ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 111-S18
Seismic Behavior of Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Circular
Columns
by Laura Isabel Osorio, Patrick Paultre, Rami Eid, and Jean Proulx
Ductile behavior and high energy-dissipation ability are two essen-
tial properties for a reinforced concrete column part of a struc-
ture in a moderate to high seismic region. Concrete design codes
ensure ductile behavior of columns by setting a requirement for a
minimum amount of transverse steel reinforcement. Studies have
shown, however, that use of fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) can
enhance the post-peak behavior and hence, the ductility and energy
dissipation ability of concrete columns subjected to axial force
and bending moment. Therefore, the inclusion of macro fibers in
the concrete mixture, combined with a reduced amount of lateral
reinforcement, can be an alternative to the conventional lateral
reinforcement required by the codes. Moreover, the higher resis-
tance to crack growth and the excellent durability of FRC over
nonfibrous concrete can result in a higher cost-effective value. In
this regard, tests on large-scale circular synthetic fiber-reinforced
concrete (SNFRC) columns subjected to a combined constant axial
load and reversed cyclic flexure simulating earthquake loading
were carried out. The aim of this test program was to examine the
influence of adding synthetic fibers to the concrete mixture on the
behavior of normal-strength concrete (NSC) columns. The results
show that, in terms of ductility and energy dissipation, SNFRC
columns outperformed NSC columns. The results also show that the
larger the amount of lateral reinforcement the smaller the influence
of the fibers on the column’s behavior. Based on the test results,
the amount of confinement steel required by concrete design codes
could be reduced when SNFRC is used.
Keywords: circular columns; cyclic flexure; ductility; energy dissipation;
seismic behavior; synthetic fiber-reinforced concrete.
INTRODUCTION
Technology advances in recent decades have allowed the
development and use of fibers as a component in concrete
mixtures. Fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) is concrete with
randomly distributed discrete fibers. Incorporating fibers
in the concrete matrix offers several advantages, such as
shrinkage reduction (cracking control), enhanced toughness
and tensile strength, and improved strain characteristics
when cracking occurs. Furthermore, FRC has been found to
be more impermeable; thus, corrosion of the reinforcement
and the required maintenance cost could be minimized. The
main use of FRC is in nonstructural elements and non-prin-
cipal structural elements such as slabs-on-grade, pools, and
ground slope stabilization. Its use in structural elements,
while permitted in some codes, is still the subject of research.
Despite a large variety of fibers developed for FRC (steel,
glass, natural, and synthetic fibers), research studies on
structural applications tended to focus on steel and synthetic
fibers. Since 1988, ACI Committee 5441 has reported design
considerations for steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC)
limited to some structural applications. On the other hand,
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014
TECHNICAL PAPER
few published research studies (for example, Djumbong et
al.,2 Nguyen,3 Han et al.,4 and Chernov et al.5) have indicated
positive field experiences with synthetic fiber-reinforced
concrete (SNFRC), and show several advantages over SFRC.
For example, synthetic fibers melt during a fire, allowing the
steam pressure inside the concrete to dissipate through the
pathways left by the melted fibers, reducing the risk of severe
spalling.4 This does not occur with SFRC. SNFRC elements
placed in aggressive environments will have a better appear-
ance than those made of SFRC because the surface of
elements containing steel fibers will corrode with time.5
Interest remains in examining structural applications of
SNFRC. Such research will lead to analytical models and
appropriate design procedures. A variety of SNFRC struc-
tural applications could be developed once engineers are
familiar with the benefits and design procedures of SNFRC.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Improving the seismic performance of structural elements
is an important issue. Concrete design codes ensure the ductile
behavior of columns by setting minimum requirements for
transverse steel reinforcement. Studies have shown, however,
that FRC can enhance the post-peak behavior and, hence,
the ductility and energy-dissipation capacity of concrete
columns subjected to axial loading.6-12 The higher resistance
to crack growth and excellent durability of FRC over nonfi-
brous concrete can result in higher cost-effective value. This
paper presents tests on large-scale circular SNFRC columns
subjected to a combined constant axial load and reversed
cyclic flexure simulating earthquake loading. The main objec-
tive of the research program was to study the seismic behavior
of circular SNFRC columns subjected to constant axial load,
while relating the amount of transverse reinforcement and the
volumetric synthetic fiber ratio to the gain in ductility, energy
dissipation, resistance, and reduction of damage.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Test specimens
Six large-scale circular reinforced-concrete columns were
tested in this experimental research study under combined
constant axial load and reversed cyclic flexure. The column
diameter was 305 mm (12 in.). The total height was 2610 mm
(102.76 in.), including the massive I-shape rigid stub at the
base. The height of the base stub was 500 mm (19.69 in.)
ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 1, January-February 2014.
MS No. 2012-055, doi:10.14359/51686517, was received February 15, 2012, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2014, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
189
Fig. 1—Reinforcing cage and instrumentation details. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
(Fig. 1), sufficient to anchor the six 20 mm (0.79 in.) diam-
eter longitudinal bars. The 180 mm (7.09 in.) high column
head was built as a square section to facilitate installation of
the horizontal hydraulic actuator. The application point of the
lateral force was located at 2000 mm (78.74 in.) from the top of
the base stub. The specimens could represent a 4.0 m (157.48
in.) high column in a typical building assuming that the point
of contraflexure is located at approximately mid-column
height, or a 1/3-scale bridge column with the point of contra-
flexure located at approximately 1/3 of the height. This corre-
sponds to a height-width ratio ranging from 6 to 13, which
was chosen to avoid shear-critical columns as this research
program concentrates on flexural behavior. The concrete
columns and stubs were cast vertically in a single placement.
Proper placement of the concrete was ensured with the use of
a concrete vibrator. Figure 2 shows the experimental setup.
Column identification uses a nomenclature composed of
three terms. The first term, C_, indicates the specified uncon-
190
fined compressive concrete strength fc′, in MPa. The second
term, S_, indicates the pitch of the spiral in mm. The third term,
FP_, indicates the volumetric percentage of synthetic fibers.
For example, C30S75FP1 refers to a column with fc′ = 30 MPa
(4.35 ksi), having a spiral with a center-to-center spacing of
75 mm (2.95 in.) and a volumetric synthetic fiber ratio of 1%.
Test variables
As stated previously, this research program studied
the effects of discrete fibers added to the concrete matrix
on cyclic flexural behavior of circular concrete columns.
It also intended to determine if this fiber content allowed
an increase in the spacing of transverse reinforcement.
Therefore, the specimen test variables were: 1) the volu-
metric fiber percentage in the concrete mixture nf; and 2)
the spacing of the transverse steel reinforcement s. Values
of 0 and 1% were fixed for nf. Values of s were determined
from a seismic design using three concrete design codes: the
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014
Table 1—Design results for spacing of transverse reinforcement
CSA A23.3-046
Clause s, mm (in.)
21.4.4.2(a) 213 (8.39)
Ductile
21.4.4.3 75 (2.95)
21.7.2.2.5(a) 284 (11.18)
Moderate ductility
21.7.2.2.3 150 (5.91)
7.6.4 42 (1.65)
Minimum provisions
10.9.4 108 (4.25)
Canadian Standard A23.3-04,13 the New Zealand code NZS
3101:1995,14 and the American code ACI 318M-11.15 NZS
3101:1995 and A23.3-04 take into account the axial load
applied to the column for calculating transverse reinforce-
ment. Hence, for all specimens, 25% of Ag fc′ was assumed,
where Ag is the gross area of column section. At this level
of loading, the column is close to the balanced failure with
an expected under-reinforced flexural failure (that is, longi-
tudinal steel yields before concrete crushes). Although not
typical for bridge columns for which values close to 0.1Ag fc′
are usually found, the higher value of axial load used in this
research program brings out the effect of confinement more
clearly, as it is strongly dependent on the level of axial load.
Table 1 shows the design results; the selected spacings of 42,
75, and 100 mm (1.65, 2.95, and 3.94 in.) are in bold. These
values correspond to the maximum spacing required in the
Canadian Standard A23.3-04,13 ductile seismic performance,
and moderate ductile performance, respectively.
Material properties
Concrete—Premixed normalweight concrete was used to
vertically cast the NSC and SNFRC specimens. The water-
binder ratio was 0.50 for all NSC specimens. Because the
concrete strength was lower than expected for Specimen
C30S100FP1 (first SNFRC column casted), however,
the water-binder ratio was reduced to 0.45 for Specimens
C30S75FP1 and C30S42FP1. Air-entraining and water‑
reducing admixtures were used for the NSC, while an air-
entrained admixture and a high-range water-reducing admix-
Fig. 2—Experimental setup. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.)
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014
NZS 3101:19957 ACI 318M-058
Clause s, mm (in.) Clause s, mm (in.)
276 (10.87) 21.4.4.1 178 (7.01)
8.5.4.3(a)
75 (2.95) 21.4.4.2 75 (2.95)
8.4.7.1(a)(i) 389 (15.31) — —
8.4.7.1(a)(ii) 100 (3.94) — —
— —
10.9.3 108 (4.25)
— —
ture agent were used for the SNFRC. As mentioned previ-
ously, the SNFRC for the first column placed (C30S100FP1
with w/c = 0.50) presented workability problems; thus, a
high-range water-reducing admixture was added to make
the mixture workable. A high slump (130 mm [5.12 in.])
was then obtained for Specimen C30S100FP1 resulting in
reduced concrete strength. Those problems were fixed for
the other two SNFRC specimens. Slump was 95, 90, and
105 mm (3.74, 3.54, and 4.13 in.) for the NSC Specimens
C30S100FP0, C30S75FP0, and C30S42FP0, respectively;
and 90 and 100 mm (3.54 and 3.94 in.) for the SNFRC Spec-
imens C30S75FP1 and C30S42FP1, respectively. Further
information on mixture composition for both types of
concrete can be found in Osorio.16 The specimens were taken
off the formwork the day after casting, covered with wet
burlap, and wrapped in polythene sheets. The columns and
stub faces were frequently watered to obtain moist curing.
All control cylinders and prisms were cured under the same
conditions as the column specimens to estimate the column
concrete material characteristics as accurately as possible.
Table 2 summarizes the material properties measured at
28 days and on the day of testing. The concrete compres-
sive strength at day of testing, which ranged from 30.8 to
38.3 MPa (4.51 to 5.55 ksi), was determined from standard
compressive tests on at least three 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.)
cylinders. The post-peak strain at 50% of maximum stress,
εc50u, was determined from the complete stress-strain curves
obtained from the standard compressive tests, and shown in
Fig. 3. This strain ranged from 0.0043 to 0.0055. The secant
modulus of elasticity Ec ranged from 16,576 to 22,992 MPa
(2404 to 3335 ksi). The cracking strength of the concrete fr,
obtained from standard modulus of rupture tests on at least
three 100 x 100 x 400 mm (3.94 x 3.94 x 15.75 in.) prisms
for each specimen, ranged from 4.64 to 5.60 MPa (0.67 to
0.81 ksi). As can be seen from Fig. 3, significant increase
in toughness is obtained from SNFRC compared with NSC.
Reinforcement—Two different types of reinforcing bars
were used: 10M (100 mm2 [0.155 in.2]), and 20M (300 mm2
[0.465 in.2]) Grade 400 bars. Complete stress-strain curves
were obtained from test coupons on each of the steel types
used. The averages of at least three steel coupons for each
steel type are shown in Table 3 where fy is the yield stress, εsh
is the strain at the commencement of strain hardening, and εsu
is the ultimate strain corresponding to the ultimate stress fsu.
Synthetic fibers—The synthetic structural fiber used in this
research is extruded from a polypropylene and polyethylene
blend. Given the incompatibility of these two polymers, this
results in self-fibrillating fibers; that is, after introduction of
the fibers into the concrete mixer, each fiber is transformed
191
Table 2—Concrete characteristics on test day
Specimen fc′, 28 days, MPa (ksi) fc′, MPa (ksi) εc′ Ec, MPa (ksi) εc50u fr, MPa (ksi) Test day
C30S100FP0 32.6 (4.72) 34.3 (4.97) 0.00232 22.277 (3.224) 0.0045 5.60 (0.81) 85
C30S100FP1 27.6 (4.00) 30.8 (4.47) 0.00263 19.281* (2.796) 0.0051 4.58 (0.66) 120
C30S75FP0 34.4 (4.99) 36.0 (5.22) 0.00236 22.992 (3.335) 0.0043 5.38 (0.78) 128
C30S75FP1 36.3 (5.26) 38.0 (5.51) 0.00264 21.693 (3.146) 0.0054 5.24 (0.76) 83
C30S42FP0 29.4 (4.26) 31.1 (4.51) 0.00227 21.292 (3.088) 0.0045 4.64 (0.67) 119
C30S42FP1 36.3 (5.26) 38.3 (5.5) 0.00265 21.402 (3.104) 0.0055 5.42 (0.79) 84
*
Measured at 28 days.

Table 3—Steel characteristics

Steel type fy, MPa (ksi) εsh εsu fsu, MPa (ksi)
20M 438 (63.5) 0.00792 0.1108 702 (101.8)

No. 10M (spiral)

s = 75 and 100 mm 445 (64.5) 0.01370 0.1378 625 (90.6)
(3.94 and 2.95 in.)

No. 10M (spiral)

445 (64.5) 0.01303 0.1339 626 (90.8)
s = 42 mm (1.65 in.)

Table 4—Physical and mechanical properties of

synthetic fibers
Specific gravity 0.92
Tensile strength 600 to 650 MPa (87 to 94 ksi)
Modulus of elasticity 5.0 GPa (725 ksi)
Fiber length 50 mm (1.97 in.)
Aspect ratio 74

into one unit with several fibrils at its ends. Because of their
low initial surface area and high aspect ratio (74), these
macro-fibers do not tend to ball, allowing for good disper-
sion in the initial phase of the mixing process. Furthermore,
their three-dimensional twisted shape not only facilitates
fiber fabrication and storing in bundles before cutting, it also
enhances fiber dispersibility in the concrete matrix. Once the
fibers are well distributed, and after a few minutes of agita-
tion, they start to fibrillate, and their surface area in contact
with the concrete matrix increases. This yields higher bond
capability to concrete compared with conventional smooth
and deformed monofilament fibers. Table 4 presents the
fiber physical and mechanical properties. The fibers have
high resistance to the alkaline environment of concrete and
good ultraviolet resistance. Additional details about these
fibers are provided by Trottier and Mahonney.17-19
Reinforcing cages
Figure 1 provides the details of the reinforcing cages.
An average volumetric longitudinal steel-reinforcement
ratio of 2.50% was provided in each specimen as six 20M
Grade 400R deformed bars. The spiral reinforcement was
10M Grade 400W deformed bars. The spirals were equally
spaced along the total height. As mentioned previously, the
column top where the lateral load was applied had a square
section reinforced with square ties to prevent concrete
crushing. The stub was designed to prevent excessive
cracking and to provide proper anchorage for the longitudinal
bars of the column.
Fig. 3—Stress-strain curves for NSC and SNFRC measured
at 28 days.
Instrumentation and testing procedure
Instrumentation—Each specimen was equipped with elec-
trical strain gauges to measure strains in the reinforcing steel,
and with linear potentiometers to calculate the curvature of
two sections in the potential plastic-hinge region. Linear
variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were also used
to measure crack opening and slippage of longitudinal bars.
Each column had a total of 30 strain gauges distributed as
follows: six placed on the spiral, three on each side at no
more than 300 mm (12 in.) from the stub top (Fig. 1(b));
eight strain gauges placed on two longitudinal bars at posi-
tions 1 to 8 as shown in Fig. 1(b); and four strain gauges
were glued to two other longitudinal bars used as backups.
Two sets of four potentiometers were installed along the
theoretical plastic hinge region, which, for the specimens
tested, was estimated as 348 mm (13.7 in.) using the equa-
tion proposed by Priestley et al.20 Lp = 0.8l + 0.022db fy (MPa)
(= 0.08l + 0.15db fy [ksi]), where l is column height, db is the
longitudinal bar diameter, and fy is the yield strength of the
longitudinal steel reinforcement. One set was supported by

192 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

metallic rings measuring the average concrete displacement
over a gauge length of 400 mm (15.75 in.), and another set
was supported by two steel rods passing through the concrete
core (placed before concrete placement), measuring average
concrete displacement over a gauge length of 210 mm
(8.27 in.) (Fig. 1(d)). Moreover, four LVDTs were supported
by a metallic ring and placed 25 mm (1 in.) from the stub
top to measure crack opening and longitudinal-bar slippage.
All measurement devices were connected to an acquisition
system, which was also connected to the testing software
used to control the hydraulic actuators.
Test procedure—At the beginning of the test, the axial
load was applied manually until reaching the target value of
0.25Ag fc′. The test was then divided into two stages: lateral
cyclic loading under force control during the first cycle at
a rate of 0.375 kN/s (84.3 lb/s), and lateral cyclic loading
under displacement control from the second cycle to the end
of the test at a rate of 0.30 mm/s (0.012 in./s) (Fig. 4).
During the first stage of the test, the horizontal force was
applied under force control to a maximum of 75% of the
theoretical horizontal load Hy, causing the first yielding of the
longitudinal bars. The main goal of this cycle was to crack the
section. After completing this cycle, the second cycle started
under displacement control to reach the yielding displace-
ment defined as the point at which the longitudinal bars first
yielded in tension (this criterion was taken specifically for this
column section because it represents the global yielding of
the section given by its shape and steel-reinforcement place-
ment). Once the yielding displacement was reached on each
side of the column, an average of these values was calculated
and defined as the experimental yielding displacement, Δyexp.
This concluded the first stage of the test. By the second stage,
still under displacement control, the second cycle of 1.0Δy
was repeated using the experimental yielding displacement.
Thereafter, each cycle at 1.5, 2, 3,... times Δyexp was repeated
twice until column failure. The test ended when at least one
of the following events occurred: 1) the column was unable to
sustain axial load, characterized by a 10% loss of the applied
axial load; 2) a drop of more than 50% of the maximum flex-
ural capacity was experienced; or 3) longitudinal bar rupture
(by buckling or tension) or spiral rupture, inducing a large
drop in flexural capacity. Due to safety reasons, the test was
ended in some cases without fulfilling the previous criteria,
but with at least one criterion nearly achieved.
TEST RESULTS
General behavior
During the initial part of loading, cracks in the cover
were slightly smaller in columns with fibers, compared with
those without fibers. The minimum compressive strain at
the extreme fiber of the reinforced concrete circular cross
section corresponding to the first sign of cover crushing
was 0.0040 and 0.0043 for Specimens C30S100FP0 and
C30S100FP1, respectively. The average values were 0.0043
for NSC column specimens, and 0.0047 for SNFRC column
specimens. Significant crushing accompanied with visible
detachment of the concrete cover occurred between the
fourth (first cycle of 1.5Δy) and sixth cycles (first cycle of
2.0Δy). Only Column C30S100FP1 reached the eighth cycle
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014
Fig. 4—Loading history.
(first cycle of 3.0Δy) without any sign of detachment of the
concrete cover on one side of the column. The delayed
crushing of concrete is due mainly to the greater toughness
of SNFRC compared with NSC, as evidenced by the average
strain at 50% of peak stress εc50u = 0.0053 for SNFRC, and
εc50u = 0.0044 for NSC. Also, the plane of weakness formed
by the transverse reinforcement spiral is less preeminent for
the specimen with the 100 mm (3.94 in.) spiral pitch than
the other specimens with smaller spacing between turns of
the spirals. Generally, specimen failure was predominantly
by rupture of longitudinal bars in tension. It should be noted,
however, that these bars experienced buckling in previous
cycles, which may have decreased their ultimate tension
strain. No spiral failure was observed. Results in the form
of load-displacement and moment-curvature relationships
are presented in Fig. 5 and 6, respectively. No correction
due to the P-Δ effect was necessary because the setup was
configured to ensure this effect was negligible. As can be
seen from Fig. 5, the specimens with fibers show signifi-
cant improvement in terms of ductility (approximately 30%
increase in ductility for specimens with 100 mm and 75 mm
[3.94 and 2.95 in.] spiral pitch), energy dissipation measured
as the area under the hysteretic curves (225% increase for
the specimen with 100 mm [3.94 in.] spiral pitch and 68%
for the specimen with the 75 mm [2.95 in.] spiral pitch),
and capacity to keep the strength after a number of cycles
at large ductility demand. This is particularly visible for
specimens with a 100 and 75 mm (3.94 and 2.95 in.) spiral
pitch. The average curvature in Fig. 6 was calculated from
the set of four potentiometers with average gauge lengths of
210 mm (8.27 in.) (refer to Section C-C in Fig. 1(d)). Four
important events are also pointed out on each curve: cover
spalling for NSC or concrete crushing for SNFRC, yielding
of the longitudinal bars, the first spiral yielding, and the loss
of capacity, either due to a loss in flexural capacity or to
bar rupture. The point defining cover spalling or concrete
crushing corresponds to the first visible detachment of the
concrete cover, even if portions remained hanging from the
column. The figures show that addition of synthetic fibers
to the concrete mixture enhances the behavior of the RC
193
Fig. 5—Lateral load versus tip displacement. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
columns; however, this enhancement decreases with the
reduction of the spiral spacing.
Figure 7 shows the appearance of all specimens after testing.
SNFRC specimens evidenced less damage than the NSC spec-
imens. Cover spalling was prevented by fiber presence, with
the damage state corresponding to concrete crushing in the
plastic-hinge region. Figure 8 shows the diagrams of the most
damaged region for each column, where cover spalling for
NSC specimens or concrete crushing for SNFRC specimens
and the fractured zone are indicated. As can be seen from Fig.
7 and 8, the damage zone in the NSC columns is approxi-
mately 1.5 to 2.5 times the column diameter, while for SNFRC
columns, it is approximately equal to the column diameter.
In all specimens, however, regions just above the stub were
not damaged, although they were subjected to the maximum
moment. This behavior is generally attributed to confinement
to the sections provided by the base stub in its immediate
vicinity. The maximum spacing between turns of the spiral of
1/6 of the core diameter permitted by the Canadian Standard
seems overly conservative, as no buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcement occurred. It should be noted that the ACI code
does not have such a limit on the spacing of the spiral pitch.
194
Ductility and energy dissipation
Generally, the seismic behavior of columns is assessed
according to ductility and energy-based indicators. Ductility
means the ability of a structure to undergo large amplitude
cyclic deformations in the inelastic range without substantial
reduction in strength.21 Therefore, the ductility parameters
used herein, formulated in terms of displacement and curva-
ture, allow this expression in nondimensional terms. Ener-
gy-based indicators are related to energy-dissipation capacity
and damage. Before calculating these indicators, the average
envelope curve was estimated from the cyclic response of
each specimen, using the formulation shown in Fig. 9.22
From the load-displacement envelope, a bilinear diagram
is derived because all indicators are defined using this type
of response.21,23 The ascending part of the curve is defined as
a straight line from the origin passing through the envelope
curve at a load of 0.75Hmax′ or at the yielding load (which-
ever is less), and it is then extended until the intersection
with Hmax′. Herein, Hmax′ is defined as the maximum hori-
zontal load carried by the column after the yielding point,
which indicates the beginning of the post-peak behavior of
the columns. The second part of the ideal curve is defined as
a straight line from the new point already found (ΔyI, Hmax′)
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014
Fig. 6—Experimental moment-curvature responses.
to a second point (Δ2, H2′) at the failure displacement Δ2,
which is taken at a load equal to 80% of Hmax′, ensuring that
the area under the ideal curve is the same as the one under
the envelope curve. The displacement of these two points at
the bilinear curve are the idealized yielding displacement ΔyI,
and the idealized ultimate displacement Δ2 (Fig. 10). This
procedure is repeated with the moment-curvature response
to obtain the idealized yielding curvature ϕyI and the ideal-
ized ultimate curvature ϕ2.
The idealized structural ductility is defined as
∆2
δu = (3)
l
where l = 2000 mm (78.74 in.) is the column height. This
parameter is plotted on the top horizontal axes in Fig. 5.
For flexural cyclic loading, the energy dissipated during
one cycle i, Ei, is described by the hatched area in Fig. 9.
The total dissipated energy during the test Ehyst, until 80% of
conventional failure or bar rupture is reached is

n
∆ Ehyst = ∑ Ei (4)
µ ∆I = 2 (1) i =1
∆ yI

where n is the number of cycles to failure. For comparison
and the idealized sectional ductility is defined as purposes, the dissipated energy is normalized as follows

ϕ2 1 n
µ ϕI = (2) EN = ∑ Ei (5)
ϕ yI ′ ∆ yI
H max i =1

The maximum interstory drift ratio δu is another param- where Hmax′ is the maximum equivalent lateral load, which
eter used to measure the maximum displacement at failure includes the applied horizontal load, and the equivalent hori-
in relation to the element height zontal load due to the P-Δ effect, if applicable.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014 195

Fig. 7—Photographs of damaged regions and plastic hinge zones for all specimens.

196 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

 The work index Iw, proposed by Gosain, Brown and Jirsa,24
helps in comparing loading severity on the performance of
the elements with the same loading history. It is defined as

1 n
Iw = ∑ Hi ∆ i (6)
′ ∆ yI
H max i =1

A damage index DEW, which combines the cyclic dissi-

pated energy and the elastic energy is defined as25

2
1 n  K  ∆ 
DEW = ∑ Ei  i   i  (7)
′ ∆ yI
H max i = 1  K yI   ∆ yI 

where Ki and Δi are defined in Fig. 9.

Table 5 gives the values of all indexes μΔI, μϕI, EN, IW, and
DEW for all specimens. Furthermore, important variables,
such as the measured concrete compressive strength fc′; the
section diameter D; the core diameter Dc; the spiral spacing
s; the volumetric spiral ratio ρs; Hmax′; ΔyI; and ϕyI, defined
previously, are summarized in Table 5 for each column.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Figure 11 compares the moment-curvature response of
specimen pairs with the same concrete strength and spiral
spacing, one without fibers, and the other with 1% fibers.
According to Fig. 11, for the same spiral spacing, adding
fibers into the concrete matrix can improve the post-peak
response of the column. Fiber addition is less effective when
the spiral spacing decreases, as can be seen in Fig. 12. For
large spiral spacing (75 mm [2.95 in.]), increasing the spiral
spacing while adding fibers to the concrete matrix improves
the post-peak behavior, as can be seen in Fig. 12(a). In
the case of spiral spacing giving very good confinement,
increasing the spiral spacing while adding fibers to the
concrete matrix does not result in any gain, as can be seen
in Fig. 12(b). Moreover, the loss in rigidity is smaller for
fibrous specimens compared with those without fibers, but
with the same amount of transverse steel reinforcement. It
should be noted that an increase in the maximum shear force
as well as the maximum bending moment is obtained for
fibrous specimens compared with those that are nonfibrous.
In terms of ductility, the SNFRC specimens evidenced an
increase of up to 30% in sectional and structural ductility
capacity compared with their NSC counterparts (Table 5).
This improvement is also observed in the interstory drift
ratio. In terms of energy dissipation, the fibrous specimens
with s = 100, 75, and 42 mm (3.94, 2.95, and 1.65 in.) had
an increase of 125, 68, and 0%, respectively, in terms of the
parameter EN, compared with their corresponding nonfibrous
specimens. Moreover, for IW, which indicates the specimen
loading severity, an increase of 108, 61, and 4% was also
observed for the SNFRC specimens with s = 100, 75, and
42 mm (3.94, 2.95, and 1.65 in.), respectively, compared
with their corresponding nonfibrous specimens. The DEW
index follows the same tendency. This agrees with the fact
that fiber influence in the response is less effective as the
spiral spacing decreases.
Fig. 8—Sketches of most damaged regions of specimens.
(Note: Dimensions in mm [in.].)
Furthermore, analysis of Specimens C30S100FP1
and C30S75FP0 responses reveals comparable behav-
iors. Ductility and energy indexes show that Specimen
C30S100FP1 performs better than C30S75FP0. For
example, the structural and sectional ductility are 9 and
39% higher, respectively, for Specimen C30S100FP1 than
for C30S75FP0. Specimen C30S100FP1 dissipates 40%
more energy than C30S75FP0. Comparing the response
of C30S75FP1 with C30S42FP0 reveals that Specimen
C30S42FP0 performs better than C30S75FP1. The pres-
ence of fibers in the concrete matrix with a spiral spacing of
75 mm (2.95 in.) is not sufficient to obtain behavior compa-
rable with Specimen C30S42FP0.
Additionally, three confinement indexes were calculated.
The indexes were developed to correlate the displacement
capacity of a column with the effectiveness of confine-
ment. The confinement index Ic has been recommended
by ACI-ASCE Committee 441,26 and is defined as ρs fyh/fc′.
The effective confinement index Ie′, proposed by Cusson
and Paultre,27 relates the effective yield strength to the
geometrical distribution and the amount of confinement
steel. Ie′ is calculated as fle′/fc′, where fle′ is the effective
confinement pressure applied by the tie to the concrete
core when confined concrete reaches its maximum stress.
Further discussion about this index can be found in Cusson
and Paultre.27,28 According to Paultre et al.,29 the index Ik,
which accounts for the effectiveness of confinement and
the axial load, is the key to understanding the behavior
of NSC and high-strength concrete (HSC) columns under

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014 197

Table 5—Summary of test results
fc′, Dc, ϕyI,
MPa D, mm mm s, mm ρs, Hmax′, ΔyI, mm rad/m
Specimen (ksi) (in.) (in.) (in.) % kN (kip) (in.) (rad/in.) μΔI μϕI EN IW DEW Ic Ie′ Ik
34.3 304 250 100 59.7 30.0 0.0196
C30S100FP0 1.53 4.9 23.2 31.6 26.8 96.3 0.20 9 0.90
(4.97) (11.97) (9.84) (3.94) (13.42) (1.18) (0.7717)
30.8 302 252 100 59.5 32.3 0.0151
C30S100FP1 1.52 6.3 30.2 71.4 55.8 319.6 0.22 10 1.11
(4.47) (11.89) (9.92) (3.94) (13.38) (1.27) (0.5945)
36.0 303 253 75 61.8 28.9 0.0215
C30S75FP0 2.01 5.8 21.8 50.6 39.2 196.4 0.25 12 1.13
(5.22) (11.93) (9.96) (2.95) (13.89) (1.14) (0.8465)
38.0 304 253 75 63.8 30.7 0.0230
C30S75FP1 2.01 7.7 25.3 84.8 63.2 456.6 0.24 12 1.02
(5.51) (11.97) (9.96) (2.95) (14.34) (1.21) (0.9055)
31.1 302 240 42 56.2 30.0 0.0135
C30S42FP0 3.78 10.0 49.2 155.0 108.7 1069.5 0.54 29 2.58
(4.51) (11.89) (9.45) (1.65) (12.63) (1.18) (0.5315)
38.3 304 248 42 62.4 30.4 0.0139
C30S42FP1 3.67 10.3 51.0 149.9 112.6 1182.3 0.43 22 1.58
(5.55) (11.97) (9.76) (1.65) (14.03) (1.20) (0.5472)

Fig. 10—Ideal curve definitions.

Fig. 9—Envelope curve calculation and energy dissipation.
cyclic loading and developing predictive behavioral models.
Ik is calculated as ρs fh′/(fc′kp), where kp is the ratio of the
applied axial load to the axial capacity in compression of
the column measured as 0.85(Ag – Asl)fc′ + Asl fy, and fh′ is
tensile stress in the transverse reinforcement when confined
concrete reaches its maximum stress. fh′ can be determined
according to Légeron and Paultre23 but for simplification,
can be taken as fyh up to 500 MPa (72.5 ksi) as recommended
by the CSA standard.13 Table 5 shows the results of Ic, Ie′,
and Ik for all specimens tested. When comparing specimens
with same concrete mixture, that is, NSC or SNFRC, Table
5 shows that the specimens behave in a more ductile manner
at higher values of confinement index (except for index Ik of
Specimen C30S75FP1, which can be attributed to its rela-
tively high concrete strength of 38 MPa [5.51 ksi] compared
with 30.8 MPa [4.47 ksi] for C30S100FP1). Note that the
axial load level applied to all specimens is similar. There-
fore, the trend of the index Ik is similar to that of the indexes
Ic and Ie′ for all specimens. For the NSC specimens, the
indexes clearly reflect the displacement capacity obtained
from the test. The same result is observed with the SNFRC
specimens, if analyzed separately. Note that the indexes are
a function of the concrete strength, which was 23% higher
for Specimens C30S75FP1 and C30S42FP1 compared with
that of Specimen C30S100FP1. The higher concrete strength
for the former specimens reduced their indexes compared
with the latter specimen. Yet the values when comparing
Specimens C30S100FP0 and C30S100FP1, for example, do
not reflect the visible increase in ductility obtained for Spec-
imen C30S100FP1 by the presence of fibers in the concrete
matrix. Similarly, when comparing Specimens C30S100FP1
and C30S75FP0, the values of the indexes are slightly higher
for Specimen C30S75FP0, even though the results from
testing, and all ductility and energy-based parameters, show
a better performance for Specimen C30S100FP1. This indi-
cates the need to develop a new index expression that takes
into account the presence of fibers in the concrete matrix.
CONCLUSIONS
The test results presented in this paper show the structural
applicability and benefits that can be obtained with SNFRC
compared with NSC. The flexural behavior of columns under
constant axial load was highly influenced by the amount
of confinement steel reinforcement. The test results show
that SNFRC specimens with a volumetric fiber ratio of 1%
evidenced greater ductility, energy-dissipation capacities,
and strength enhancement at large ductility than similar NSC
specimens. These properties are all significant in seismic
design, leading very often to steel congestion in reinforced
concrete columns. Therefore, a reduction in transverse steel
reinforcement when using SNFRC within a certain range
of transverse reinforcement spacing is a great advantage in
seismic design. Thus, the confinement provided due to fiber
action can replace part of the confinement due to the action of

198 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014


Fig. 11—Comparison of normalized moment-curvature rela-
tionships for specimens with same spiral spacing.
the transverse reinforcement, thereby reducing the minimum
amount required by design codes. Furthermore, according to
the damage level reached by all specimens, synthetic fibers
prevent early spalling of concrete cover due to the plane of
weakness defined by the transverse reinforcement. In addition,
a significant reduction in the damaged zone around the plastic
hinge is achieved with the use of SNFRC. More work is being
carried out to relate the reduction of transverse reinforcement
to the amount of synthetic fibers used in the concrete mixture.
AUTHOR BIOS
Laura Isabel Osorio is a Structural Engineer at Dessau Inc., Montreal,
QC, Canada. She received her BSc in civil engineering from the University
of Medellín, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia, and her MSc from the Univer-
sity of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Patrick Paultre, FACI, holds a Canada Research Chair in Seismic Engi-
neering and dynamics of structures at the University of Sherbrooke. He is a
member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns.
Rami Eid is a Senior Lecturer and the Head of the Civil Engineering Depart-
ment at Shamoon College of Engineering, Beer Sheva, Israel. He received
his PhD in civil/structural engineering from the Technion – Israel Institute
of Technology, Haifa, Israel. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee
441, Reinforced Concrete Columns. His research interests include struc-
tural behavior and analytical modeling of reinforced concrete elements.
Jean Proulx is a Professor of structural engineering and Head of the
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Sherbrooke. He
received his BSc in civil engineering from Laval University, Quebec City,
QC, Canada, and his MSc and PhD from the University of Sherbrooke.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014
Fig. 12—Comparison of normalized moment-curvature rela-
tionships for specimens with different spiral spacing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
and the Quebec Fonds pour la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
(FQRNT). The authors would also like to acknowledge the collaboration of
Professor N. Roy; and J. Desmarais Claude Aubé and L. Thibodeau, tech-
nicians in the Department of Civil Engineering at the Université de Sher-
brooke, for their role in the test preparation and during the tests.
NOTATION
Ag = gross section of concrete
D = section diameter of column
Dc = core diameter measured out-to-out of spiral
DEW = damage index
Ec = secant modulus of elasticity of plain concrete
Ehyst = total energy dissipated
Ei = energy dissipated in one cycle
EN = normalized dissipated energy
fc′ = maximum compressive strength of concrete measured on 150 x
300 mm cylinders
fle′ = effective confinement pressure at peak stress
f r = concrete modulus of rupture
fsu = ultimate strength of longitudinal reinforcement steel
fy = yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement steel
fyh = yield strength of transverse reinforcement steel
H = applied horizontal load
H′ = applied horizontal load, H, plus equivalent horizontal load due
to P-Δ effect
Ic = confinement index
Ie′ = effective confinement index
Ik = confinement index
I w = work index
K i = stiffness in i-th cycle corresponding to maximum displacement
KyI = stiffness corresponding to idealized yield displacement
kp = relation between factored axial load and nominal axial resis-
tance at zero eccentricity
l = distance from top of base to application point of lateral load
s = center-to-center spiral spacing
Δ = horizontal tip displacement of cantilever column measured at
load application point
Δ′ = horizontal tip displacement of cantilever column
Δ2 = idealized ultimate displacement
Δi = maximum horizontal displacement at i-th cycle at load applica-
tion point
Δyexp = experimental yielding displacement
ΔyI = idealized yielding displacement
δu = interstory drift ratio
199
εc′ = axial strain in plain concrete corresponding to fc′
εc50u = axial strain in plain concrete corresponding to 0.5fc′ after peak
εsh = strain corresponding to beginning of steel hardening
εsu = ultimate strain corresponding to ultimate stress fsu of steel
εy = yield strain in steel
ϕ2 = idealized ultimate curvature
ϕyI = idealized yielding curvature
μΔI = structural ductility
μϕI = sectional ductility
n f = fiber volumetric ratio
ρl = area ratio of longitudinal reinforcement
ρs = volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 544, “Design Consideration for Steel Fiber-Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 544.4R-88) (Reapproved 1999),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1988, 17 pp.
2. Djumbong, A.; Cusson, D.; and Paultre, P., “Experimental Study of
Influence of Synthetic Fibres on Behavior of Cylindrical High-Strength
Concrete Columns,” 37th Annual Conference of the Canadian Society of
Civil Engineering, QC, Canada, June 10-13, 2008, 10 pp.
3. Nguyen, H., “Shear Behavior of Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced
Concrete Beams,” MASc, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada, 2006, 98 pp. (in French)
4. Han, C.; Hwang, Y.; Yang, S.; and Gowripalan, N., “Performance
of Spalling Resistance of High Performance Concrete with Polypropylene
Fiber Contents and Lateral Confinement,” Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 35, 2005, pp. 1747-1753.
5. Chernov, V.; Zlotnikov, H.; and Shandalov, M., “Structural Synthetic
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete-Experience with Marine Applications,”
Concrete International, V. 28, No. 8, Aug. 2006, pp. 56-61.
6. Aoude, H.; Cook, W. D.; and Mitchell, D., “Behavior of Columns
Constructed with Fibers and Self-Consolidating Concrete,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 106, No. 3, May-June 2009, pp. 349-357.
7. Aviram, A.; Stojadinovic, B.; and Parra-Montesinos, G., “Seismic
Behavior of High-Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete Bridge Piers,”
Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2010, 10 pp. (CD-ROM)
8. Harajli, M. H., and Rteil, A. M., “Effect of Confinement Using
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer or Fiber-Reinforced Concrete on Seismic
Performance of Gravity Load-Designed Columns,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 101, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2004, pp. 47-56.
9. Massicotte, B.; Mossor, B.; Filliatrault, A.; and Tremblay, S.,
“Compressive Strength and Ductility of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Columns,” Structural Applications of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, SP-182,
N. Banthia, C. MacDonald, and P. Tatnall, eds., American Concrete Insti-
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998, pp. 163-180.
10. Parra-Montesinos, G. J., “High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced
Cement Composites: An Alternative for Seismic Design of Structures,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2005, pp. 668-675.
11. Paultre, P.; Eid, R.; Langlois, Y.; and Lévesque, Y., “Compressive
Behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Columns,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 136, No. 10, 2010, pp.
1225-1235.
200
12. Yoon, J. K.; Billington, S. L.; and Rouse, J. M., “Precast Segmental
Bridge Piers with Unbonded Post-tensioning and Ductile, Fiber Reinforced
Concrete for Seismic Applications,” Proceedings of the 7th National
Conference of Earthquake Engineering (NCEE), Boston, MA, 2002, 10 pp.
(CD-ROM)
13. CSA A23.3-04, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian Stan-
dards Association, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2004, 258 pp.
14. NZS 3101, “Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures,”
Standard Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 1995,
256 pp.
15. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318M-11) and Commentary ,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
16. Osorio, L. I., “Behavior of Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Circular Columns under Cyclic Flexure and Constant Axial Load,” Mémoire
de maîtrise, Département de génie civil, Université de Sherbrooke, Quebec,
QC, Canada, 2008, 100 pp.
17. Trottier, J.-F., and Mahoney, M., “Innovative Synthetic Fibers,”
Concrete International, V. 23, No. 6, June 2001, pp. 23-28.
18. Trottier, J.-F., and Mahoney, M., “Fiber Reinforced Building Mate-
rial,” U.S. Patent issued on July 23, 2002, http: //www.patentstorm.us/
patents/6423134.html.
19. Trottier, J.-F.; Burke, S.; Macklin, M. B.; and Rieder, K.-A.,
“Three-Dimensional Twisted Fibers and Processes for Making Same,”
U.S. Patent issued on January 22, 2002, http://www.patentstorm.us/
patents/6340522.html.
20. Priestly, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Calvi, G. M., Seismic Design and
Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1996, 686 pp.
21. Park, R., “Evaluation of Ductility of Structures and Structural Assem-
blages from Laboratory Testing,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National
Society for the Earthquake Engineering, V. 22, No. 3, 1989, pp. 155-166.
22. Sheikh, S., and Khoury, S., “Confined Concrete Columns with Stub,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 4, July-Aug. 1993, pp. 415-431.
23. Légeron, F., and Paultre, P., “Uniaxial Confinement Model for
Normal- and High-Strength Concrete Columns,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 129, No. 2, 2003, pp. 241-252.
24. Gosain, K. N.; Brown, H. R.; and Jirsa, J. O., “Shear Requirements
for Load Reversals on RC Members,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 103, No. 7, 1977, pp. 1461-1476.
25. Ehsani, M. R., and Wright, J. K., “Confinement Steel Requirements
for Connections in Ductile Frames,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 116, No. 3, 1990, pp. 751-767.
26. Join ACI-ASCE Committee 441, “High-Strength Concrete Columns
(ACI 441R-96),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996,
13 pp.
27. Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., “High-Strength Concrete Columns
Confined by Rectangular Ties,” Structural Journal, ASCE, V. 120, No. 3,
1994, pp. 783-804.
28. Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., “Stress-Strain Model for Confined High-
Strength Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 121, No.
3, 1995, pp. 468-477.
29. Paultre, P.; Eid, R.; Robles, H. I.; and Bouaanani, N., “Seismic
Performance of Circular High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 106, No. 4, July-Aug. 2009, pp. 395-404.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014