Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 1667–1688 | Cite as

Performance-based assessment of bridges with steel-SMA reinforced piers in a life-cycle context by numerical approach

  • Yue Zheng
  • You DongEmail author
Original Research


Reconnaissance of structural damage under earthquakes has indicated that though current design philosophy can reduce structural collapse probability, it results in a significant reduction of functionality following earthquakes considering residual drift and numerous bridges had to be demolished. To protect bridges against earthquakes and reduce the residual drift, shape memory alloy (SMA) is studied and incorporated in the plastic hinge region of reinforced concrete (RC) piers to increase the resilience of bridges. The performance-based engineering (PBE) of SMA bar reinforced RC bridges considering residual drift ratio and maximum displacement is assessed by taking advantages of self-centering and energy dissipation features of SMA, specifically under extensively large seismic events. Additionally, the PBE is conducted within the lifetime of bridges considering the corresponding economic impacts. The proposed approach is illustrated within highway bridges with and without using SMA bars in the piers.


SMA bar reinforced pier Residual drift Probabilistic seismic demand Performance-based engineering Lifetime failure loss 



The study has been supported by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University under Start-Up Fund Number 1-ZE7Q, the Project of CNERC Fund Number 1-BBYU, and the Natural Science Foundation of the Shanghai Pujiang Program under Grant Number 16PJ1409600 are gratefully acknowledged. The opinions and conclusions presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organizations.


  1. Agalianos A, Psychari A, Vassiliou M, Stojadinovic B, Anastasopoulos I (2017) Comparative assessment of two rocking isolation techniques for a motorway overpass bridge. Front Built Environ. Google Scholar
  2. Alam MS, Youssef MA, Nehdi M (2008) Analytical prediction of the seismic behavior of super-elastic shape memory reinforced concrete elements. Eng Struct 30:3399–3411Google Scholar
  3. Andrawes B, DesRoches R (2005) Unseating prevention for multiple frame bridges using super-elastic devices. Smart Mater Struct 14:60–67Google Scholar
  4. Berry M, Eberhard M (2003) Performance models for flexural damage in reinforced concrete columns. Report PEER 2003/18, PEER, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  5. Billah MAHM, Alam MS (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of concrete bridge pier reinforced with super-elastic shape memory alloy. Earthq Spectra 311:515–1541Google Scholar
  6. California Department of Transportation (CLATRANS) (2010) Seismic design criteria, version 1.6, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi E (2002) Seismic analysis and retrofit of mid-America bridges. Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi E, DesRoches R, Nielson BG (2004) Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Eng Struct 26:187–199Google Scholar
  9. Choi E, Nam T, Cho BS (2005) A new concept of isolation bearings for highway steel bridges using shape memory alloys. Can J Civ Eng 32:957–967Google Scholar
  10. Cornell AC, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 128:526–532Google Scholar
  11. DesRoches R, Delemont M (2002) Seismic retrofit of simply supported bridge using shape memory alloys. Eng Struct 24:325–332Google Scholar
  12. DesRoches R, Pfeifer T, Leon RT, Lam T (2003) Full-scale tests of seismic cable restrainer retrofits for simply supported bridges. J Bridge Eng 8:191–198Google Scholar
  13. Dezfuli FH, Alam MS (2013) Shape memory alloy wire-based smart natural rubber bearing. Smart Mater Struct 22(4):045013Google Scholar
  14. Dezfuli FH, Alam MS (2014) Performance-based assessment and design of FRP-based high damping rubber bearing incorporated with shape memory alloy wires. Eng Struct 61:166–183Google Scholar
  15. Dezfuli FH, Alam MS (2016) Seismic vulnerability assessment of a steel girder highway bridge equipped with different SMA wire-based smart elastomeric isolators. Smart Mater Struct 25:1–16Google Scholar
  16. Dong Y, Frangopol DM (2015) Risk and resilience assessment of bridges under main shock and aftershocks incorporating uncertainties. Eng Struct 83:198–208Google Scholar
  17. Dong Y, Frangopol DM (2016a) Time-dependent multi-hazard life-cycle assessment of bridges considering climate change. ASCE J Perform Constr Facil 30(5):301–312Google Scholar
  18. Dong Y, Frangopol DM (2016b) Performance-based seismic assessment of conventional and base-isolated steel buildings including environmental impact and resilience. Earth Eng Struct Dyn 45:739–756Google Scholar
  19. Dong Y, Frangopol DM (2017) Probabilistic life-cycle cost-benefit analysis of portfolios of buildings under flood hazard. Eng Struct 142:290–299Google Scholar
  20. Dong Y, Frangopol DM, Saydam D (2013) Time-variant sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1451–1467Google Scholar
  21. Fang C, Yam MC, Lam AC, Xie L (2014) Cyclic performance of extended end-plate connections equipped with shape memory alloy bolts. J Constr Steel Res 94:122–136Google Scholar
  22. Fang C, Wang W, He C, Chen Y (2017) Self-centring behaviour of steel and steel-concrete composite connections equipped with NiTi SMA bolts. Eng Struct 150:390–408Google Scholar
  23. Frangopol DM, Dong Y, Sabatino S (2017) Bridge life-cycle performance and cost: analysis, prediction, optimization and decision making. Struct Infrastruct Eng 13:1239–1257Google Scholar
  24. Ghobarah A (2001) Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of development. Eng Struct 23(8):878–884Google Scholar
  25. HAZUS (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology earthquake model. Technical manual. Department of Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, FEMA Mitigation Division, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. HAZUS99-SR2 (1999) Technical manual. National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson R, Padgett JE, Maragakis ME, DesRoches R, Saiidi M (2008) Large scale testing of nitinol shape memory alloy devices for retrofitting of bridges. Smart Mater Struct 25:1–10Google Scholar
  28. Kawashima K, MacRae G, Hoshikuma J, Nagaya K (1998) Residual displacement response spectrum. J Struct Eng 124:523–530Google Scholar
  29. Mackie KR, Stojadinovic B (2007) Performance-based seismic bridge design for damage and loss limit states. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1953–1971Google Scholar
  30. Mander JB (1999) Fragility curve development for assessing the seismic vulnerability of highway bridges. Technical Report, University at Buffalo, State University of New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Mander JB, Kim DK, Chen SS, Permus GJ (1996) Response of steel bridge bearings to the reverse cyclic loading. Technical Report NCEER-96-0014Google Scholar
  32. Maragakis E, Douglas B, Vrontinos S (1991) Classical formulation of the impact between bridge deck and abutments during strong earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 6th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  33. Markogiannaki OG, Orologopoulos NG, Tegos IS (2017) Experimental and analytical study on hollow precast piers with unbonded conventional reinforcement to control seismic and in-service response of bridges. In: 6th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, pp 282–296Google Scholar
  34. Mashal M, Palermo A (2017) Experimental testing of emulative and post-tensioned earthquake damage resistant technologies for accelerated bridge construction. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, 16WCEE, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  35. McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH (2004) OpenSees: open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Accessed 18 Sept 2017
  36. Moehle J, Deierlein GG (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  37. Nielson BG, DesRoches R (2004) Improved methodology for generation of analytical fragility curves for highway bridges. In: 9th ASCE specialty conference on probabilistic mechanics and structural reliability, Albuquerque, NM, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Brien M, Saiidi M, Sadrossadat-Zadeh M (2007) A study of concrete bridge columns using innovative materials subjected to cyclic loading CCEER. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-01Google Scholar
  39. Ozbulut OE, Hurlebaus S, Desroches R (2011) Seismic response control using shape memory alloys: a review. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 22:1531–1549Google Scholar
  40. Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2007) Bridge functionality relationships for improved seismic risk assessment of transportation networks. Earthq Spectra 23:115–130Google Scholar
  41. Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2008) Methodology for the development of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:157–174Google Scholar
  42. Padgett JE, DesRoches R, Ehlinger R (2010) Experimental response modification of a four-span bridge retrofit with shape memory alloys. Struct Control Health Monit 17:694–708Google Scholar
  43. Palermo A, Pampanin S (2008) Enhanced seismic performance of hybrid bridge systems: comparison with traditional monolithic solutions. J Earthq Eng 12(8):1267–1295Google Scholar
  44. Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center) (2013) PEER ground motion database. University of California, Berkeley, CA. Accessed 18 Sept 2017
  46. Porter KA (2003) An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: Proceedings of ninth international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineeringGoogle Scholar
  47. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Roh H, Reinhorn AM (2010) Hysteretic behavior of precast segmental bridge piers with superelastic shape memory alloy bars. Eng Struct 32:3394–3403Google Scholar
  49. Saiidi MS, Wang H (2006) Exploratory study of seismic response of concrete columns with shape memory alloys reinforcement. ACI Struct J 103:435–442Google Scholar
  50. Saiidi MS, O’Brien M, Sadrossadat-Zadeh M (2009) Cyclic response of concrete bridge columns using superelastic nitinol and bendable concrete. ACI Struct J 106(1):69–77Google Scholar
  51. Scott BD, Park P, Priestley MJN (1982) Stress–strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. J Am Concr Inst 79:13–27Google Scholar
  52. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H-K, Kim S-H (2000) Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve development. J Eng Mech 126:1287–1295Google Scholar
  53. Shrestha B, Hao H (2016) Parametric study of seismic performance of super-elastic shape memory alloy-reinforced bridge piers. Struct Infrastruct Eng 12:1076–1089Google Scholar
  54. Su L, Wan HP, Dong Y, Frangopol DM, Ling XZ (2018) Efficient uncertainty quantification of wharf structures under seismic scenarios using Gaussian process surrogate model. J Earthq Eng 2018:1–22Google Scholar
  55. Tremblay R, Lacerte M, Christopoulos C (2008) Seismic response of multistory buildings with self-centering energy dissipative steel braces. J Struct Eng 134:108–120Google Scholar
  56. USGS (2017) Unified hazard tool. Accessed 18 Sept 2017
  57. Wang B, Zhu S (2018) Cyclic tension–compression behavior of superelastic shape memory alloy bars with buckling-restrained devices. Constr Build Mater 186:103–113Google Scholar
  58. Wang W, Fang C, Liu J (2016) Self-centering beam-to-column connections with combined superelastic SMA bolts and steel angles. J Struct Eng 143(2):04016175Google Scholar
  59. Wilde K, Gardoni P, Fujino Y (2000) Base isolation system with shape memory alloy device for elevated highway bridges. Eng Struct 22:222–229Google Scholar
  60. Zhang J, Huo Y (2009) Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges using the fragility function method. Eng Struct 31:1648–1660Google Scholar
  61. Zhang Y, Hu X, Zhu S (2009) Seismic performance of benchmark base-isolated bridges with superelastic Cu–Al–Be restraining damping device. Struct Control Health Monit 16(6):668–685Google Scholar
  62. Zheng Y, Dong Y, Li Y (2018) Resilience and life-cycle performance of smart bridges with shape memory alloy (SMA)-cable-based bearings. Constr Build Mater 158:389–400Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bridge EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloon, Hung HomHong Kong

Personalised recommendations