Performance-Based Seismic Design of Shape

Memory Alloy–Reinforced Concrete Bridge

Piers. II: Methodology and Design Example
A. H. M. Muntasir Billah, A.M.ASCE 1; and M. Shahria Alam, M.ASCE 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 07/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Here, a performance-based seismic design method is presented for shape memory alloy (SMA)-reinforced concrete (RC) bridge
piers. The proposed design method is developed based on the existing displacement-based procedure where the expected performance is
quantified by linking material strains and deformations to damage states, as well as to the probable postearthquake functionality of a bridge.
Based on the performance-based damage states developed in a companion paper, this study presents the sequential procedure for the per-
formance-based design of SMA-RC bridge piers using a combination of residual and maximum drift. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0001623. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Performance-based design; Shape memory alloy; Residual drift; Damping; Ductility; Special design issues.

Introduction The following section introduces the proposed methodology

In the last decade, the seismic design of bridges has transitioned
from the conventional force-based method towards a more descrip-
tive performance-based seismic design (PBSD) approach, with an
aim of limiting the global and local deformations of a structure to
acceptable levels under design earthquakes (Priestley et al. 2007).
Most of the PBSD approaches available in the literature are based
on the direct displacement–based design (DDBD) approach
developed by Priestley et al. (2007), where a structure is designed
for a target maximum displacement under a specified design earth-
quake. It is well known that the PBSD procedure emphasizes the
determination of target drift for a selected performance level.
However, observations from recent earthquakes and research re-
sults have evidenced that residual drift sustained by a structure
after an earthquake plays a significant role in defining the seismic
performance of a structure and needs to be considered in the seis-
mic design (Erochko et al. 2011; Billah and Alam 2015). Specifi-
cally, for highway bridges, residual deformation dictates the
plausibility of keeping the bridge open to traffic and determines the
feasibility of repairs. This study aims at developing a performance-
based seismic design guideline for shape memory alloy–reinforced
concrete (SMA-RC) bridge piers considering residual drift as the
key performance indicator. The performance-based damage states
and associated performance levels have been developed in a
companion paper by Billah and Alam (2016). In this study, the
authors have developed the damping-ductility relationship for
SMA-RC bridge piers in support of the proposed PBSD of
SMA-RC piers.
1
Bridge Engineer, Parsons, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4M2; formerly,
Graduate Student, School of Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia,
Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V 1V7. E-mail: muntasir.billah@alumni.ubc.ca
2
Associate Professor, School of Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia,
Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V 1V7 (corresponding author). E-mail: shahria
.alam@ubc.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 16, 2014; approved
on June 14, 2016; published online on July 22, 2016. Discussion period
open until December 22, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
and offers a step by step description. The subsequent sections
provide a detailed design example and seismic performance
evaluation of the designed SMA-RC pier. The article ends with
conclusions and suggestions for future research works.
Performance-Based Design of SMA-Reinforced
Bridge Piers
The performance-based design of SMA-RC bridge piers is devel-
oped following a displacement-based approach. Unlike other
displacement-based approaches, the required design-base shear
is calculated corresponding to a target residual drift and target
performance level corresponding to a selected seismic hazard.
The procedure adopted in this study follows the procedure devel-
oped by Kowalsky et al. (1995) and Priestley et al. (2007), but is
specifically tailored to SMA-RC bridge piers using the damping-
ductility relationship developed in this study. The design steps
adopted in this study are outlined in a simple flowchart in Fig. 1.
The first step involves the selection of a site-specific seismic
hazard and target performance level. The second step defines
the target residual drift based on the selected target performance
and seismic hazard level. The next step focuses on the calculation
of maximum drift based on the target residual drift using the equa-
tion proposed in Billah and Alam (2016). After that, initial column
parameters need to be selected and the expected ductility demand
needs to be calculated. The next step then involves determining the
equivalent hysteretic damping.
In this study, a damping-ductility relationship for SMA-RC
bridge pier has been developed using a total of 100 ATC55/
FEMA440 (FEMA 2005) ground motions (Miranda and Ruiz-
Garcia 2002) and following the method described by Dwairi et al.
(2007). A set of new damping-ductility equations, in accordance
with the previous expressions proposed by other researchers
(Priestely et al. 2007; Dwairi et al. 2007), were developed in
order to best approximate the damping-ductility relationship.
Eq. (1) represents the general form of the proposed equivalent
viscous damping equation based on ductility for the SMA-RC
bridge pier

© ASCE 04016141-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(12): 04016141

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 07/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Flow diagram for PBSD of SMA-RC bridge pier

 
a 1 Fig. 2 shows the equivalent viscous damping and ductility
ξ eq ¼ ξ 0 þ 1− b ð1Þ
π μ curve developed in this study along with the curves proposed
In this equation, a and b = two regression coefficients; and μ = by Priestely et al. (2007) and Dwairi et al. (2007) for flag-shaped
ductility demand. In order to obtain a generic damping-ductility hysteresis. From this figure, it can be observed that, the proposed
relationship for SMA-RC bridge piers, all the examined bridge relationship is in good accordance with the existing literature.
piers were considered together and the following expression was
developed for the SMA-RC bridge pier:
  Illustrative Example
32 1
ξ eq ¼ 5 þ 1 − 0.56 ð2Þ The following example is presented to demonstrate the perfor-
π μ
mance-based design procedure for SMA-RC bridge piers.
The coefficient of determination or R2 value obtained from this The bridge pier is assumed to be located in Vancouver,
expression was higher than 85%. British Columbia, Canada, in site Soil Class C (stiff soil). The

© ASCE 04016141-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(12): 04016141

 14
Table 1. Material Properties
12 Material Property Value
Equivalent Damping (%) 10 Concrete Compressive strength (MPa) 42.4
Elastic modulus (GPa) 23.1
8 Steel Elastic modulus (GPa) 200
Yield stress (MPa) 400
6 Ultimate stress (MPa) 672
4 Priestley-flag shaped SMA Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 58.8
Dwairi and Kowalsky-flag shaped Austenite-to-martensite starting stress (MPa) 401
2 Austenite-to-martensite finishing stress (MPa) 510
SMA-RC pier
Martensite-to-austenite starting stress (MPa) 370
0 Martensite-to-austenite finishing stress (MPa) 130
1 2 3 4 5 6 Superelastic strain (%) 6.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 07/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ductility

Fig. 2. Comparison of damping-ductility curve

mass at the top of pier = 500,000 kg; selected material properties
of concrete, steel, and SMA are provided in Table 1.
For the considered hazard level, the yield drift is selected as
corresponding design spectrum is selected according to Canadian
1.68% as developed in Billah and Alam (2016). In addition
Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC-2014) [CSA S6-14 (CSA
• Yield displacement, ΔyT ¼ 0.0168 × 5 ¼ 0.084 m; and
2014)] which corresponds to 2% probability of exceedance in
• Ductility demand, μd ¼ Δm =ΔyT ¼ 0.246=0.084 ¼ 2.93
50 years with a return period of 2,475 years (Fig. 3).
The equivalent viscous damping value corresponding to the de-
The considered bridge is a lifeline bridge and according to
sign ductility is calculated using the following damping-ductility
CHBDC-2014 (CSA S6-14) performance requirement, the bridge
relationship developed in this study:
should be operational with limited service at the selected seismic
hazard level. For the considered damage level, a target residual drift    
of 0.6% is selected to meet the performance objective. To restrict 32 1 32 1
ξ eq ¼5þ 1 − 0.56 ¼ 5 þ 1− ¼ 9.6%
the residual drift within the target level, a Nitinol-shape memory π μ π 2.930.56
alloy with 6% superelastic strain (εs ) is selected. In this design ex-
ample, Nitinol SMA is considered since it is the most commonly
used and commercially available SMA in the market. Moreover, a The spectral reduction factor (Rξ ) is calculated as
good number of research studies are also available on SMA-RC
bridge piers using nitinol SMA.  0.5  0.5
0.10 0.10
Based on the target residual drift (RD) and superelastic strain Rξ ¼ ¼ ¼ 0.83
(εs ), the maximum drift (MD) is calculated using Eq. (3) 0.05 þ ξ 0.05 þ 0.096
   
εs 2 εs 1
RD ¼ 0.5 × × MD − × MD þ ð3Þ Using the spectral reduction factor (Rξ ) of 0.83, the displace-
100 100 εs
or ment spectrum corresponding to 9.6% damping is obtained as
    shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 shows the 5% damped displacement spec-
6 6 1 trum and the reduced displacement spectrum. With this reduced
0.6 ¼ 0.5 × × MD2 − × MD þ displacement spectrum and maximum displacement, Δm , the effec-
100 100 6
tive time period of the pier (T eff ) is calculated as 3.42 s.
Solving this quadratic equation yields a maximum drift, MD ¼ The effective stiffness (K eff ) based on the effective period (T eff )
4.92%; maximum displacement, Δm ¼ 0.0492 × 5 ¼ 0.246 m; is calculated as
initial column parameters of height of the pier = 5 m, and lumped

0.4
1 5%
0.35
0.9 9.6%
Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.3
Displacement (m)

0.8
Design Response
0.7 0.25
Spectrum
0.6 0.2
0.5 0.15
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2 0.05

0.1 0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Fig. 4. Determination of effective period from reduced displacement
Fig. 3. Design acceleration response spectrum spectrum

© ASCE 04016141-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(12): 04016141

 2000 40
Target Spectra

Spectral Displacement (cm)

35 ChiChi
Fruili
1600 Hollister
30
Shear (kN) Imperial Valley
25 Kobe
1200 Kocaeli
20 Landers
Loma Prieta
800 15 Northridge
Trinidad
410 kN 10
400
5

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1 2 3 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 07/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Moment (kN-m) Time (sec)

25000 Fig. 6. Displacement spectra of 10 earthquake records matched with

target response spectrum
20000
Axial Load (kN)

2053 kN.m

15000
10000
5000
2260 kN
0
-5000
0 1000 2000 3000
(b) Moment (kN-m)
Fig. 5. (a) Moment-shear force interaction diagram; (b) moment-axial
load interaction diagram
4π2 M 4π2 × 500,000
K eff ¼ ¼ ¼ 1.68 MN=m
T 2eff 3.422
The design-base shear is calculated as
V base ¼ K eff Δm ¼ 1.68 × 106 × 0.246 ¼ 413.3 kN
The design moment is calculated as
M d ¼ V base × L ¼ 413.3 × 5 ¼ 2,066.5 kN-m
Finally, for a design moment of 2,066.5 kN · m, the column sec-
tion is designed according to CSA S6-14 considering a column
diameter of 1 m. For this design moment, a longitudinal steel ratio
of 1.73% is required, which is provided using 28-25 M SMA rebar
(24.9 mm diameter) in the plastic hinge region and 28-25 M steel
(diameter 25.2 mm) rebar in the remaining portion. The shear
reinforcement was designed following CSA S6-14 seismic design
requirements, which yielded 15 M spirals at 50-mm pitch providing
a spiral reinforcement ratio of 1.49%.
The shear capacity of the column is checked using modified
compression field theory (Vecchio and Collins 1986), which pre-
dicts the experimentally determined shear failure within 1% error
(Bentz et al. 2006). The shear resistance of the pier is found to be
2,264 kN, which is much higher than the applied shear force.
Fig. 5(a) shows the moment-shear force interaction diagram of
the designed pier. From Fig. 5(a), it is evident that the maximum
moment and shear force are within the safe region. Wang et al.
(2008) recommended that the shear capacity of the pier should
be greater than 1.6 times the base shear corresponding to the design
moment that has also been satisfied. The axial load versus moment
interaction diagram of the designed pier is developed as shown in
Fig. 5(b). From the interaction diagram, it is observed that the
applied maximum axial load and moment are within the safe
boundary.
Bridge Pier Performance Evaluation
4000 5000 In order to validate the proposed design approach, the performance
of the designed bridge pier is evaluated using nonlinear time history
analysis (NLTHA) with 10 earthquake records. The bridge pier
was modeled in Seismostruct, a fiber-based finite element software.
The bridge piers were modeled through a three-dimensional (3D)
inelastic beam–column element (force-based element), with a cir-
cular section for the piers; the constitutive laws of the reinforcing
steel and concrete were, respectively, the Menegotto–Pinto (1973)
and Mander et al. (1988) models. The superelastic SMA model
developed by Auricchio and Sacco (1997) has been employed
for modeling SMA. The objective of this evaluation is to compare
the performance objectives (residual drifts and maximum drifts)
with the predicted performance under the ensemble of selected
ground motions. The selected ground motions were first scaled
to match the displacement response spectrum of the location of
the bridge pier (Fig. 6). The results of the analyses in terms of maxi-
mum and residual drifts are presented in Figs. 7(a and b), respec-
tively. These figures show the maximum and residual drift response
obtained from each nonlinear time history analysis along with the
target maximum and residual drift (horizontal dotted line) used in
the design.
From these figures, it is evident that the bridge pier sustained
maximum and residual drifts within 15% of the target maximum
and residual drift. It was observed from the analysis that among
10 earthquake records, 2 marginally exceeded the target residual
drift of 0.6% and maximum drift of 4.92%. The remaining eight
are below the design level residual drift and targeted maximum
drift. These minor discrepancies can be attributed to the lineariza-
tion of the displacement spectrum adopted during the design and
scaling of ground motions. However, the average response in terms
of both residual and maximum drifts was very close to the targeted
drift levels. Previous researchers (Kowalsky et al. 1995; Priestley
et al. 2007; Haque and Alam 2013) also observed similar differen-
ces when NLTHA were carried out on structures designed
following a displacement-based approach. Priestley et al. (2007)
suggested that the differences in the target drift and obtained drift
from NLTHA is acceptable if the mean of the peak drifts remains
close to the design drift.

© ASCE 04016141-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(12): 04016141

 6 0.7
5 0.6
Maximum Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)
4
3
2
1 0.1
0 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 07/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 7. (a) Maximum and (b) residual drift value obtained from time history analysis of the designed pier (dotted line showing the target maximum
and residual drift)
Summary and Conclusions
This study presented a new residual drift–based design method
for shape memory alloy–reinforced concrete bridge piers. The
approach outlined in this paper is a comprehensive approach for
performance-based design of SMA-RC bridge piers. This study
developed necessary design equations and graphs for PBSD of
SMA-RC bridge piers. The proposed method provides the owner
to select expected performance of the bridge pier and allows the
designer/engineer to select multiple hazard and performance
expectation combinations. Following the DDBD guidelines of
Priestley et al. (2007), the authors developed their own design
method and damping-ductility relationship for SMA-RC bridge
piers. In contrast to the conventional DDBD approach, the pro-
posed procedure anticipates a target residual drift based on the
expected performance during design earthquake, calculates the
maximum drift demand, and ensures that those drift demands
(maximum and residual) remain below acceptable limits for the
design-level earthquakes. The performance of the bridge pier was
validated using NLTHA, and the maximum and residual drifts at
the design level earthquakes were found to satisfy the performance
expectations.
Acknowledgments
The financial contributions of Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through Discovery Grant
and Industrial Postgraduate Scholarship Program are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Auricchio, F., and Sacco, E. (1997). “Superelastic shape-memory-alloy
beam model.” J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., 8(6), 489–501.
Bentz, E. C., Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (2006). “Simplified modified
compression field theory for calculating shear strength of reinforced
concrete elements.” ACI Struct. J., 103(4), 614–624.
Billah, A. H. M. M., and Alam, M. S. (2015). “Seismic fragility assessment
of concrete bridge piers reinforced with superelastic shape memory
alloy.” Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), 1515–1541.
© ASCE 04016141-5
J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(12): 04016141
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
(b)
Billah, A. H. M. M., and Alam, M. S. (2016). “Performance-based seismic
design of shape memory alloy–reinforced concrete bridge piers. I:
Development of performance-based damage states.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001458, 04016140.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). (2014). “CHBDC 2014, Canadian
highway bridge design code.” CAN/CSA S6–14, Rexdale, ON, Canada.
Dwairi, H. M., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2007). “Equivalent damp-
ing in support of direct displacement-based design.” J. Earthquake
Eng., 11(4), 512–530.
Erochko, J., Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R., and Choi, H. (2011).
“Residual drift response of SMRFs and BRB frames in steel buildings
designed according to ASCE 7-05.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000296, 589–599.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2005). “FEMA 440/
ATC55, improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures.”
Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project), Redwood City, CA.
Haque, A. B. M. R., and Alam, M. S. (2013). “Direct displacement based
design of industrial rack clad buildings.” Earthquake Spectra, 29(4),
1311–1334.
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., and MacRae, G. A. (1995). “Displace-
ment-based design of RC bridge columns in seismic regions.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 24(12), 1623–1643.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress–
strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804), 1804–1826.
Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E. (1973). “Method of analysis for cyclically
loaded R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-
elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bend-
ing.” Symp. on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures
Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, International Association
for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 15–22.
Miranda, E., and Ruiz-García, J. (2002). “Evaluation of approximate meth-
ods to estimate maximum inelastic displacement demands.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 539–560.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalski, M. J. (2007). Displacement-
based seismic design of structures, IUSS press, Pavia.
SeismoStruct 6 [Computer software]. SeismoSoft, Pavia, Italy.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1986). “The modified compression-filed
theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear.” ACI Struct.
J., 83(2), 219–231.
Wang, D. S., Ai, Q. H., Li, H. N., Si, B. J., and Sun, Z. G. (2008).
“Displacement based seismic design of RC bridge piers: Method
and experimental evaluation.” 14th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China.
J. Struct. Eng.