Experimental analysis shows GFRP confinement improves strength and ductility in bridge piers, highlighting seismic benefits.
The application of precast assembled pier systems in high-seismicity regions is often constrained by their seismic performance limitations. To validate the optimization effect of GFRP confinement on the hysteretic performance of bridge piers, this study first conducted axial compression tests on 54 glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP)-confined concrete cylindrical specimens. The investigation focused on the effects of fiber layers (6 and 10), orientation angles (±45°, ±60°, ±80°), slenderness ratios (2 and 4), and compression section configurations (fully loaded vs. core concrete loading only) on confinement efficacy. The experimental results demonstrate that specimens with ±60° fiber angles achieved an optimal balance between strength and ductility, exhibiting an average strength enhancement of 298.0% and a maximum axial strain of 2.7% compared to unconfined concrete. Subsequently, two GFRP tube-confined concrete bridge piers with varying fiber layers (PRCG1: 6 layers; PRCG2: 10 layers) and one unconfined reference pier (PRC) were designed and fabricated. All specimens employed grout-filled sleeves to connect caps and piers. Pseudo-static tests revealed that GFRP confinement effectively mitigated damage in plastic hinge zones and enhanced seismic performance. Compared to the PRC, PRCG1 and PRCG2 exhibited increases in ultimate displacement by 19.50% and 28.57%, in ductility coefficients by 18.56% and 27.84%, and in cumulative hysteretic energy dissipation by 13.90% and 26.43%, respectively. At the 5% drift ratio, their load capacities increased by 26.74% and 23.25%, stiffnesses improved by 28.91% and 25.51%, and residual displacements decreased by 20.89% and 11.17%. The accuracy and applicability of the GFRP tube-confined bridge pier model, developed based on the Lam–Teng model, were validated through numerical simulations using the OpenSees fiber element approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ye et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: