Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15:1194–1211, 2011

Copyright © A. S. Elnashai & N. N. Ambraseys

ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2011.569051

Effect of Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Cement

Composite and Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete for
Enhancing the Seismic Performance
of Bridge Columns

KAZUHIKO KAWASHIMA1 , RICHELLE ZAFRA1 ,

TOMOHIRO SASAKI1 , KOICHI KAJIWARA2 , and
MANABU NAKAYAMA2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

2
Hyogo Earthquake Engineering Research Center, National Research Institute for
Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Hyogo, Japan

This article presents the seismic performance of scaled bridge columns using polypropylene fiber
reinforced cement composite (PFRC), steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC), and reinforced concrete
(RC) in combination with high strength longitudinal bars. The columns were subjected to combined
axial and bilateral cyclic loading. Use of PFRC and SFRC mitigated damage of cover and core con-
crete, local buckling of longitudinal bars and strains induced in ties compared with the RC column.
Damage mitigation and lateral confinement effect was superior in PFRC than SFRC. While PFRC
and SFRC reduced the damage, their flexural strength and ductility capacity were similar with the
RC column.

Keywords Bridges; Columns; Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Cement Composite; Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete; High Strength Reinforcement; Cyclic Loading

1. Introduction
Bridges are vital components of the transportation networks that require a high degree
of protection to ensure their functionality even after a significant earthquake. Damage
after an earthquake interferes with evacuation, emergency response, and post-earthquake
recovery. To enhance the seismic performance and serviceability of bridges, focus has
been on the development and implementation of innovative materials. Fiber reinforced
concrete/cement composites (FRCC) have the potential for seismic applications due to
their substantial strain capacity and crack control capability.
Engineered cementitious composite (ECC) is a class of fiber reinforced cement com-
posites. It has high tensile strength compared to normal concrete and has capability of
reaching ultimate tensile strains of about 0.03–0.05 under monotonic loading because of
its unique cracking mechanism in which closely spaced micro-cracks form [Li and Leung,
1992; Maalej and Li, 1994]. The compressive strength of ECC is not significantly enhanced
with the presence of fibers but the compressive strain capacity is approximately double of
traditional fiber reinforced concrete [Li, 1998]. ECC uses only fine aggregates in the mix

Received 11 May 2010; accepted 27 February 2011.

Address correspondence to Kazuhiko Kawashima, Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, O-okayama, Meguro, Tokyo, Japan 152-8552; E-mail: kawashima.k.ae@m.titech.ac.jp

1194
 Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns using PFRC and SFRC 1195

to control the fracture toughness of the composite and the lack of course aggregates in the
mix results in a low composite elastic modulus.
Previous investigations have shown the positive effects of using fiber reinforced
concrete/cement composites for structural members subjected to cyclic loading. These
include the work of Filiatrault et al. [1995] wherein steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC)
was used in full-scale beam-column joints under quasi-static tests. They found that the
presence of steel fibers in the joint increased the shear strength and can diminish the require-
ments for closely spaced ties. Daniel and Loukili [2002] examined the effect of steel fiber
length on scaled steel fiber reinforced concrete beams under cyclic bending. They found
that as the fiber length increases, cracking is delayed at the pre-peak stage and the num-
ber and length of cracks were reduced. However, at the post-peak stage, ductility was not
improved even with the presence of fibers due to the severe bond deterioration.
Saiidi et al. [2009] investigated the effect of incorporating ECC with polyvynil alcohol
(PVA) fibers and shape-memory alloys (SMA) on model columns subjected to a simulated
seismic loading. Use of PVA-ECC substantially reduced damage in the plastic hinge and
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

use of SMA bars reduced residual displacements. Furthermore, the combination of PVA-
ECC and SMA led to larger drift capacity compared to the conventional steel reinforced
concrete column.
Use of high strength steel reinforcement reduces the required member cross section
and reinforcement ratio. The reduction in the number of bars also prevents congestion prob-
lems leading to better construction quality. On the other hand, the primary concern with the
use of high strength bars as flexure reinforcement is the high strain at yield strength or
yield point which may exceed the concrete crushing strain resulting in concrete compres-
sion failure and the increase in concrete crack widths with increasing reinforcement stress.
Effective use of high strength bars as primary reinforcement can be attained with the use of
FRCC with high compressive strain capacity and crack control capability.
This study investigated the effect of polypropylene fiber reinforced cement compos-
ite (PFRC) and steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) in combination with high strength
longitudinal reinforcement on the response of bridge columns subjected to bilateral cyclic
loading. The use of PFRC or SFRC with crack control capability and high compressive
strain capacity can mitigate damage and increase ductility leading to enhanced column
seismic performance. As described above, the use of high strength longitudinal bars can
reduce member cross section, congestion of dense reinforcement, and construction period.
The combination of these high-performance materials can benefit the construction industry
through efficient use of materials.

2. Experimental Program

2.1. Specimen Configuration and Properties

Three 1/4.5 scaled models of a cantilever prototype column were investigated. The pro-
totype column was a 7.5 m tall, 1.8 m by 1.8 m square column designed based on the
current Japan Specifications of Highway Bridges [JRA, 2002] assuming moderate soil con-
dition under the Type II design ground motion (near-field ground motions). Furthermore,
the prototype column was designed incorporating higher than standard concrete com-
pressive strength and longitudinal bar strength to reduce the required cross section and
reinforcement ratio.
The scaled columns had a 400 mm by 400 mm square cross section with rounded
corners and an effective height (height from the top of footing to the center of the load-
ing point) of 1680 mm, as shown in Fig. 1. Shear-span ratio was 4.2 to ensure flexural
 1196 K. Kawashima et al.

400
Actuator 400
400
level
520

cross-ties
35 35

N N

D6
13@45=585 16@50=800
20

D6 ties
400
W

400
RC W E

D6 ties
E
B B
1680
1420

S S

A A D6 cross-ties D6 cross-ties
600
36-D10 36-D10
15

longitudinal bars longitudinal bars

RC
420

SFRC
PFRC
1150

(a) (b) (c) ( d)

Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

FIGURE 1 Specimen configuration and dimensions (mm): (a) reinforcement; (b) location
where SFRC and PFRC were used; (c) section A-A; and (d) section B-B.

failure dominated response. Three columns were identical except for the material used in
the potential plastic hinge region and the footing. The columns incorporating concrete, steel
fiber reinforced concrete, and polypropylene fiber reinforced cement composite are referred
herein as reinforced concrete (RC) column, steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) column,
and polypropylene fiber reinforced cement composite (PFRC) column, respectively. SFRC
and PFRC were used only in the footing and in the column up to a height of 600 mm from
the column base to minimize the cost. This height is three times the estimated plastic hinge
length of one-half the column width [JRA, 2002] corresponding to 200 mm to avoid failure
at the SFRC/PFRC-concrete interface. Concrete was used above the 600 mm height.
Concrete with nominal compressive strength fc of 60 MPa was used. The concrete
mix had a water-cement ratio of 35% and a maximum aggregate size of 13 mm. High-
range water reducing admixtures and admixtures to enhance the workability of the mix
were added. The compressive strength obtained from cylinder test on the day of the loading
experiment was 55 MPa with a strain at peak of 0.46%. Concrete used for the three columns
had the same properties because all concrete was cast on the same day.
The design compressive strength fc of SFRC was 60 MPa. SFRC was made by com-
bining concrete, with properties described above, with 1.0% volume of steel fibers with
hooked ends. The steel fibers were made from cold drawn wires with a diameter of 0.55
mm and length of 30 mm. Other relevant properties of the steel fibers are summarized
in Table 1. Admixtures were also used during casting to enhance the fresh properties of
the mix. The measured cylinder compressive strength of SFRC on the day of the loading
experiment was 63 MPa with a strain at peak of 0.49%.
The target nominal compressive strength fc of PFRC was set at 40 MPa due to the
difficulty of obtaining a mixture with fc of 60 MPa. PFRC was made by combining cement
mortar, fine aggregates with a maximum grain size of 0.30 mm, water, and 3% volume
of polypropylene fibers which was equivalent to 1.5% fiber by weight. Monofilament
polypropylene fibers with a diameter of 42.6 µm and length of 12 mm were used [Hirata
et al., 2009]. Other important properties are shown in Table 1. Superplasticizers were added
to improve the workability of the mix. The measured cylinder compressive strength of
PFRC on the day of the loading experiment was 38 MPa with a strain at peak of 0.54%.
 Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns using PFRC and SFRC 1197

TABLE 1 Properties of fibers used in experiment

Fiber type Steel Polypropylene
Tensile strength (MPa) 1100 482
Young’s modulus (GPa) 210 5
Density (kg/m3 ) 7.85 0.91

80
70 Concrete
60 SFRC
Stress (MPa)

PFRC
50
40
30
20
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

10
0
0 1 2 3 4
Strain (%)

FIGURE 2 Compressive stress-strain envelope of concrete, SFRC, and PFRC.

Figure 2 shows the compressive stress-strain envelopes of concrete, SFRC and PFRC
obtained from cylinder tests. Addition of steel fibers in SFRC increased the strength and
strain at peak stress by 15% and 7%, respectively, compared to concrete. Using polypropy-
lene fibers in PFRC, post peak strain of 0.54% was reached and the stress-strain curve has
a long softening branch until 4% strain compared to concrete. Significant increase in duc-
tility was achieved by the addition of polypropylene fibers in a similar way as confinement
by transverse reinforcement.
The longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio and tie reinforcement ratio were identical in
all column models. Longitudinal reinforcement consisted of 36, 10 mm diameter deformed
bars with nominal yield strength of 685 MPa (SD685) resulting in a reinforcement ratio
ρl of 1.70%. Tie reinforcement consisted of 6 mm diameter deformed bars with nominal
yield strength of 345 MPa (SD345) having 135◦ bent hooks lap spliced with 40 times
bar diameter. The hooks were staggered along the column height, as shown in Fig. 3. For
example, hooks were anchored to bars A to D at 90 mm interval, i.e., at 15 mm, 105 mm,
195 mm, and so on, and to bars F to I at 60 mm, 150 mm, and so on. Cross ties with 180◦
hooks were provided as shown in Fig. 1 to increase the confinement of square ties. Ties and
cross ties were spaced at 45 mm (ρs = 2.17%) within 600 mm from the base and at 50 mm
spacing above (ρs = 1.50%). Concrete cover of 35 mm was provided in all columns.
Figure 4 shows the tensile stress-strain relation of a 10 mm diameter high strength
SD685 longitudinal bar used in the experiment in comparison with the commonly used
SD345 bar of similar diameter. The result for a 6 mm diameter SD345 tie bar is also shown.
Table 2 summarizes the properties of the reinforcing bars. The D10-SD685 bar showed
a yield plateau. Yield strength was 710 MPa at a strain of 0.4% and rupture strain was
10.9%. The D10-SD345 bar similarly showed a yield plateau. Yield strength was 360 MPa
at a strain of 0.2% and rupture strain was 20.5%. The high strength SD685 bar has higher
yield strain but lower rupture strain compared to the SD345 bar. The high yield strain will
result in larger yield displacements however the high yield strain may exceed the concrete
crushing strain resulting in the brittle concrete failure. Use of SFRC and PFRC with higher
 1198 K. Kawashima et al.

N E
W S
G H I
D E F
A B C

FIGURE 3 Location of 135◦ tie hook with lap splice (color figure available online).
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

1000

800
Stress (MPa)

600

400
D10-SD685
200 D10-SD345
D6-SD345
0
0 5 10 15 20
Strain (%)

FIGURE 4 Tensile stress-strain relation of reinforcing bars.

TABLE 2 Measured properties of reinforcing bars

Elastic Yield Ultimate Yield Rupture
modulus strength tensile strain strain
Type (GPa) (MPa) strength (MPa) (%) (%)
D10-SD658 173 710.1 871.8 0.41 10.9
D10-SD345 172 360.2 568.5 0.21 20.5
D6-SD345 177 426.5 626.3 0.24 15.1

crushing strain can make effective use of bars with high yield strain. The lower rupture
strain of the SD685 bar may limit the ductility response. The D6-SD345 bar did not show a
yield plateau. The yield strength obtained with the 0.2% strain offset method was 426 MPa
at a strain of 0.2%.

2.2. Experimental Set-up and Loading Protocol

The quasi-static cyclic loading experiment was conducted under displacement control.
Figure 5 shows the loading set-up used. A constant axial load of 183 kN corresponding
to 1.20 MPa axial stress in the plastic hinge was applied by a vertical actuator simultane-
ously with bilateral displacements applied by two lateral actuators. Circular loading orbit
 Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns using PFRC and SFRC 1199

Vertical Actuator
East West
Reaction Frame

Horizontal
Specimen
Actuator #1

PC Bar

1680
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

(a) (b)

FIGURE 5 Loading set-up: (a) loading-system and (b) column specimen set in position
(color figure available online).

was used and the amplitude was increased at one half of the drift ratio at each loading step.
Drift ratio is defined as the column lateral displacement at the loading point divided by the
effective column height. Thus, 1% drift ratio corresponds to 16.8 mm.
The column was first loaded in the South (S) direction until 0.5% drift ratio, then
loaded three times by the circular orbit in the clockwise direction, then finally unloaded
in S direction to the rest position (Fig. 6). The circular loading orbit with three cycles
at each load step is a severe loading regime which can cause the accumulation of plastic
strain at the plastic hinge of the columns. Due to some problems with the actuator control
system, a phase lag of 12.6◦ occurred between the North-South (NS) and East-West (EW)
displacement components resulting in an elliptical loading orbit with the semi-major axis

East
Drift ratio (%)

Time N N
West

(a) E
W E W

North
Drift ratio (%)

S S
Time
South

(b) (c) (d)

FIGURE 6 Loading scheme: (a) East-West component; (b) North-South component;

(c) target circular displacement orbit; and (d) actual elliptical displacement orbit.
 1200 K. Kawashima et al.

along the NE-SW direction, as shown in Fig. 6d. The P- effect resulting from the vertical
and lateral actuators was corrected based on Nagata et al. [2004].
Footings of the specimen were designed to be strong to avoid any damage. They were
anchored to the test floor using four PC bars with 250 kN prestressing force each.

3. Effect of Fibers on Cyclic Response of Columns

3.1. Progress of Column Damage

Figure 7 shows the observed damage at 3% and 4.5% drift loading on the S-face of RC
column. Because damage was more extensive in the SW-NE axis due to the elliptical dis-
placement orbit, damage only on the S-face is shown here. Damage of the RC column
progressed in the well known standard manner, i.e., the cover concrete which started to
separate from the core concrete at 2% drift due to compression extensively spalled (fell
down) at 3% drift loading. At 4% drift loading, cover concrete spalling occurred within
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

150 mm from the base at the SW corner exposing longitudinal bars and ties. Out of 24
longitudinal bars that buckled, 14 bars ruptured by the end of 4.5% drift loading.
On the other hand, progress of damage was much less in the SFRC and PFRC columns
than the RC column, as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. At 3% drift loading, in contrast to the
severe spalling of cover concrete in the RC column, the presence of fibers transformed the
brittle failure in the RC column to a less brittle failure in the SFRC and PFRC columns.
Note that whereas damage of cover concrete was minor in the SFRC and PFRC columns
than the RC column, the cover concrete started to separate from the core concrete and this
resulted to the deterioration of the lateral constraint of cover concrete to local buckling
of longitudinal bars. This was known from the sound change when the columns were hit
by a hammer. In addition to the separation of cover concrete, a part of the cover concrete
spalled in SFRC column. The PFRC column sustained only a couple of horizontal cracks
near the base with the cover concrete remaining as a whole block due to the bridging action
of fibers. However, vertical cracks started to occur on the cover concrete at the NE and SW
corners near the base resulting from the volumetric expansion (dilation) of concrete and
footing reaction on the cover concrete when the column was laterally loaded.
Less damage of cover concrete in the PFRC column than the SFRC column became
more apparent at 4% drift loading. Several small pieces of crushed cover concrete blocks

(a) (b)

FIGURE 7 Damage of RC column on the S-face: (a) 3% drift and (b) 4.5% drift (color
figure available online).
 Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns using PFRC and SFRC 1201

separated and spalled from the core concrete within 50 mm from the base in the SFRC
column while the cover concrete essentially remained with only horizontal and vertical
cracks in the PFRC column. Since polypropylene fibers have lower stiffness than steel
fibers (refer to Table 1), polypropylene deformed more flexibly which probably delayed the
rupture of fibers in the cover concrete subjected to repeated high compression and tension.
Although the cover concrete still remained as a whole block due to the bridging action of
fibers in the PFRC column, the cover concrete already separated from the core concrete
within 150 mm from the base at the NE and SW corners.
In all three columns, loading was terminated at the end of 4.5% drift due to rupture of
longitudinal bars. Figure 10 shows damage of the three columns before cover concrete was
removed after 4.5% drift loading. It is apparent that damage of cover concrete was much
more restricted in the PFRC column than the SFRC column. Figure 11 shows the plastic
hinge zone of the three columns on the S face after cover concrete was removed. Removal
of cover concrete by chipping-off using a hammer was easy in the RC column, however it
was very tough in the SFRC and PFRC columns even by using an electric drill. This was
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

the case, in particular, for the PFRC column. It was found that not only cover concrete but
also core concrete crushed extensively in the RC column while core concrete crushing was

(a) (b)

FIGURE 8 Damage of SFRC column on the S-face: (a) 3% drift and (b) 4.5% drift (color
figure available online).

(a) (b)

FIGURE 9 Damage of PFRC column on the S-face: (a) 3% drift and (b) 4.5% drift (color
figure available online).
 1202 K. Kawashima et al.

N W S E N W S E N W S E
1200

800

400

0
(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 10 Damage of columns at the end of 4.5% drift ratio loading: (a) RC; (b) SFRC;
and (c) PFRC.
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 11 Damage of core concrete on the S face at the end of 4.5% drift ratio loading:
(a) RC; (b) SFRC; and (c) PFRC (color figure available online).

W S E W S E W S E
400 Depth of crushed
core concrete
300 0 mm
AB C D E F G H I AB C D E F G H I AB C D E F G H I
0–10 mm
200 10–20 mm
20–30 mm
100 30–40 mm
40–50 mm
0
(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 12 Depth of crushed core concrete from the extreme core fiber on the S face at
the end of 4.5% drift ratio loading: (a) RC; (b) SFRC; and (c) PFRC.

more limited in the SFRC column. Identification of core concrete damage was difficult in
the PFRC column due to the presence of fibers but no evidence of compression failure or
crack propagation was identified.
In the RC column, concrete crushed as deep as 10 mm at A–F bars within 15 and
150 mm from the base and at F–I bars within 60 and 150 mm from the base as shown
in Fig. 12. In particular, core concrete crushed as deep as 45 and 40 mm at the location
of A–C bars within 50 and 100 mm from the base and at the location of H–I bars within
80–100 mm from the base. Similarly, core concrete crushed in the SFRC column, but the
 Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns using PFRC and SFRC 1203

depth of core concrete crushing was not as deep as the RC column. Core concrete crushing
as deep as 10 mm occurred at all bars on the S face within 15 and 100 mm from the base,
and core concrete crushed as deep as 40 mm at bars A–C within 40 and 80 mm from the
base. Note that the zone where core concrete crushed as deep as 10 mm was much lower
and localized in the SFRC column than the RC column. On the other hand, core concrete
did not crush in the PFRC column.
The damage of core concrete in the RC and SFRC columns was related to the buck-
ling of bars. Longitudinal bars buckled in a very complex manner after being subjected to
combined axial force, moment and torsion in the plastic range. Bars did not only buckle
outwards perpendicular to the column face but buckled in bilateral directions and rotated
due to the applied bilateral load. Rupture of bars concentrated at the SW corner in the three
columns. Figure 13 shows buckled bars A–I on the S face of the three columns after 4.5%
drift loading. As shown in Fig. 3, the 135◦ tie hook was anchored to bars A–D at 15 and
105 mm from the base and to bars F–I at 60 and 150 mm from the base resulting to double
tie area. Because of the increase of tie constraint due to double tie area at these locations,
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

bars buckled in between these locations in the RC column. Thus, bar buckling occurred at
the locations where core concrete crushed as deep as 10 mm. Longitudinal bars ruptured
due to the extensive core concrete crushing as deep as 45 mm at bars A–D as well as some
other bars on the W face, as shown in Fig. 14. This is also the case in the SFRC column.
Extensive bucking of longitudinal bars occurred within 15 and 100 mm from the base for
all bars on the S face, which corresponded to the zone where core concrete crushed deeper
than 10 mm. Since the core concrete was intact in the PFRC column, bar buckling and
rupture were much less and occurred at a much lower height compared to the bars of the
SFRC and RC columns due to the damage of cover concrete near the column base.
Because buckling mode was very complex, a straightforward definition of buckling
length assuming a sinusoidal mode is not suitable. As shown in Fig. 15, buckling length LB
is defined here as the length of bar in which lateral offset uB from the bar’s original vertical
axis was identified. Offset of each longitudinal bar in the direction normal to the S surface
was measured. The average buckling length LBa and the maximum offset uBm among eight
bars on the S face were determined, as shown in Table 3. The average buckling length LBa
in the RC column was 146 mm which was 18% and 40% longer than that in the SFRC and
PFRC columns, respectively, while the maximum lateral offset uBm was 19 mm in the RC
column which was 42% and 16% larger in the SFRC and PFRC columns, respectively. The
fact that the average buckling length LBa and the maximum lateral offset uBm were larger in
the RC column implies that lateral confinement was less in the RC column than the SFRC
or PFRC column. The presence of fibers contributed to the high constraint of the SFRC and
PFRC columns for mitigating buckling of longitudinal bars and was superior in the PFRC
column than the SFRC column.
A total of 14, 16, and 12 longitudinal bars ruptured in the RC, SFRC, and PFRC
columns, respectively, which corresponded to 39%, 44%, and 33% of the total number
of longitudinal bars. It is important to note that the PFRC column had the least number of
ruptured bars because of the less damage of cover concrete and core concrete. The reason
for having a large number of ruptured bars in the RC and SFRC columns is apparent from
the more severe damage of cover and core concrete shown in Figs. 7 and 8. More bars
ruptured in the SFRC column than the RC column because of the localized cover and core
concrete damage shown in Fig 12. Also, since buckling length was shorter in the SFRC
column than the RC column, flexural strains induced in the bars due to buckling were
larger in the SFRC column than the RC column and it was likely that the total axial and
flexural strains developed in the bars exceeded the bar rupture strain. Rupture of bars led to
the extensive deterioration of the flexural capacity of the columns.
 1204 K. Kawashima et al.

N E
W S

HI
F G
B C D E
A

146
(a) RC
HI
F G
D E
A B C
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

120

(b) SFRC
HI
F G
B C D E
A
86

(c) PFRC

FIGURE 13 Average buckling length LBa and maximum lateral offset uBm of longitudinal
bars on the S face after 4.5% drift ratio loading (color figure available online).

3.2. Longitudinal and Tie Bar Strains

Because damage was extensive in the SW and NE corners, focus will be on the strains
measured at the SW corner based only on reliable measured data. Figures 16 and 17 show
strains of a longitudinal bar (bar A in Fig. 13) 38 mm and 218 mm from the column base
at the SW corner. The bar strains at 38 mm were larger than the strains at 218 mm due to
the larger moment demand of the column.
At 38 mm from the column base, only measured data were available for the SFRC and
PFRC columns due to strain gage damage in the RC column. Noting that the yield strain of
longitudinal bars was 4,000µ, the longitudinal bar in the SFRC and PFRC columns started
 Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns using PFRC and SFRC 1205

N N N
Legend:
Ruptured bar
W E W E W E Buckled bar
No visible
damage
S S S

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 14 Location of buckled and ruptured longitudinal bars at the end of 4.5% drift
ratio loading: (a) RC; (b) SFRC; and (c) PFRC.

Tie bars
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

Longitudinal bar

Buckling
Length, LB

Bar lateral
offset, uB

FIGURE 15 Buckling length and lateral offset of longitudinal bar.

TABLE 3 Average buckling length LBa and maximum lateral offset uBm
of longitudinal bars on the S face after 4.5% drift loading
Average buckling Maximum lateral
Column length LBa (mm) offset uBm (mm)
RC 146 19
SFRC 120 11
PFRC 86 16

to yield in tension at 1.5% drift loading and the strains increased over 8,000µ at 2% drift
loading. Tensile bar strains were very similar between the SFRC and PFRC columns, how-
ever, compression bar strain was about 30–40% larger in the PFRC column than the SFRC
column due to the smaller elastic modulus of PFRC. For example, at the first cycle of 2%
drift loading, bar compression strain of the PFRC column was 4,400µ which was 38%
larger than the compression bar strain of the SFRC column. Similarly, at 218 mm from
the column base, which is slightly above the anticipated plastic hinge region, bar compres-
sion strain was largest in the PFRC column, reaching 3,600µ at the first cycle of 2% drift
 1206 K. Kawashima et al.

16

Strain (103 μ)
12
8
εy
4
0
–4
(a)
16
12

Strain (103 μ)
8 ε
y
4
0
–4 −ε
y
–8
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Loading drift (%)
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

(b)

FIGURE 16 Strain of a longitudinal bar at SW corner 38 mm from column base: (a) SFRC
and (b) PFRC.

16
12
Strain (103 μ)

8 ε
y
4
0
–4 −ε
y
–8
(a)
16
Strain (103 μ)

12
8
εy
4
0
–4
(b)
16
12
Strain (103 μ)

8
εy
4
0
–4 −ε
y
–8
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Loading drift (%)
(c)

FIGURE 17 Strain of a longitudinal bar at SW corner 218 mm from column base: (a) RC;
(b) SFRC; and (c) PFRC.
 Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns using PFRC and SFRC 1207

loading which was 17% and 36% larger than that of the RC and SFRC columns, respec-
tively. This implies that larger hysteretic energy dissipation developed in compression in
the longitudinal bars of the PFRC column than the SRFC column, however it is considered
that this difference did not accelerate premature rupture of longitudinal bars in the PFRC
column because the number of longitudinal bars which ruptured by the end of 4.5% drift
loading was less in the PFRC column than the SFRC column. This shows that the effect of
increased energy dissipation in compression was insignificant to the total hysteretic energy
dissipation once local buckling of longitudinal bars occurred.
Strain of tie bars of the RC, SFRC, and PFRC columns at 105 mm and 195 mm from
the base at the SW corner are shown in Figs. 18 and 19. Noting that the yield strain of ties
was 2000µ, at 195 mm from the base, tie bars remained elastic in the three columns except
over 4% drift loading in the RC column. This may be explained from Fig. 13 in which
longitudinal bar buckling at the SW corner occurred lower than 195 mm from the base in
the three columns. The increase of tie strains over 4% drift loading in the RC column may
be due to the damage of core concrete.
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

On the other hand, at 105 mm from the base, the tie bar in the RC column already
yielded with a strain of 2900µ while it was 1800µ and 2000µ in the SFRC and PFRC
columns, respectively, at 3% drift loading. The difference of tie strains among the three
columns became more significant over 4% drift loading, where tie strain progressed to as
high as 6,000µ in the RC column, 4,000µ in the SFRC column however it was only about
2,000μ in the PFRC column. This is closely related to the fact that the average buckling
length LBa was only 86 mm in the PFRC column while it was 120 mm and 146 mm in the
SFRC and RC columns, respectively (refer to Fig. 13). Thus, tie strain resulting from local
buckling of longitudinal bars was smaller in the PFRC column at 105 mm from the base.

6
Strain (103 μ)

4
εy
2
0
–2
(a)

6
Strain (103 μ)

4
εy
2
0
–2
(b)

6
Strain (103 μ)

4
εy
2
0
–2
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Loading drift (%)
(c)

FIGURE 18 Strain of a tie bar at SW corner 105 mm from column base: (a) RC; (b) SFRC;
and (c) PFRC.
 1208 K. Kawashima et al.

Strain (103 μ)
4
εy
2
0
–2
(a)

6
Strain (103 μ) 4
εy
2
0
–2
(b)

6
Strain (103 μ)

4
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

εy
2
0
–2
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Loading drift (%)
(c)

FIGURE 19 Strain of a tie bar at SW corner 195 mm from column base: (a) RC; (b) SFRC;
and (c) PFRC.

It is likely that in addition to the tie deformation induced as a result of longitudinal bar
buckling, the tie strain in the PFRC column was less since the core concrete did not suffer
damage (refer to Figs. 11 and 12). It is interesting to note that fibers contributed to the lateral
confinement resulting in smaller strains developed in ties. It is also important to note that
the confinement effect was superior in the PFRC column than the SFRC column. Hence,
use of PFRC or SFRC may result in reduced tie reinforcement requirements although this
requires further clarification on the mechanism of reduced deformation of tie and fiber
contribution to shear capacity of columns.

3.3. Force-Displacement Hysteresis

Figure 20 compares the measured lateral force vs. lateral displacement hystereses of the
three columns in the EW and NS directions. Because of the elliptical loading orbit, the
hystereses are different between the EW and NS directions. However response of the three
columns in both the EW and NS directions showed a stable and ductile response until
4% drift loading then the restoring force deteriorated due to rupture of longitudinal bars.
The maximum restoring force significantly deteriorated in the SFRC column at 4.5% drift
loading due to the rupture of 44% of longitudinal bars compared to the rupture of 39% and
33% of longitudinal bars in the RC and PFRC columns, respectively.
The maximum restoring force and the ultimate displacement of the three columns are
summarized in Table 4. The maximum restoring force is defined here as the average of the
maximum restoring forces in the push and pull directions under loading in the EW and
NS directions. The ultimate displacement is also defined here as the average displacement
where the restoring force deteriorated to 80% of the maximum restoring force. The RC,
 Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns using PFRC and SFRC 1209

Drift (%) Drift (%)

–6 –4 –2 0 2 4 6 –6 –4 –2 0 2 4 6
200 200
150 150
Lateral force (KN)

Lateral force (KN)

100 100
50 50
0 0
–50 –50
–100 –100
–150 –150
–200 –200
–120 –80 –40 0 40 80 120 –120 –80 –40 0 40 80 120
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)
(a) EW direction (RC) (b) NS direction (RC)
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

Drift (%) Drift (%)

–6 –4 –2 0 2 4 6 –6 –4 –2 0 2 4 6
200 200
150 150
Lateral force (KN)

Lateral force (KN)

100 100
50 50
0 0
–50 –50
–100 –100
–150 –150
–200 –200
–120 –80 –40 0 40 80 120 –120 –80 –40 0 40 80 120
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)
(c) EW direction (SFRC) (d) NS direction (SFRC)
Drift (%) Drift (%)
–6 –4 –2 0 2 4 6 –6 –4 –2 0 2 4 6
200 200
150 150
Lateral force (KN)

Lateral force (KN)

100 100
50 50
0 0
–50 –50
–100 –100
–150 –150
–200 –200
–120 –80 –40 0 40 80 120 –120 –80 –40 0 40 80 120
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)
(e) EW direction (PFRC) (f) NS direction (PFRC)

FIGURE 20 Comparison of lateral force vs. lateral displacement hysteresis.

 1210 K. Kawashima et al.

TABLE 4 Maximum restoring force and ultimate displacement of columns

Maximum restoring Ultimate displacement
Column force (kN) (% drift)
RC 163.0 4.2
SFRC 171.2 4.4
PFRC 157.8 4.4

SFRC, and PFRC columns had maximum restoring forces of 163.0 KN, 171.2 KN, and
157.8 KN, respectively. The maximum restoring force was 5% higher in the SFRC column
and 3% lower in the PFRC column than that of the RC column. The RC, SFRC, and PFRC
columns reached the ultimate displacements of 4.2%, 4.4% and 4.4% drift ratio, respec-
tively. Thus, the three columns exhibited similar restoring force and ductility capacity.
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

It is important to note why the three columns exhibited similar displacement ductility
capacity in spite of the significantly different degree of column damage. This is because the
ultimate displacement of the three columns was controlled by rupture of longitudinal bars.
As the three columns were subjected to larger lateral displacements, fibers in the PFRC, and
SFRC columns eventually ruptured and the bridging action of fibers deteriorated. Although
remaining bridging action was still effective for mitigating crushing and spalling of cover
concrete, most fibers were no longer effective in providing constraint for local buckling of
longitudinal bars once the cover concrete separated from the core concrete. Thus, the PFRC
and SFRC columns ultimately failed due to rupture of longitudinal bars.
Note here that compared to earthquake excitations, imposing a severe loading such as
the circular orbit with three cycles at each load step caused rupture of longitudinal bars due
to low cycle fatigue. It is likely that longitudinal bars would not rupture at 4.5% drift ratio if
the three columns were excited by a shake table using a ground motion. Thus it is expected
that under seismic excitation, PFRC column would exhibit more stable response over 4.5%
drift ratio without significant deterioration of restoring force and failure of core and cover
concrete.

4. Conclusions
To clarify the effect of fiber reinforced concrete/cement composites in combination with
high strength longitudinal bars on the seismic response of bridge columns, an experimental
investigation was conducted for a polypropylene fiber reinforced cement composite (PFRC)
column and a steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) column as well as a RC column. Based
on the results presented herein, the following conclusions were deduced.

a. The use of PFRC and SFRC mitigated damage of cover and core concrete at the
column plastic hinge. PFRC showed superior damage mitigation performance than
SFRC because the higher deformation capacity of polypropylene fibers than steel
fibers mitigated rupture of fibers under repeated large crack opening and closing of
concrete.
b. Although damage of cover concrete was significantly mitigated in the PFRC and
SFRC columns than the RC column, separation of cover concrete from the core con-
crete occurred not only in the RC column but also in the PFRC and SFRC columns,
which resulted in deterioration of constraint to local buckling of longitudinal bars
in the PFRC and SFRC columns. Rupture of the high strength longitudinal bars
 Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns using PFRC and SFRC 1211

governed column failure. The number of longitudinal bars which ruptured was not
significantly different among the three columns resulting in similar displacement
ductility capacity.
c. Strains of tie bars were smaller in the PFRC and SFRC columns than the RC column
due to larger confinement effect based on fiber bridging action. This effect was
superior in the PFRC column than the SFRC column.
d. The PFRC and SFRC columns exhibited similar flexural strength and ductility
capacity with the RC column while experiencing less damage on the cover and
core concrete. The advantage of using PFRC is in the reduced damage which could
allow the structure to remain serviceable even after a strong earthquake.

Acknowledgments
This study was conducted as a part of the E-Defense Bridge Project of the National
Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED). The authors sincerely
Downloaded by [31.205.104.82] at 13:53 30 March 2014

thank Hiromichi Ukon, former research fellow of NIED and Takayoshi Hirata, Obayashi
Corporation for their invaluable support for this study. Hiroshi Matsuzaki, Guilian Quan,
Huang Szu-chia, Yuji Kumagai, Wang Jing, Zhang Rui, Keisuke Ohta and Syota Ichikawa
of Tokyo Institute of Technology are gratefully acknowledged for their assistance in the
experiments.

References
Daniel, L. and Loukili, A. [2002] “Behavior of high-strength fiber reinforced concrete beams under
cyclic loading,” ACI Structural Journal 99(3), 248–256.
Filiatrault, A., Pineau, S., and Houde, J. [1995] “Seismic behavior of steel-fiber reinforced concrete
interior beam-column joints,” ACI Structural Journal 92(5), 1–10.
Hirata, T., Kawanishi, T., Okano, M., and Watanabe, S. [2009], “Study on material properties and
structural performance of high-performance cement composites using polypropylene fiber,” Proc.
Japan Concrete Institute 31(1), 295–300.
Japan Road Association [2002] Specifications for Highway Bridges, Maruzen, Tokyo, Japan.
Li, V. [1998] “Engineered cementitious composites (ECC) – Tailored composites through microme-
chanical modeling,” in Fiber Reinforced Concrete: Present and the Future, eds. N. Banthia, and
A. Mufti (Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, Montreal, Canada), pp. 64–97.
Li, V. and Leung, C. [1992] “Steady-state and multiple cracking of short random fiber composites,”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 118(11), 2246–2264.
Maalej, M. and Li, V. [1994] “Flexural/tensile-strength ratio in engineered cementitious composites,”
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE 6(4), 513–528.
Nagata, S., Kawashima, K., and Watanabe, G. [2004] “Effect of P- action of actuators in a hybrid
loading test,” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper
No. 881.
Saiidi, M., O’Brien, M., and Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. [2009] “Cyclic response of concrete bridge
columns using superelastic nitinol and bendable concrete,” ACI Structural Journal 106(1), 69–77.