Overall Conceptual Seismic Design and Local Seismic Capacity Design for Components of Bridges - Structural Seismic Design Optimization and Earthquake Engineering - page 294

Figure 23. Capacity curve comparisons between piers reinforced with SFRC and CRC

Table 13. Curvature ductility comparisons between piers reinforced with SFRC and CRC

Pier model Yield

curvature (×10 -3 )

Ultimate curvature
(×10 -3 )

Curvature ductility
factor

Ratio of curvature ductility
factor (ii)/(i) (%)

(i) M1(CRC) 0.615 8.097 13.166 201.7

(ii) M1(SFRC) 0.654 17.381 26.576

(i) M2(CRC) 0.915 6.277 6.860 206.4

(ii) M2(SFRC) 0.997 14.112 14.154

(i) M3(CRC) 0.912 4.733 5.190 288.5

(ii) M3(SFRC) 0.999 12.085 12.097

(i) M4(CRC) 0.899 4.401 4.895 263.8

(ii) M4(SFRC) 1.046 10.769 10.295

more effective way to improve the ductility
rather than to enhance the bending strength.

earthquakes from the capacity design principles
(Priestley, Seible & Calvi, 1992). It means that the
whole bridge pier reinforced with SFRC may be
a tremendous waste. Therefore, it is necessary to
study the seismic capacities of bridge piers wholly
and locally reinforced with SFRC.
For a group of piers M3 and M4 (Table 12),
the lengths of local region reinforced with SFRC
(LR-SFRC) are assumed to be 4 m and 5 m respec-

Bridge Piers Reinforced with SFRC

From the above analysis results, it is clear that
the SFRC can efficiently improve the ductility
capacity of bridge piers. However, only partial
regions of a bridge pier may enter plasticity under