Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 781–802 | Cite as

Seismic performance of reinforced concrete frames retrofitted using external superelastic shape memory alloy bars

  • Y. I. Elbahy
  • M. A. YoussefEmail author
  • M. Meshaly
Original Research


Pre-1970s designed and built reinforced concrete frame structures are considered unsafe when subjected to seismic loads. Insufficient anchorage of the beam reinforcement in the beam-column joints of these structures is considered a main deficiency. Newly built frame structures are seismically designed for safety, where high inelastic deformations can occur under moderate to strong earthquakes. Minimizing these inelastic deformations makes the structure repairable. One way to minimize these residual deformations is by using smart materials such as superelastic shape memory alloys (SMAs). In this paper, the seismic performance of RC frames retrofitted using external superelastic SMA bars is investigated and compared to the behaviour of a regular steel RC frame structure. Nonlinear time history analysis is performed for a six storey RC frame structure located in a high seismic region. After performing the analysis, two retrofitted frames are assumed and analyzed at the load intensities causing failure of the steel RC frame. The performance of the retrofitted frames is compared to the steel RC frame in terms of the damage level, the Maximum Inter-Storey Drift (MID) ratio, Maximum Residual Inter-Storey Drift (MRID), Maximum Roof Drift Ratio (MRDR), Residual Roof Drift Ratio (RRDR), and the earthquake intensity at collapse. Analysis results show improved seismic performance for the two retrofitted frames as compared to the original steel RC frame. This improvement was represented by lower level of damage at the same earthquake intensity; small reduction (10–15%) in the MID and MRDR values; significant reduction (50–70%) in the MRID and RRDR; and increased seismic capacity.


Reinforced concrete (RC) Shape memory alloys (SMAs) Moment frame Seismic damage Seismic residual deformations Retrofitting 


  1. ABAQUS F.E.A. (2018) ABAQUS analysis user’s manual. Dassault Systemes, Vélizy-VillacoublayGoogle Scholar
  2. ACI Committee 318 (2005) Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-05) and commentary (ACI 318R-05). American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  3. Alam MS, Youssef MA, Nehdi M (2007) Utilizing shape memory alloys to enhance the performance and safety of civil infrastructure: a review. Can J Civ Eng 34(9):1075–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alam MS, Nehdi M, Youssef MA (2009) Seismic performance of concrete frame structures reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloys. Smart Struct Syst 5(5):565–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auricchio F, Sacco E (1997) Superelastic shape-memory-alloy beam model. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 8(6):489–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engindeni M (2008) Repair and strengthening of pre-1970 reinforced concrete corner beam-column joints using CFRP composites. PhD dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Hassan WM (2011) Analytical and experimental assessment of seismic vulnerability of beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement in concrete buildings. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkely, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. IBC (2006) International Building Code. International Code Council, ICC, Country Club HillsGoogle Scholar
  9. Janke L, Czaderski C, Motavalli M, Ruth J (2005) Applications of shape memory alloys in civil engineering structures—overview, limits and new ideas. Mater Struct 338(279):578–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. SeismoSoft (2018) SeismoStruct—a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of structures.
  12. Shome N, Cornell CA (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Reliability of Marine Structures Program Technical Report RMS-35. Stanford Digital Repository.
  13. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Youssef MA, Elfeki MA (2012) Seismic performance concrete frames reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloys. J Smart Struct Syst 9(4):313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Youssef MA, Alam MS, Nehdi M (2008) Experimental investigation on the seismic behavior of beam-column joints reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloys. J Earthq Eng 12(7):1205–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Structural Engineering DepartmentAlexandria UniversityAlexandriaEgypt

Personalised recommendations