International Journal of Steel Structures

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1325–1335 | Cite as

Investigation of MRS and SMA Dampers Effects on Bridge Seismic Resistance Employing Analytical Models

  • Eunsoo Choi
  • Jong-Su JeonEmail author
  • Woo Jin Kim
  • Joo-Won Kang


This study dealt with investigating the seismic performance of the smart and shape memory alloy (SMA) and magnets plus rubber-spring (MRS) dampers and their effects on the seismic resistance of multiple-span simply supported bridges. The rubber springs in the MRS dampers were pre-compressed. For this aim, a set of experimental works was performed together with developing nonlinear analytical models to investigate dynamic responses of the bridges subjected to earthquakes. Fragility analysis and probabilistic assessment were conducted to assess the seismic performance for the overall bridge system. Fragility curves were then generated for each model and were compared with those of as-built. Results showed dampers could increase the seismic capacity of bridges. Furthermore, from system fragility curves, use of damper models reduced the seismic vulnerability in comparison to the as-built bridge model. Although the SMA damper showed the best seismic performance, the MRS damper was the most appropriate one for the bridge in that the combination of magnetic friction and pre-compressed rubber springs was cheaper than the shape memory alloy, and had the similar capability of the damper.


Damper Bridges Shape memory alloy Restrainer Fragility analysis 



This study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Project No. 2015-041523). This study was also supported by 2018 research fund of Hongik University.


  1. Adanur, S., Altunisik, A. C., Basaga, H. B., Soyluk, K., & Dumanoglu, A. A. (2017). Wave-passage effect on the seismic response of suspension bridges considering local soil conditions. International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(2), 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adanur, S., Altunisik, A. C., Soyluk, K., Bayraktar, A., & Dumanoglu, A. A. (2016). Multiple-support seismic response of bosporus suspension bridge for various random vibration methods. Case Studies in Structural Engineering, 5, 5–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alam, S. H., Nehdi, M., & Youssef, M. A. (2009). Seismic performance of concrete frame structures reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloys. Smart Structures and Systems, 5(5), 565–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CALTRANS. (1990). Bridge design specification manual. California Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  5. Caterino, N., Maddaloni, G., & Occhiuzzi, A. (2014). Damage analysis and seismic retrofitting of a continuous prestresses reinforced concrete bridge. Case Studies in Structural Engineering, 2, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, W., & Duan, L. (2003). Brige engineering seismic design. Cambridge: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi, E. (2002). Seismic analysis and retrofit of mid-America bridges. Ph.D. Thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  8. Choi, G. (2016). Development of a smart damper by combining friction of magnets and self-centering of pre-compressed rubber springs. M.S. Thesis, Hongik Univeresity, Seoul.Google Scholar
  9. Choi, E., Choi, G., Kim, H., & Youn, H. (2015). Smart damper using the combination of magnetic friction and pre-compressed rubber springs. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 351, 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi, E., Kim, D. J., Lee, J. H., & Ryu, G. S. (2017). Monotonic and hysteretic pullout behavior of superelastic SMA fibers with different anchorages. Composites: Part B, 108, 232–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi, E., Lee, D. H., & Choei, N. Y. (2009). Shape memory alloy bending bars as seismic restrainers for bridges in seismic areas. International Journal of Steel Structures, 9(4), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Choi, E., & Mohammadzadeh, B. (2018). A new experimental investigation into the effects of reinforcing mortar beams with superelastic SMA fibers on controlling and closing cracks. Composites: Part B, 137, 140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choi, E., Park, S., Yoon, D., & Park, C. (2010). Comparison of seismic performance of three restrainers for multiple-span bridges using fragility analysis. Nonlinear Dynamics, 61(1), 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Copper, J., Friedland, I., Buckle, I., Nimis, R., & Bob, N. (1994). The Northridge earthquake: progress made, lessons learned in seismic-resistant bridge design. Public Roads, 58, 26–36.Google Scholar
  15. Fiore, A., Marano, G. C., Greco, R., & Mastromarino, E. (2016). Structural optimization of hollow-section steel trusses by differential evolution algorithm. International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(2), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghassemieh, M., Bahaari, M. R., Ghodratian, S. M., & Nojoumi, S. A. (2012). Improvement of concrete shear wall structures by smart materials. Open Journal of Civil Engineering, 2, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Han, S. H., Cho, H. N., Cho, T. J., Shin, S. W., & Kim, T. S. (2010). Risk assessments of long-span bridges considering life-cycle cost concept and near-fault ground motion effect. International Journal of Steel Structures, 10(1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. HAZUS. (1997). Technical Manual. Washington, DC: Federal emergency management agency.Google Scholar
  19. Hedayati Dezfuli, F., Li, S., Alam, M. S., & Wang, J. Q. (2017). Effect of constitutive models on the seismic response of an SMA-LRB isolated highway bridge. Engineering Structures, 148, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Isalgue, A., Lovey, F. C., Terriault, P., Martorell, F., Torra, R. M., & Torra, V. (2006). SMA for dampers in civil engineering. Materials Transactions, 47(3), 682–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jeon, J., Shafieezadeh, A., Lee, D., Choi, E., & DesRoches, R. (2015). Damage assessment of older highway bridges subjected to three-dimensional ground motions: Characterization of shear-axial force interaction on seismic fragilities. Engineering Structures, 87, 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang, X., Su, Q., Han, X., Shao, C., & Chen, L. (2017). Experimental study and numerical analysis on mechanical behavior of T-shape stiffened orthotropic steel-concrete composite bridge decks. International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 893–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kasano, H., Yoda, T., Nogami, K., Murakoshi, J., Toyama, N., Sawada, M., et al. (2012). Study on failure modes of steel truss bridge gusset plates related to tension and shear block failure. International Journal of Steel Structures, 12(3), 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laufer, J., Becker, V., & Wagner, W. (2017). Gradient enhancement of a transversely isotropic continuum damage model. Composite Structures, 181, 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, S. W., Kim, S. H., & Mha, H. S. (2004). Seismic retrofit prioritization of bridges based on damage risk and failure cost analysis. In 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouare, Canada.Google Scholar
  26. Mangalathu, S., Heo, G., & Jeon, J. S. (2018). Artificial neural network based multi-dimensional fragility development of skewed concrete bridge classes. Engineering Structures, 162, 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayes, R. (1993). Response of isolated structures to recent California earthquakes. In Structural engineering in natural hazards mitigation, ASCE, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell, D., Bruneau, M., Williams, M., Anderson, D., Saatcloglu, M., & Robert, S. (1995). Performance of bridges in the 1994 northridge earthquake. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 22, 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mohammadzadeh, B., & Noh, H. C. (2014). Investigation into central-difference and Newmark’s beta method in measuring dynamic responses. Advanced Materials Research, 831, 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mohammadzadeh, B., & Noh, H. C. (2015). Numerical analysis of dynamic responses of the plate subjected to impulsive loads. International journal of Civil, Environmental, Structureal, Construction and Architectural Engineering, 9(9), 1148–1151.Google Scholar
  31. Mohammadzadeh, B., & Noh, H. C. (2017). Analytical method to investigate nonlinear dynamic responses of sandwich plates with FGM faces resting on elastic foundation considering blast loads. Composite Structures, 174, 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muntasir Billah, A. H. M., & Sharia Alam, M. (2016). Plastic hinge of shape memory alloy (SMA) reinforced concrete bridge pier. Engineering Structures, 117, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nielson, B., & DesRoches, R. (2007). Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using a component level approach. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36(6), 823–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Park, Y., Joe, W., Park, J., Hwang, M., & Choi, B. H. (2012). An experimental study on after-fracture redundancy of continuous span two-girder bridges. International Journal of Steel Structures, 12(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Park, J. Y., & Kim, H. K. (2015). Fatigue life assessment for a composite box girder bridge. International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(4), 543–853.Google Scholar
  36. Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., & Calvi, G. (1996). Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quanani, M., & Tiliouine, B. (2017). Progressive seismic failure of a highway bridge including abutment-backfill interaction. Current Science, 112(2), 335–363.Google Scholar
  38. Russo, F. M., Wipe, T. J., Klaiber, F. W., & Paradis, R. (2000). Evaluation and repair of damaged prestressed concrete girder bridges. In Mid-continent transportation symposium proceedings.Google Scholar
  39. Saiidi, M., Maragakis, E., & O’Connor, D. (1995). Seismic performance of the Madrone bridge during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Structural Engineering Review, 7(3), 219–230.Google Scholar
  40. Seo, J., & Rogers, L. P. (2017). Comparison of curved prestressed concrete bridge population response between area and spine modeling approaches toward efficient seismic vulnerability analysis. Engineering Structures, 150, 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shrestha, B., Hao, H., & Bi, K. (2013). Pounding and unseating damage mitigation on bridge structures subjected to spatially varying ground motions using restrainers rubber bumpers. In Conference of Australian earthquake engineering society, Tasamania, Nov. 15–17.Google Scholar
  42. Zheng, Y., Dong, Y., & Li, Y. (2018). Resilience and life-cycle performance of smart bridges with shape memory alloy (SMA)-cable-based bearings. Construction and Building Materials, 158, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eunsoo Choi
    • 1
  • Jong-Su Jeon
    • 2
    Email author
  • Woo Jin Kim
    • 3
  • Joo-Won Kang
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringHongik UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringAndong National UniversityAndongKorea
  3. 3.Department of Materials and Science and EngineeringHongik UniversitySeoulKorea
  4. 4.School of ArchitectureYeungnam UniversityGyeongsanKorea

Personalised recommendations