicle–bridge collision models: (a) medium-; and (b) heavy trucks. (Reprinted from Engineering Structures, Vol. 220, R. Li, H. Wu,
Q. Yang, and D. Wang, “Vehicular impact resistances of seismic designed RC bridge piers,” pp. 111,015, © 2020, with permission from Elsevier.)

(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Time histories of bare piers under (a) medium-; and (b) heavy truck collisions.

© ASCE 04022062-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

 Therefore, based on the aforementioned comprehensive compari-
sons between the experimental and numerical predicted dynamic
responses and damage patterns of bare and CFRP-wrapped RC col-
umns under reduced vehicle model lateral impacts, the adopted FE
models and analytical approaches were comprehensively validated.
Trucks
FE models of typical actual medium and heavy trucks were em-
ployed in this study. The medium truck model, the Ford 800,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
43-t heavy truck (given that 18 and 43t are the weight limits for me-
dium and heavy trucks in China), as well as a 100-km/h impact ve-
locity (since 100 km/h is the highway speed limit for trucks in
China), were adopted in the subsequent numerical analyses. In
the two vehicle–bridge collision models, the impact location height
was 1.05 m.
Fig. 10 shows the vehicular impact forces, dynamic shear de-
mands (i.e., dynamic shear response on the pier induced by vehic-
ular collision), and lateral displacements at the impact location of
bare bridge piers under medium and heavy truck collisions. The

shown in Fig. 8(a), has been widely used in studies [El-Tawil
et al. (2005), Do et al. (2018, 2019a, b), Cao et al. (2019) and Li
et al. (2020a)]. The adopted heavy truck model, the tractor-
semitrailer shown in Fig. 8(b), was modified from the Ford 800
and previously validated (Li et al. 2020a). The full weights of the me-
dium and heavy truck models can be increased up to 18 and 43t, re-
spectively, by adjusting the cargo weight. It should be noted that the
cargo loaded on the medium truck was solid goods with high stiff-
ness (elastic shear modulus 2,050 MPa), and the cargo loaded on
the heavy truck was sand (elastic shear modulus 64 MPa). However,
the influence of cargo type in relation to carriage was beyond the
scope of the present work and requires in-depth discussion.
three spikes were observed to occur on the vehicular impact
force–time histories, which were generated by the successive im-
pacts of bumper, engine, and cargo. Previous studies (Li et al.
2020a; Heng et al. 2022) have identified that (1) for medium
truck collisions, the cargo impact mainly results in the shear failure
of bridge piers at the impact location, since the dynamic shear de-
mand caused by the cargo impact reaches the dynamic shear capac-
ity of bridge piers; and (2) for heavy truck collisions, it is the engine
impact that mainly causes the shear failure to bridge piers at the

FRP Strengthening Design of Bridge Pier

As shown in Fig. 9, the truck models were separately imported into

the bridge model through Hypermesh (Altair HyperWorks 2014),
forming the vehicle–bridge collision models in which the impact
Fig. 11. Denotation of each collision scenario.
angle was set along the bent cap. The 18-t medium truck and

Table 3. Designed collision scenarios and simulated results

Maximal Maximal
Peak dynamic dynamic
Fiber Type impact shear bending Maximal lateral
orientation Strengthened Number of force demand moment displacement
Parameter Scenario (°) height (m) of layers FRP (kN) (kN) (kN) (mm)
Reference BP-W18-V100 — — — — 17,300 6,740 3,110 146
bare pier BP-W43-V100 — — — — 15,400 7,344 3,210 308
Fiber BP-F0-L2-H2-C-W18-V100 0 — — CFRP 16,400 7,390 3,750 123
orientation BP-F45-L2-H2-C-W18-V100 45 2 2 CFRP 17,900 7,130 3,740 122
BP-F90-L2-H2-C-W18-V100 90 2 2 CFRP 18,500 6,970 4,300 139
BP-F0-L2-H2-C-W43-V100 0 2 2 CFRP 15,200 8,430 3,460 70
BP-F45-L2-H2-C-W43-V100 45 2 2 CFRP 15,400 8,080 3,480 107
BP-F90-L2-H2-C-W43-V100 90 2 2 CFRP 15,300 7,610 3,730 105
Strengthened BP-F0-L2-H2-C-W18-V100 0 2 2 CFRP 16,400 7,390 3,750 123
height BP-F0-L2-H3-C-W18-V100 0 2 2 CFRP 18,700 7,300 3,760 126
BP-F0-L2-H4-C-W18-V100 0 3 2 CFRP 19,100 7,410 3,790 150
BP-F0-L2-H2-C-W43-V100 0 4 2 CFRP 15,200 8,430 3,460 70
BP-F0-L2-H3-C-W43-V100 0 2 2 CFRP 15,100 8,140 3,380 95
BP-F0-L2-H4-C-W43-V100 0 3 2 CFRP 15,300 8,140 3,360 120
Number of BP-F0-L1-H3-C-W18-V100 0 4 1 CFRP 16,500 6,820 3,070 132
layers BP-F0-L2-H3-C-W18-V100 0 2 2 CFRP 18,700 7,300 3,760 126
BP-F0-L4-H3-C-W18-V100 0 3 4 CFRP 19,200 7,480 3,780 114
BP-F0-L1-H3-C-W43-V100 0 3 1 CFRP 15,400 7,670 3,310 143
BP-F0-L2-H3-C-W43-V100 0 3 2 CFRP 15,100 8,140 3,380 95
BP-F0-L4-H3-C-W43-V100 0 3 4 CFRP 14,300 8,150 3,560 60
FRP type BP-F0-L4-H3-C-W18-V100 0 3 4 CFRP 19,200 7,480 3,780 114
BP-F0-L4-H3-G-W18-V100 0 3 4 GFRP 18,800 6,780 3,210 117
BP-F0-L4-H3-K-W18-V100 0 3 4 KFRP 18,400 6,850 3,340 145
BP-F0-L4-H3-C-W43-V100 0 3 4 CFRP 14,300 8,150 3,560 60
BP-F0-L4-H3-G-W43-V100 0 3 4 GFRP 14,700 7,700 3,290 86
BP-F0-L4-H3-K-W43-V100 0 3 4 KFRP 15,100 7,600 3,410 138

© ASCE 04022062-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 12. Time histories of piers under medium truck collision: (a) vehicular impact force; (b) dynamic shear demand at pier bottom; (c) dynamic
bending moment at pier bottom; and (d) lateral displacement at impact location.

impact location, because the dynamic shear demand reaches max-
imum at that moment. Moreover, the succeeding cargo impact ex-
acerbates the degree of damage and lateral deformations of bridge
piers. Hence, subsequent discussions on FRP strengthening designs
will focus on the shear failure of bridge piers induced by engine and
cargo impacts.
Based on the validated numerical algorithms and material con-
stitutive models, the effective FRP strengthening scheme of
bridge piers against vehicular collision is discussed in this section.
The strengthening parameter variables include fiber orientation
(0°, 45°, and 90° in reference to column circumferential direc-
tion), strengthened height (2, 3, and 4 m from the bottom of the
bridge pier, that is, 1/2, 3/4, and full height of the bridge pier),
number of FRP layers (one, two, and four layers), and FRP type
(CFRP, GFRP, and KFRP). Therefore, a total of 26 collision sce-
narios, including two reference bare piers and 24 strengthened
piers, were designed and are listed in Table 3. The letters used
in the denotation of each collision scenario are defined in
Fig. 11. It should be noted that the variation range of the param-
eters meets the seismic requirements of Chinese code GB
50367-2013 (GB 2013).
Influence of Fiber Orientation
In this section, we discuss the two-layer CFRP and 2-m strength-
ened height that were adopted, with fiber orientations of 0°, 45°,
and 90°. Figs. 12 and 13 illustrate the dynamic response, damage,
and failure of bare and CFRP-strengthened bridge piers with
different fiber orientations under medium truck collisions and
Figs. 14 and 15 under heavy truck collisions. It was observed
that CFRP wrapping did not apparently influence the vehicular im-
pact force, but contributed a great deal to the dynamic shear de-
mand and dynamic bending moment (i.e., dynamic bending
response on the pier induced by vehicular collision) at the bottom
of the strengthened bridge pier. In detail, as shown in Figs. 12(b and
c), in cases of medium truck collisions, the dynamic shear demands
of the strengthened bridge piers with fiber orientations of 0°, 45°,
and 90° were improved by about 10%, 6%, and 3% compared
with the bare pier, and the dynamic bending moments were en-
hanced by 21%, 20%, and 38%, respectively. Correspondingly,
the maximal lateral displacements at the impact location were re-
duced by 16%, 16%, and 5%, respectively. Similar conclusions
were also drawn from the heavy truck collisions, as seen in
Fig. 14 and presented in Table 3.
Moreover, as illustrated in Figs. 13 and 15, CFRP wrapping ef-
fectively prevented the shear breakage of bridge piers at the impact
location. In order to better exhibit the damage of the bridge sub-
structure, half of the bridge deck elements were masked. Compared
with the fiber orientations of 45° and 90°, it is found that (1) the
fiber orientation of 0° more effectively hindered crack propagation
and reduced the lateral deformation and damage degree of the
bridge pier, for example, preventing shear cracks from penetrating
the section between the impact location and the bottom of the
bridge pier, as well as reducing core concrete crushing; and (2)
the fiber orientation of 0° also mitigated the degree of damage in
the CFRP composite. This was attributed to the fiber orientation

© ASCE 04022062-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 13. Damage and failure of piers and FRPs under medium truck collision: (a) BP-W18-V100; (b) BP-F0-L2-H2-C-W18-V100;
(c) BP-F45-L2-H2-C-W18-V100; and (d) BP-F90-L2-H2-C-W18-V100.

of 0° being parallel to the vehicular impact direction, which directly
increased the dynamic shear capacity by providing the firm lateral
confinement for core concrete, that is, effectively increasing the ul-
timate compressive strength of the core concrete and also indirectly
improving the dynamic bending capacity by decreasing the crack
width and increasing the local stiffness of the impact location. In-
stead, the strengthening effect on the dynamic shear capacity de-
creased when the angle between the fiber orientation and the
vehicular impact direction increased. Therefore, in terms of the
shear failure that often occurs in collision accidents (Buth et al.

© ASCE 04022062-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 14. Time histories of piers under heavy truck collision: (a) vehicular impact force; (b) dynamic shear demand at pier bottom; (c) dynamic bend-
ing moment at pier bottom; and (d) lateral displacement at impact location.
2010; Li et al. 2021), external CFRP wrapping with ad fiber orien-
tation of 0° better enhanced the vehicular impact resistance of the
bridge piers.
Influence of Strengthened Height
The influence of the strengthened heights of 2, 3, and 4 m is dis-
cussed in this section in relation to a 0° fiber orientation and two-
layer CFRP. Figs. 16–19 present the simulated results of bare and
CFRP-strengthened bridge piers with different strengthened
heights under medium and heavy truck collisions. As seen in
Figs. 16(b and c) as well as in 18(b and c), the increasing magni-
tudes of the dynamic shear demand and dynamic bending moment
of the bridge piers at different strengthened heights were close,
which were around 10% and 21% in the medium truck collision
scenarios, and 12% and 6% in the heavy truck collision scenarios.
Moreover, as depicted in Figs. 16(d) and 18(d), the 2-m and 3-m
strengthened heights exhibited better strengthening effects on the
lateral deformation ability. For instance, the maximal lateral dis-
placements in the cases of BP-F0-L2-H2-W18-V100 and
BP-F0-L2-H3-W18-V100 decreased by 16% and 13%, while
they increased by 3% in the case of BP-F0-L2-H4-W18-V100
[Fig. 16(d)]. This can be explained by the CFRP with 4-m
strengthened height being torn along the circumferential direction
(i.e., parallel to the direction of vehicular impact) on the rear face
of the impact location, thus losing the ability to restrain the defor-
mation of concrete and stiffness deterioration at the impact
location.
© ASCE 04022062-13
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062
(b)
(d)
Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 17, the 3-m strengthened height
reduced the damage degree better than the 2- and 4-m strengthened
heights in the case of medium truck collisions. In detail, a large
amount of the core concrete was crushed on the impact face and
spalled at a height of 2 m on the rear face in the cases of
BP-F0-L2-H2-W18-V100 and BP-F0-L2-H4-W18-V100, but not
in the case of BP-F0-L2-H3-W18-V100. This was mainly owing
to that the following: (1) the 2-m strengthened height was insuffi-
cient in the case of BP-F0-L2-H2-W18-V100, which resulted in
the unwrapped part of the bridge pier being unable to resist the im-
pact of the cargo with a high stiffness of 2,050 MPa. It should be
noted that the impact height of the top of the cargo loaded in the
medium truck was around 2 m [Fig. 20(a)]. (2) The tensile stress
or CFRP thickness was not sufficient in the case of
BP-F0-L2-H4-W18-V100, which resulted in the CFRP being eas-
ily torn under the impact of the cargo with high stiffness, thereby
not effectively reducing the degree of damage. (3) In the case of
BP-F0-L2-H3-W18-V100, the strengthened part of the bridge
pier directly reduced the cargo-induced damage, which was attrib-
uted to the improved dynamic- and lateral deformation capacities;
the unwrapped part also sustained a certain amount of damage from
absorbing partial cargo impact energy, which indirectly reduced the
damage in the strengthened part.
As seen in Fig. 19, in the case of heavy truck collisions, the 3-
and 4-m height-strengthening effects were basically identical,
which were better than the 2-m height-strengthening effect. The
reasons for this are (1) the heavy truck cargo was sand, which
stacks upward during the collision process, and thus the loading
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 15. Damage and failure of piers and FRPs under heavy truck collision: (a) BP-W43-V100; (b) BP-F0-L2-H2-C-W43-V100;
(c) BP-F45-L2-H2-C-W43-V100; and (d) BP-F90-L2-H2-C-W43-V100.

mode of the cargo was changed from a concentrated- to distributed the applied forces at the impact location. Our comprehensive anal-
impact [Fig. 20(b)], that is, the loading area was enlarged; and (2) yses indicated that the 3-m-height CFRP wrapping, that is, the ¾
the increase in the strengthened height was beneficial to resisting column height, should be recommended to strengthen bridge pier
the distributed impact mode, which could be helpful in reducing against vehicular collision.

© ASCE 04022062-14 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 16. Time histories of piers under medium truck collision: (a) vehicular impact force; (b) dynamic shear demand at pier bottom; (c) dynamic
bending moment at pier bottom; and (d) lateral displacement at impact location.

Influence of Number of FRP Layers
The influence of the number of CFRP layers, that is, one, two, or
four layers, is discussed in this section in relation to a 0° fiber ori-
entation and 3-m strengthened height. Figs. 21–24 compare the
dynamic behavior of bare and CFRP-strengthened bridge piers
with different numbers of layers under medium (Figs. 21 and
22) and heavy truck collisions (Figs. 23 and 24). The four-layer
CFRP wrapping had the greatest improvement among the anticol-
lision capacities. The dynamic shear demand and dynamic bend-
ing moment of the four-layer CFRP-strengthened bridge pier
induced by a medium truck collision were about 1.1 and 1.2
times those of the bare one, and both were 1.1 times those of
the bare in the case of a heavy truck collision. Moreover, the cor-
responding maximal lateral displacements were 0.77 and 0.20
times those of the bare bridge pier. This was mainly attributed
to the four-layer CFRP wrapping offering the best lateral confine-
ment for the core concrete, enhancing the dynamic shear and
bending capacities as well as the lateral deformation ability with
decreasing crack width and stiffness deterioration at the impact
location.
It was also found that the four-layer CFRP-strengthened bridge
piers exhibited the least damage (Figs. 22 and 24). For instance,
penetrating shear cracks or breakages did not occur at the impact
location with four CFRP layers. This was because (1) the lateral
confinement effect on the core concrete provided by CFRP, espe-
cially at the ultimate compressive strength and shear deformation
ability, became more noticeable when the number of layers in-
creased; this improved the dynamic shear capacity, so as to convert
the shear failure (i.e., brittle failure) to shear-flexural or flexural
failure (i.e., ductile failure); and (2) CFRP was not easily torn
with an increasing number of layers, which provided a firmer
strengthening effect on concrete. As a result, the four-layered
CFRP wrapping was found to effectively improve the vehicular im-
pact resistance of the bridge pier, which is recommended for prac-
tical retrofitting.
Influence of FRP Type
In relation to a fiber orientation of 0°, a 3-m strengthened height,
and four-layer wrapping, the influence of FRP type, that is,
CFRP, GFRP, and KFRP, is analyzed in this section. Table 1
gives the specific parameter values of CFRP, GFRP, and KFRP.
Figs. 25–28 show the dynamic response–time histories of bare
and strengthened bridge piers with different FRP types under me-
dium and heavy truck collisions. It was evident that the maximal
dynamic shear demand and dynamic bending moment of the
CFRP-strengthened bridge piers were significantly larger than
those of the GFRP- and KFRP-strengthened bridge piers,

© ASCE 04022062-15 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 17. Damage and failure of piers and FRPs under medium truck collision: (a) BP-W18-V100; (b) BP-F0-L2-H2-C-W18-V100;
(c) BP-F0-L2-H3-C-W18-V100; and (d) BP-F0-L2-H4-C-W18-V100.

especially when subjected to the succeeding cargo impact. This was
mainly attributed to the CFRP composite having a higher longitu-
dinal tensile stress, Young’s modulus, and shear modulus than the
GFRP and KFRP composites, which could provide more promi-
nent and stabler improvements of vehicular impact resistance
(e.g., deformation ability and residual stiffness of the impact
location). This also indicated that CFRP-strengthened bridge
piers can better resist successive impacts owing to the CFRP wrap-
ping being able to restrain stiffness deterioration at the impact loca-
tion during the impact process.
The CFRP-strengthened bridge pier suffered the least damage, as
can be seen in Figs. 26 and 28. Specifically, a small amount of

© ASCE 04022062-16 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 18. Time histories of piers under heavy truck collision: (a) vehicular impact force; (b) dynamic shear demand at pier bottom; (c) dynamic bend-
ing moment at pier bottom; and (d) lateral displacement at impact location.

concrete cover was spalled on the impact face of the by Chinese code GB 50010-2010 (GB 2010), as well as the contri-
CFRP-strengthened bridge pier, whereas a large amount of core con- bution of FRP wrapping on the static shear capacity (Vfs) specified
S
crete was crushed at the impact locations of the GFRP- and by American code ACI 440.2R-08 (ACI 2008), Vdsc can be roughly
KFRP-strengthened ones, illustrated by the obvious lateral- and specified as
shear cracks. Therefore, compared with GFRP and KFRP wrap-
pings, the CFRP wrapping effectively mitigated a severe damage
state, and maximal and residual deformations, and ensured a certain S
Vdsc = Vbd + V fd = DIF × Vbs + DIFf × V fs (3)
residual bridge pier capacity to prevent a potential collapse of the
bridge.
According to GB 50010-2010 (GB 2010), the expression of Vbs
is given as
Collapse Evaluation of Bridge With/Without
FRP-Strengthened Pier
1.75 Asv
Vbs = fts bh0 + fyvs h0 + 0.07N (4)
λ+1 s
Dynamic Shear Capacity of Strengthened Bridge Pier
The final goal of this study was to strengthen piers with FRP to ef-
fectively prevent the partial and overall collapse of bridges when where fts = 0.26fcu,s
2/3
, fcu,s = fcs /0.79, b = 0.88D, h0 = 0.8D, and
subjected to potential vehicular collision. Based on results, CFRP Asv = nAsv1 ; if N > 0.3fcu,sA, N = 0.3fcu,s A.
was recommended as the best strengthening material. Considering Given that the axial compression ratio of a bridge pier is com-
that shear failure often occurs in bridge piers in collision accidents monly less than 0.1 (CJJ 166-2011; Ministry of Housing and
(Fig. 1), the dynamic shear capacity of the CFRP-strengthened Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China
S
bridge pier (Vdsc ) needed to be determined to quantitatively assess 2011), the contribution of N to Vbs can thus be neglected. More-
the improved vehicular impact resistance. Referring to the methods over, considering a certain degree of strength increase in the con-
prescribing the static shear capacity of bare RC bridge piers (Vbs) crete and the reinforcement rebar under high-rate loadings, Vbd

© ASCE 04022062-17 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 19. Damage and failure of piers and FRPs under heavy truck collision: (a) BP-W43-V100; (b) BP-F0-L2-H2-C-W43-V100;
(c) BP-F0-L2-H3-C-W43-V100; and (d) BP-F0-L2-H4-C-W43-V100.

can be expressed as follows: The dynamic increase factors of concrete (DIFc) and reinforce-
ment rebars (DIFs) proposed by Malvar and Crawford (1998a) and
1.75 Asv Malvar and Crawford (1998b) were used [Eqs. (6) and (7), respec-
Vbd = ftd bh0 + fyvd h0
λ+1 s tively]. Because the keyword *CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGE_
IN_SOLID was utilized to describe the interfacial bond and slip be-
1.75 Asv tween the rebar- and the surrounding concrete elements, the strain
= (DIFct × fts )bh0 + (DIFs × fyvs ) h0 (5)
λ+1 s rate of the transverse rebars was assumed to be equal to that of

© ASCE 04022062-18 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 20. Cargo impact on piers: (a) medium; and (b) heavy truck collisions (carriage is omitted). (Reprinted from Engineering Structures, Vol. 220,
R. Li, H. Wu, Q. Yang, and D. Wang, “Vehicular impact resistances of seismic designed RC bridge piers,” pp. 111,015, © 2020, with permission
from Elsevier.)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 21. Time histories of piers under medium truck collision: (a) vehicular impact force; (b) dynamic shear demand at pier bottom; (c) dynamic
bending moment at pier bottom; and (d) lateral displacement at impact location.

© ASCE 04022062-19 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 22. Damage and failure of piers and FRPs under medium truck collision: (a) BP-W18-V100; (b) BP-F0-L1-H3-C-W18-V100;
(c) BP-F0-L2-H3-C-W18-V100; and (d) BP-F0-L4-H3-C-W18-V100.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 23. Time histories of piers under heavy truck collision: (a) vehicular impact force; (b) dynamic shear demand at pier bottom; (c) dynamic bend-
ing moment at pier bottom; and (d) lateral displacement at impact location.

© ASCE 04022062-20 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 24. Damage and failure of piers and FRPs under heavy truck collision: (a) BP-W43-V100; (b) BP-F0-L1-H3-C-W43-V100;
(c) BP-F0-L2-H3-C-W43-V100; and (d) BP-F0-L4-H3-C-W43-V100.

concrete. Such an assumption has been used previously by Do et al. ⎧


(2019a). In addition, from simulated results, the strain-rate distribu- ⎪
⎪ κε̇cd 1.026αs
⎪
⎪ if κε̇cd ≤ 30s−1
tion of transverse rebars and concrete at the impact location was ⎨ ε̇cs
found to be nonuniform at the instant of shear cracking on the im- DIFcc =
1 (6a)
⎪
⎪ κε̇
⎪
⎪ cd 3
−1
pact location. Thus, the correction coefficient (κ) was introduced to ⎩ γs if κε̇cd > 30s
solve the nonuniform distribution of the strain rate, that is, ε̇cs

© ASCE 04022062-21 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 25. Time histories of piers under medium truck collision: (a) vehicular impact force; (b) dynamic shear demand at pier bottom; (c) dynamic
bending moment at pier bottom; and (d) lateral displacement at impact location.

⎧

⎪
⎪
⎪ κε̇td δs The expression of DIFf proposed by Li et al. (2020c) was
⎪
⎨ εts if κε̇td ≤ 1s−1 adopted for FRP and given as
DIFct =
1 (6b) 
⎪
⎪ κε̇td 3
⎪
⎪ −1 0.0681 log (ε̇f ) + 1.2441 if 1 × 10−5 ≤ ε̇f ≤ 60s−1
⎩ βs if κε̇td > 1s DIFf =
εts
1.5631 log (ε̇f ) − 1.4142 if 60 < ε̇f ≤ 260s−1

α fy (11)
κε̇sd fyvs
DIFs = ; α fy = 0.074 − 0.040 (7)
10−4 414 In the present FE model, since the adjacent nodes of the FRP-
−6 −1 −6 −1
where ε̇cs = 30 × 10 s and ε̇ts = 1 × 10 s = reference com- and concrete elements were connected, sharing the same nodes,
pressive and tensile strain rates of concrete, respectively; the effective strain of the FRP was equal to the ultimate compres-
αs = 1/(5 + 0.9fcs ), logγs = 6.156αs − 2, δs = 1/(1 + 0.8fcs), and logβs sive strain of the concrete [εfe = 0.003 (GB 50010-2010; GB
= 6δs − 2. 2010)], and the strain rate of the former was equal to that of
Referring to ACI 440.2R-08 (ACI 2008), the expression of Vfd is the latter. Moreover, it was observed from the simulated results
given as that the strain rate of the concrete (ε̇cd ) at the impact location
ranged from about 70 s−1 (impact velocity is 90 km/h) to
V fd = Af f fed (sin θ + cos θ)df 100 s−1 (impact velocity is 120 km/h) at the instant of shear
= Af (DIFf × f fes )(sin θ + cos θ)df (8) cracking. Therefore, from a conservative consideration of vehic-
ular impact-resistant design, the strain rate of 70 s−1 was used to
where df = h0 and Af is calculated as follows: estimate the dynamic shear capacity of the strengthened bridge
pier.
Af = 2nf tf wf (9) Additionally, the average maximal dynamic shear demands
(i.e., dynamic shear capacities) of bare and four-layer CFRP-
Fig. 29 illustrateswf. strengthened bridge piers were found to be 7,250 and 8,150 kN, re-
The effective static tensile stress of FRP was determined as spectively. It should be explained that the maximal dynamic shear
f fes = εfe Ef (10) demand basically equals the dynamic shear capacity if the bridge
pier exhibits shear failure; on the contrary, the former is always
where ɛfe ≤ 0.004 (ACI 440.2R-08; ACI 2008). less than the latter if shear failure does not occur. A similar

© ASCE 04022062-22 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 26. Damage and failure of piers and FRPs under medium truck collision: (a) BP-W18-V100; (b) BP-F0-L4-H3-C-W18-V100;
(c) BP-F0-L4-H3-G-W18-V100; and (d) BP-F0-L4-H3-K-W18-V100.

statement was proposed and verified in research by Do et al. (2018)
and Li et al. (2021). Therefore, the value of κ was suggested as 0.5
for Eq. (6) based on regression analyses, and thus the dynamic
shear capacity of the FRP-strengthened bridge pier could be
determined.
Collapse Evaluation
From the numerical simulations and the collated vehicle–bridge
collision accident data (Buth et al. 2010; Li et al. 2021) it could
be concluded that the severe shear failure of a bridge pier could

© ASCE 04022062-23 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 27. Time histories of piers under heavy truck collision: (a) vehicular impact force; (b) dynamic shear demand at pier bottom; (c) dynamic bend-
ing moment at pier bottom; and (d) lateral displacement at impact location.

1
cause the overall collapse of a bridge. Therefore, a ratio of the  m v 2
D 
P
Fveh = −15.22 meh v0 +
ch 0
× 4
maximal dynamic shear demand induced by vehicle impact
100 1000
(Vdsd) to the dynamic shear capacity of the bridge pier
S
(Vdsc or Vdsc ) was defined as an evaluation index (λc) to evaluate 
1
the potential collapse of bridges caused by vehicle impacts (Li mch v0  D 3
+ 1480.72 meh v0 + ×
et al. 2020a), 100 1000
− 12095 (heavy truck) (13b)
Vdsd P
0.65Fveh + 200
λc = = (bare bridge pier) (12a) It can be concluded from the collision accidents (Buth et al.
Vdsc Vdsc 2010; Li et al. 2021) that overall collapse could occur when
the medium and heavy truck traveling speed exceeds 100 km/h.
Therefore, another 48 collision scenarios involving bare and
strengthened bridge piers were designed for the bridge collapse
P
Vdsd 0.65Fveh + 200
λc = S
= S
(strengthened bridge pier) (12b) evaluation in this section, including two vehicular weights (18-
Vdsc Vdsc and 43-t weights representing medium and heavy trucks,
respectively) and six impact velocities, which are classified int
eight series in Table 4. It should be noted that (1) the strengthened
bridge piers were wrapped with four-layer CFRP and a 3-m height;

1 (2) each collision scenario was numbered for ease of reference, for
mcm v0 2 D 4 example, B-W18-V100 and S-W18-V100 denote that the bare and
P
Fveh = 8.36 mem v0 + ×
100 1000 strengthened bridge piers are subjected to a truck collision with a
weight of 18 t and velocity of 100 km/h, respectively.

1
mcm v0  D 2 Fig. 30 shows the results of the collapse index, λc, from the
+ 282.26 mem v0 + × given 48 collision scenarios. Recently, Li et al. (2020a) reported
100 1000
that the collapse of a bridge with bare piers will occur when λc >
− 2900 (medium truck) (13a) 1.2. From Fig. 30(a) and the data given in Table 4, it can be

© ASCE 04022062-24 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 28. Damage and failure of piers and FRPs under heavy truck collision: (a) BP-W43-V100; (b) BP-F0-L4-H3-C-W43-V100;
(c) BP-F0-L4-H3-G-W43-V100; and (d) BP-F0-L4-H3-K-W43-V100.

observed that the bare pier bridge was prone to collapse when the
impact velocities of the medium and heavy trucks exceeded 130
and 100 km/h, that is, λc > 1.2. However, there was no open litera-
ture giving the corresponding critical value of λc to judge whether a
bridge with a CFRP-strengthened pier would collapse or not. It
was found from Fig. 30(b) and Table 4 that the bridge with a
CFPR-strengthened pier underwent collapse when λc reached
1.4, that is, such a strengthened bridge could resist a medium
truck collision at a speed of 150 km/h and a heavy truck collision
at a speed of 130 km/h. Furthermore, our analyses demonstrated

© ASCE 04022062-25 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

 that (1) the safety redundancy of as-built bridge piers under vehic-
ular impact was very limited; (2) the pier strengthened with CFRP
could effectively prevent the overall collapse of a bridge when
subjected to medium and heavy truck collisions at high speed.
In addition, considering that some bare bridge piers have small
sections or a low reinforcement ratio, even if a bridge pier is
strengthened with CFRP, the bridge will still collapse under vehic-
ular collision. Consequently, the external CFRP wrapping can en-
hance the vehicular impact resistance of bridge piers to some extent
but cannot ensure that the bridge will not collapse under an extreme
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

high-speed impact from a heavy truck.

Conclusions

The effectiveness of FRP in strengthening the vehicular impact re-

sistance of bridge piers, as well as the potential collapse of entire
bridges with/without FRP-strengthened piers was evaluated in
Fig. 29. Shear cracking pattern of vehicular-impacted bridge pier.
this paper. The key findings are summarized as follows:

Table 4. Collision scenarios for bridge collapse evaluation

Series Label W (t) V (km/h) P
Fveh (kN) Vdsd (kN) Vdsc /Vdsc
S
(kN) λc Collapse or not?
Series-I-B B-W18-V100 18 100 10,200 6,320 7,250 0.86 No
B-W18-V110 110 11,198 7,479 1.03 No
B-W18-V120 120 12,175 8,114 1.12 No
B-W18-V130 130 12,200 8,130 1.12 No
B-W18-V140 140 14,500 9,625 1.33 Yes
B-W18-V150 150 15,800 10,470 1.44 Yes
Series-I-S S-W18-V100 18 100 9,120 6,128 8,150 0.75 No
S-W18-V110 110 10,100 6,765 0.83 No
S-W18-V120 120 11,300 7,545 0.93 No
S-W18-V130 130 12,600 8,390 1.03 No
S-W18-V140 140 13,500 8,975 1.10 No
S-W18-V150 150 14,400 9,560 1.17 No
Series-II-B B-W28-V100 28 100 15,194 10,076 7,250 1.39 Yes
B-W28-V110 110 15,800 10,470 1.44 Yes
B-W28-V120 120 17,400 11,510 1.59 Yes
B-W28-V130 130 18,500 12,225 1.69 Yes
B-W28-V140 140 19,800 13,070 1.80 Yes
B-W28-V150 150 21,300 14,045 1.94 Yes
Series-II-S S-W28-V100 28 100 14,460 9,599 8,150 1.18 No
S-W28-V110 110 15,695 10,402 1.28 No
S-W28-V120 120 16,515 10,935 1.34 No
S-W28-V130 130 16,504 10,928 1.34 No
S-W28-V140 140 18,444 12,189 1.50 Yes
S-W28-V150 150 19,532 12,896 1.58 Yes
Series-III-B B-W38-V100 38 100 15,201 10,081 7,250 1.39 Yes
B-W38-V110 110 16,400 10,860 1.50 Yes
B-W38-V120 120 17,278 11,431 1.58 Yes
B-W38-V130 130 18,719 12,367 1.71 Yes
B-W38-V140 140 20,261 13,370 1.84 Yes
B-W38-V150 150 21,100 13,915 1.92 Yes
Series-III-S S-W38-V100 38 100 14,500 9,625 8,150 1.18 No
S-W38-V110 110 15,300 10,145 1.24 No
S-W38-V120 120 16,200 10,730 1.32 No
S-W38-V130 130 16,800 11,120 1.36 No
S-W38-V140 140 18,500 12,225 1.50 Yes
S-W38-V150 150 19,400 12,810 1.57 Yes
Series-IV-B B-W43-V100 43 100 15,400 10,210 7,250 1.41 Yes
B-W43-V110 110 16,176 10,714 1.48 Yes
B-W43-V120 120 17,438 11,535 1.59 Yes
B-W43-V130 130 17,900 11,835 1.63 Yes
B-W43-V140 140 20,300 13,395 1.85 Yes
B-W43-V150 150 21,149 13,947 1.92 Yes
Series-IV-S S-W43-V100 43 100 14,334 9,517 8,150 1.17 No
S-W43-V110 110 15,158 10,053 1.23 No
S-W43-V120 120 16,567 10,969 1.35 No
S-W43-V130 130 16,061 10,640 1.31 No
S-W43-V140 140 18,720 12,368 1.52 Yes
S-W43-V150 150 19,532 12,896 1.58 Yes

© ASCE 04022062-26 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 30. Collapse evaluation of bridge with (a) bare; and (b) CFRP-strengthened piers.

1. External FRP wrapping can enhance the vehicular impact resis- Asv = area sum of transverse rebars;
tance of bridge piers to reduce the degree of damage from truck Asv1 = area of single transverse rebar;
collisions. In terms of shear-dominated failure that often occurs b = section width of pier;
in the collision accidents, the strengthening scheme, that is, the c = strain-rate parameter for C-S model;
fiber orientation of 0° in reference to the column circumferential D = diameter of pier;
direction, ¾ column height, and four-layer CFRP wrapping, was DIF = dynamic increase factor;
found to achieve the most prominent and stable strengthening DIFc = DIF of concrete;
effects for typical as-built bridge piers, which could improve DIFcc = DIF of compressive strength of concrete;
the dynamic shear capacity of 10% and dynamic bending capac- DIFct = DIF of tensile strength of concrete;
ity of 20%. DIFf = DIF of FRP;
2. By introducing the dynamic increase factor on concrete DIFs = DIF of reinforcement rebar;
strength, reinforcement rebar and FRP, and modifying the non- df = effective width of strengthened pier;
uniform distribution of the strain rate at the impact location of Ea = elastic modulus of FRP;
the vehicular-collided strengthened bridge pier, the dynamic Eb = elastic modulus of FRP;
shear capacity of the FRP-strengthened bridge pier was Ef = tensile modulus of elasticity of FRP;
formulated. Ep = plastic hardening modulus of rebar;
3. Based on the quantitative collapse evaluation results of bridges FvehP
= peak vehicular impact force;
with/without CFRP-strengthened piers under medium and fcs = static cylindric compressive strength of concrete;
heavy truck collisions, the strengthened pier was found to effec- fcu,s = static cube compressive strength of concrete;
tively prevent the potential collapse of the entire bridge when ffed = effective dynamic tensile stress of FRP;
subjected to high-speed traveling trucks, in which the collapse ffes = effective static tensile stress of FRP;
index increased from 1.2 to 1.4. ftd = dynamic tensile strength of concrete;
fts = static tensile strength of concrete;
fyvd = dynamic yield stress of transverse rebar;
Data Availability Statement fyvs = static yield stress of transverse rebar;
Gab = shear modulus of FRP;
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this h0 = effective section height of pier;
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable mch = cargo weight of heavy truck;
request. The specific items are as follows: mcm = cargo weight of medium truck;
1. All the FE models and numerical simulation results; meh = engine weight of heavy truck;
2. All the original data shown in figures and tables. mem = engine weight of medium truck;
N = axial force applied on pier;
n = number of transverse rebars;
Acknowledgments nf = number of FRP layers;
p = strain-rate parameter for C-S model;
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from Sc = longitudinal compressive stress of FRP;
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. s = spacing of transverse rebar;
52108474). tf = FRP thickness;
Vbd = dynamic shear capacity of bare pier;
Vbs = static shear capacity of bare pier;
Notation Vdsc = dynamic shear capacity of bare pier;
VdscS
= dynamic shear capacity of strengthened pier;
The following symbols are used in this paper: Vdsd = maximal dynamic shear demand;
A = section area of pier; Vfd = dynamic shear contribution of FRP;

© ASCE 04022062-27 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

 Vfs = static shear contribution of FRP; impact.” Eng. Struct. 183: 443–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
v0 = impact velocity; .engstruct.2019.01.040.
vab = Poisson’s ratio of FRP; Do, T. V., T. M. Pham, and H. Hao. 2019b. “Proposed design procedure for
vba = Poisson’s ratio of FRP; reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to vehicle collisions.”
Struct. 22: 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.08.011.
Xt = longitudinal tensile stress of FRP;
El-Tawil, S., E. Severino, and P. Fonseca. 2005. “Vehicle collision with
Yc = transverse compressive stress of FRP;
bridge piers.” J. Bridge Eng. 10 (3): 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1061
Yt = transverse tensile stress of FRP; /(ASCE)1084-0702(2005)10:3(345).
β = hardening parameter of rebar; Erki, M. A., and U. Meier. 1999. “Impact loading of concrete beams exter-
ε̇ = strain rate of rebar; nally strengthened with CFRP laminates.” J. Compos. Constr. 3 (3):
ε̇cd = compressive strain rate of concrete; 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(1999)3:3(117).
ɛeff =
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

equivalent plastic strain of rebar;
ε̇f = strain rate of FRP;
ɛfe = effective strain of FRP;
ε̇sd = strain rate of rebar;
ε̇td = tensile strain rate of concrete;
θ = fiber orientation of FRP;
κ = nonuniform distribution of the strain rate;
λ = shear-span ratio;
λc = collapse index;
σ0 = static yield stress of rebar;
σy = dynamic yield stress of rebar; and
wf = FRP wrapping width.
References
AASHTO. 2017. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 8th ed.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2008. Guide for the design and con-
struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures. ACI 440.2 R-08. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Alkhatib, F., E. Mahdi, and A. Dean. 2020. “Crushing response of CFRP
and KFRP composite corrugated tubes to quasistatic slipping axial load-
ing: Experimental investigation and numerical simulation.” Compos.
Struct. 246: 112370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112370.
Altair HyperWorks. 2014. Accessed November 1, 2021. https://www.altair
.com/customer-support.
Buth, C. E., W. F. Williams, M. S. Brackin, D. Lord, S. R. Geedipally, and
A. Y. Abu-Odeh. 2010. Collision loads on bridge piers: Phase
1. Report of guidelines for designing bridge piers and abutments for ve-
hicle collisions. Rep. No. FHWA/TX-11/9-4973-1. College Station,
TX: Texas Transportation Institute.
Cao, R., A. K. Agrawal, S. El-Tawil, X. Xu, and W. Wong. 2019.
“Performance-based design framework for bridge piers subjected to
truck collision.” J. Bridge Eng. 24 (7): 04019064. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001423.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2002. Actions on struc-
tures. Part 1-1: General actions-densities, self-weight, imposed loads
for building. BS EN 1991-1-1:2002. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
Chen, L., H. Wu, and T. Liu. 2020. “Shear performance evaluation of re-
inforced concrete piers subjected to vehicle collision.” J. Struct. Eng.
146 (4): 04020026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0002571.
Chen, L., and Y. Xiao. 2012. “Review of studies on vehicle anti-collision
on bridge piers.” [In Chinese.] J. Highway Transp. Res. Dev. 29 (8):
78–86.
Chen, X., A. K. Agrawal, S. El-Tawil, X. Xu, R. Cao, and W. Wong. 2019.
“Inelastic behavior of a bridge bent subjected to truck impact:
Experimental and computational study.” Eng. Struct. 199: 109543.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109543.
Consolazio, G. R., and M. T. Davidson. 2008. “Simplified dynamic analy-
sis of barge collision for bridge design.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2050: 13–25.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2050-02.
Do, T. V., T. M. Pham, and H. Hao. 2018. “Dynamic responses and failure
modes of bridge columns under vehicle collision.” Eng. Struct. 156:
243–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.053.
Do, T. V., T. M. Pham, and H. Hao. 2019a. “Impact force profile and failure
classification of reinforced concrete bridge columns against vehicle
GB (Guobiao Standards). 2010. Code for design of concrete structures. [In
Chinese.] GB 50010-2010. Beijing: Ministry of Housing and Urban
Development of the People’s Republic of China & General
Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of
the People’s Republic of China.
GB (Guobiao Standards). 2013. Code for design of strengthening concrete
structure. [In Chinese.] GB 50367-2013. Beijing: Ministry of Housing
and Urban Development of the People’s Republic of China & General
Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of
the People’s Republic of China.
Gilat, A., R. K. Goldberg, and G. D. Roberts. 2002. “Experimental study of
strain-rate-dependent behavior of carbon/epoxy composite.” Compos.
Sci. Technol. 62 (10): 1469–1476. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266
-3538(02)00100-8.
Han, H., F. Taheri, N. Pegg, and Y. Lu. 2007. “A numerical study on the
axial crushing response of hybrid pultruded and ±45° braided tubes.”
Compos. Struct. 80: 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct
.2006.05.012.
Heng, K., R. Li, and H. Wu. 2022. “Damage assessment of simply supported
double-pier bent bridge under heavy truck collision.” J. Bridge Eng. 27 (5):
04022021. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001851.
Hosseini, P., S. H. Ghasemi, M. Jalayer, and A. S. Nowak. 2019.
“Performance-based reliability analysis of bridge pier subjected to ve-
hicular collision: Extremity and failure.” Eng. Fail. Anal. 106:
104176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104176.
Jin, L., Y. Lan, R. Zhang, and X. Du. 2021. “Numerical analysis of the me-
chanical behavior of the impact-damaged RC beams strengthened with
CFRP.” Compos. Struct. 274: 114353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compstruct.2021.114353.
Kabir, M. Z., and E. Shafei. 2009. “Analytical and numerical study of FRP ret-
rofitted RC beams under low velocity impact.” Sci. Iran. 16 (5): 415–428.
Kimura, H., M. Itabashi, and K. Kawata. 2001. “Mechanical characteriza-
tion of unidirectional CFRP thin strip and CFRP cables under quasi-
static and dynamic tension.” Adv. Compos. Mater 10 (2/3): 177–187.
https://doi.org/10.1163/156855101753396654.
Li, R. W., D. S. Cao, H. Wu, and D. F. Wang. 2021. “Collapse analysis and
damage evaluation of typical simply supported double-pier RC bridge
under truck collision.” Struct. 33: 3222–3238. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.istruc.2021.06.041.
Li, R. W., H. Wu, Q. T. Yang, and D. F. Wang. 2020a. “Vehicular impact
resistance of seismic designed RC bridge piers.” Eng. Struct. 220:
111015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111015.
Li, R. W., D. Y. Zhou, and H. Wu. 2020b. “Experimental and numerical
study on impact resistance of RC bridge piers under lateral impact load-
ing.” Eng. Fail. Anal. 109: 104319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal
.2019.104319.
Li, Z. X., X. J. Zhang, and Y. C. Shi. 2020c. “Experimental study on dy-
namic properties of BFRP laminates used for structural strengthening
under high strain rates.” Constr. Build. Mater. 258: 118731.
Liu, T., and Y. Xiao. 2017. “Impact behavior of CFRP-strip-wrapped RC
beams without stirrups.” J. Compos. Constr. 21 (5): 04017035. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000815.
LSTC (Livermore Software Technology Corporation). 2013. Keyword
user’s manual. LSTC.
Malvar, L. J., and J. E. Crawford. 1998a. Dynamic increase factors for con-
crete. Hueneme, CA: Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center Port.
Malvar, L. J., and J. E. Crawford. 1998b. “Dynamic increase factors for
steel reinforcing bars.” In Proc., 28th DDESB Seminar. Alexandria,
VA: Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board.

© ASCE 04022062-28 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062

 Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s
Republic of China. 2011. Code for seismic design of urban bridges.
[In Chinese.] CJJ 166-2011. Beijing: Ministry of Housing and
Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China.
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China. 2015. General
code for design of highway bridges and culverts. [In Chinese.] JTG
D60-2015. Beijing: China Communications Press.
Mohammed, T. A., and A. Parvin. 2020. “Vehicle collision impact re-
sponse of bridge pier strengthened with composites.” Pract. Period.
Struct. Des. Constr. 25 (4): 04020027. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000510.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur" on 06/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Nanjing Hitech Composites. 2021. Accessed November 1, 2021. http://cn
.hitechfrp.com/.
NCAC. 2010. “Finite element model archive.” Accessed December 1,
2012. http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/vml/models.html.
Pham, T. M., and H. Hao. 2016. “Impact behavior of FRP-strengthened RC
beams without stirrups.” J. Compos. Constr. 20 (4): 04016011. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000671.
Promis, G., E. Ferrier, and P. Hamelin. 2009. “Effect of external FRP retro-
fitting on reinforced concrete short columns for seismic strengthening.”
Compos. Struct. 88: 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2008
.04.019.
Shin, M., and B. Andrawes. 2011. “Lateral cyclic behavior of reinforced
concrete columns retrofitted with shape memory spirals and FRP
wraps.” J. Struct. Eng. 137 (11): 1282–1290. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000364.
© ASCE 04022062-29
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(8): 04022062
Soleimani, S. M., N. Banthia, and S. Mindess. 2007. “Sprayed GFRP shear-
strengthened reinforced concrete beams under impact loading.” In
Advances in Construction Materials, edited by C. U. Grosse, 279–
286. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Symonds, P. S. 1967. Survey of methods of analysis for plastic deformation
of structures under dynamic loading. Rep. No. BU/NSRDC/1-67.
Providence, RI: Brown Univ. School of Engineering.
Tang, T., and H. Saadatmanesh. 2003. “Behavior of concrete beams
strengthened with fiber-reinforced polymer laminates under impact
loading.” J. Compos. Constr. 7 (3): 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:3(209).
Teng, J. G., J. F. Chen, S. T. Smith, and L. Lam. 2002. FRP: Strengthened
RC structures, 31–46. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Xu, J. J., C. Demartino, B. Shan, Y. A. Heo, and Y. Xiao. 2020.
“Experimental investigation on performance of cantilever
CFRP-wrapped circular RC columns under lateral low-velocity im-
pact.” Compos. Struct. 242: 112143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compstruct.2020.112143.
Zhang, X., and H. Hao. 2019. “Improved impact resistant capacity of
segmental column with fibre reinforced polymer wrap.”
Int. J. Impact Eng. 125: 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng
.2018.11.009.
Zhou, S. C., C. Demartino, J. J. Xu, and Y. Xiao. 2021. “Effectiveness of
CFRP seismic-retrofit of circular RC bridge piers under vehicular lateral
impact loading.” Eng. Struct. 243: 112602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2021.112602.
J. Bridge Eng.