Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Plastic hinge length of shape memory alloy (SMA) reinforced concrete

bridge pier
A.H.M. Muntasir Billah, M. Shahria Alam ⇑
School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC V1V1V7, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It is often assumed that the maximum seismic damage in a bridge pier will concentrate in the regions
Received 13 June 2015 subjected to maximum inelastic curvature known as its plastic hinge length. Predicting the plastic hinge
Revised 26 February 2016 length accurately is an important part of seismic design of bridge piers. This study focuses on deriving an
Accepted 28 February 2016
analytical expression for the plastic hinge length of shape memory alloy (SMA) reinforced concrete (RC)
Available online 22 March 2016
bridge pier based on the results from well calibrated nonlinear finite element models. A parametric study
was performed to investigate the effect of different parameters on the plastic hinge length, including
Keywords:
axial load ratio, aspect ratio, concrete strength, SMA properties, longitudinal and transverse reinforce-
Shape memory alloy (SMA)
Bridge pier
ment ratio. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to develop an expression to estimate the plas-
Plastic hinge length tic hinge length in SMA-RC bridge pier. The results are compared with the existing plastic hinge length
Curvature equations. The proposed equation was validated against test results which showed reasonable accuracy.
Deformation capacity Crown Copyright Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Strain

1. Introduction
Shape memory alloys (SMAs) have been emerging as an alterna-
tive to conventional steel reinforcement in concrete structures due
to its distinct shape recovery and superelastic properties. Numer-
ous applications of SMAs in bridges such as dampers [1], isolators
[2,3], restrainers [4,5], expansion joints [6] and reinforcement [7,8]
have been investigated by different researchers. Considering the
importance of bridge pier, it is necessary to predict the displace-
ment capacity of bridge piers during earthquakes. Past research
works have shown that SMA could significantly improve the seis-
mic performance of bridge piers through recentering thereby sig-
nificantly reducing the permanent damage. Previous researchers
mostly used the Paulay and Priestely [9] equation for calculating
the plastic hinge length in SMA-RC bridge pier and reported that
this equation provides a reasonable estimate of the plastic hinge
of SMA-RC pier. However, for seismic design of SMA-RC pier, it is
necessary to identify the plastic hinge length of the pier which
can be used for calculating the flexural displacement capacity.
Plastic hinging regions indicate the area of concentrated dam-
age for bridge piers that experience inelastic deformations [10].
Therefore, a consistent prediction of a plastic hinge length is also
necessary to evaluate the length of the pier that needs to be rein-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 250 807 9397; fax: +1 250 807 9850.
E-mail addresses: muntasir.billah@alumni.ubc.ca (A.H.M.M Billah), shahria.
alam@ubc.ca (M. Shahria Alam).
forced with SMA and confined along the critical section. Most of
the previous studies on plastic hinge length focused on beams
and columns [9–13] where only a few studies were conducted
for bridge piers [14,15]. A review of existing plastic hinge equa-
tions showed that the plastic hinge length of a bridge pier depends
on many factors such as mechanical properties of longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement, concrete strength, level of axial load,
aspect ratio, reinforcement ratio, and level of confinement. Since
the mechanical properties of SMA and its behavior under lateral
load are significantly different from conventional RC piers, it war-
rants a specific plastic hinge expression for SMA-RC bridge pier.
Although researchers have investigated the seismic performance
of bridge piers considering different types of SMA [16–18], only
one study [19] has been conducted so far to estimate the plastic
hinge length in SMA reinforced concrete (RC) bridge pier. However,
their proposed equation does not consider the effect of different
parameters and could estimate the plastic hinge length with
11.6% error.
This study adopted a numerical method to develop a plastic
hinge length expression for SMA-RC bridge pier due to the absence
of adequate experimental results and limitations in conducting
experiments due to high cost of SMA. Using a well-calibrated finite
element model, this study developed a plastic hinge length expres-
sion for SMA-RC bridge pier by investigating the distribution of
curvature and strain in the longitudinal rebar (both steel and
SMA rebar) along the height of the pier. Considering different
parameters such as the level of axial load, aspect ratio, concrete

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.050
0141-0296/Crown Copyright Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
322 A.H.M.M. Billah, M. Shahria Alam / Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331
strength, SMA properties and ratio of longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement, a parametric study was conducted to derive a plas-
tic hinge length expression for SMA-RC bridge pier. Finally, the
proposed equation was used to estimate the drift capacity of
SMA-RC bridge pier and compared with test results.
Compared to conventional bridge pier, behavior of SMA-RC
bridge pier is significantly different and governed by the distinct
superelastic and thermo-mechanical properties of SMA. Estimating
the plastic hinge length is a major step in predicting the load-drift
response of a bridge pier. In order to limit the use of SMA rebar
only in the plastic hinge region (i.e. to confine damages within
the region that will eventually recover), the proposed equation will
help determine the amount of SMA reinforcement to be used in the
SMA-RC bridge pier.
2. Design and geometry of bridge pier
This section briefly describes the design and configurations of
different SMA-RC bridge piers used in this study. Since SMA is a
costly material it is only used in the bottom plastic hinge region
of the bridge pier. The bridge pier is assumed to be located in Van-
couver, BC and was seismically designed following Canadian High-
way Bridge Design Code [20]. Fig. 1 shows the cross section of the
column. The diameter of all the columns was fixed to be 1.524 m.
Several parameters govern the design and behavior of bridge piers.
These parameters also affect the spread of plasticity along the
length of the pier. The primary variables of the parametric study
were selected as aspect ratio (L/d), axial load ratio (P/fc0 Ag), longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratio (ql), transverse reinforcement ratio (qs),
yield strength of SMA rebar (Fy-SMA) and concrete compressive
strength (fc0 ). These parameters were selected based on existing lit-
erature on plastic hinge length of reinforced concrete elements
[9,14,15,21–23]. Table 1 shows the list of considered parameters
and their associated values. For each parameter three different val-
ues were considered. Table 2 shows the summary of the SMA-RC
pier specimens analyzed in this study. A total of 18 piers were
designed. In order to investigate the effect of different parameters
on the plastic hinge length of SMA-RC pier, one parameter at a time
was varied and others were kept constant. Apart from the investi-
gated parameter, the plastic hinge length of the piers was also var-
ied and three different plastic hinge lengths were considered: 0.5
LP/d, 0.75 LP/d and 1LP/d. These three lengths were selected as pre-
vious studies on SMA-RC bridge piers [19,24] showed that the plas-
tic hinge length varies from 0.5 LP/d to 1.1 LP/d. All the bridge piers
Fig. 1. Geometry of SMA-RC bridge pier (a) Cross section, (b) Elevation and (c) Finite element modeling.
Table 1
Details of variable parameters.
Parameters Values
Axial load (%) 5 10 20
ql (%) 1 2 3
Aspect ratio (L/d) 3 5 7
fc0 (MPa) 35 50 60
qs (%) 0.8 1 1.2
fy-SMA (MPa) 210 450 750
were designed following Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
[20] meeting current seismic design criteria. The diameter and
number of longitudinal reinforcement of different bridge piers
were varied for different reinforcement percentages and 15 M
(16 mm) spirals were used at different spacing as lateral reinforce-
ment. In this study, in order to ensure flexure dominated behavior
and avoid shear failure, three different aspect ratios (3, 5, 7) were
considered.
3. Numerical modeling
One of the main objectives of this study was to develop a fiber-
based numerical model capable of predicting the nonlinear behav-
ior in terms of strain and curvature distribution of SMA-RC bridge
piers. The modeling and nonlinear analyses of SMA-RC bridge piers
were conducted using fiber element based nonlinear analysis pro-
gram SeismoStruct [25]. Using force based inelastic beam-column
element, the circular bridge piers were modeled. In this study force
based element type is selected since it is the most accurate among
the four inelastic frame element types available in SeismoStruct
and is capable of capturing the inelastic behavior along the entire
length of a structural member. However, the mesh refinement
issue (number of integration section and number of elements)
was considered in order to ensure an optimum balance between
accuracy, numerical stability and analysis’ run times. It was found
that 5 integration sections and 250 fibers across the section pro-
vided reasonable accuracy with experimental results, computa-
tional stability and convenient computational time. The elements
cross sections were represented by assemblages of longitudinally
oriented, unidirectional steel and concrete fibers. Each fiber is asso-
ciated with a prescribed stress-strain relationship that can be spec-
ified to represent the unconfined concrete, confined concrete and
longitudinal reinforcement. The sectional stress-strain state of
the inelastic beam-column elements is then obtained through the
 A.H.M.M. Billah, M. Shahria Alam / Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331 323

Table 2
Details of SMA-RC bridge piers.

Variable Pier P/fc0 Ag H (m) fc0 (MPa) ql (%) fy-SMA (MPa) Lp (m) qs (%)
Axial load P1-1 0.05 7.62 35 1 401 0.762 1.2
P1-2 0.1 7.62 35 1 401 1.143 1.2
P1-3 0.2 7.62 35 1 401 1.524 1.2
Aspect ratio P2-1 0.05 4.572 35 1 401 0.762 1.2
P2-2 0.05 7.62 35 1 401 1.143 1.2
P2-3 0.05 10.668 35 1 401 1.524 1.2
SMA fy P3-1 0.05 7.62 35 1 210 0.762 1.2
P3-2 0.05 7.62 35 1 401 1.143 1.2
P3-3 0.05 7.62 35 1 750 1.524 1.2
ql (%) P4-1 0.05 7.62 35 1 401 0.762 1.2
P4-2 0.05 7.62 35 2 401 1.143 1.2
P4-3 0.05 7.62 35 3 401 1.524 1.2
fc 0 P5-1 0.05 7.62 35 1 401 0.762 1.2
P5-2 0.05 7.62 50 1 401 1.143 1.2
P5-3 0.05 7.62 60 1 401 1.524 1.2
qs (%) P6-1 0.05 7.62 35 1 401 0.762 0.8
P6-2 0.05 7.62 35 1 401 1.143 1
P6-3 0.05 7.62 35 1 401 1.524 1.2

integration of the nonlinear uniaxial stress–strain of the individual
fibers in which the section has been subdivided. Hilber–Hughes–
Taylor integration scheme [26] was utilized to acquire the global
flexibility matrix for the Force-based (FB) elements; considering
the potential strain softening or localized deformations phenom-
ena. A total of 11 elements were used to model the SMA-RC bridge
piers of which bottom three elements represent the plastic hinge
length (SMA-RC section) and the remaining eight elements repre-
sent the steel-RC section. Fig. 2 shows the idealized bridge pier
model with element number and the fiber discretization of the col-
umn section.
The Mander et al. [27] concrete constitutive model was used to
describe the confined and unconfined concrete and the steel rein-
forcement was represented using the Menegotto–Pinto [28] steel
model. This steel model takes into account the Bauschinger effect,
which is relevant for the representation of the columns’ stiffness
degradation under cyclic loading. The details of the parameters
used to define the concrete and steel constitutive models are pre-
sented in Table 3. The superelastic SMA was modeled following the
constitutive relation developed by Auricchio and Sacco [29] using
the parameters provided in Table 4. Mechanical couplers were
used to connect SMA with steel rebars [30] which is represented
by introducing a zero length rotational spring at the bottom of
the column section (Fig. 1c). The rotational spring was modeled
by defining a link element in SeismoStruct [25]. The link element
connects two initially coincident structural nodes, and requires
the definition of an independent force-displacement (or moment-
rotation) response curve for each of its local six degrees-

Reinforcement
Cover Concrete

Core Concrete
250 Fibers and 5 Integration Sections

Fig. 2. Idealized numerical bridge pier model and fiber discretized cross section.
324 A.H.M.M. Billah, M. Shahria Alam / Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331

Table 3
Modeling parameters used for concrete and steel constitutive model.
Material Property
Concrete Compressive strength (MPa)
Corresponding strain
Tensile strength (MPa)
Elastic modulus (GPa)
Steel Elastic modulus (GPa)
Yield stress (MPa)
Ultimate stress (MPa)
Ultimate strain
Plateau strain
Strain Hardening Parameter
Transition curve initial shape parameter
Transition curve shape calibrating coefficient (A1)
Transition curve shape calibrating coefficient (A2)
of-freedom (F1, F2, F3, M1, M2, M3). In order to define the link ele-
ment, modified Takeda hysteresis curve was adopted in this study
to define the moment-rotation relationship of link element. Five
parameters are necessary to characterise the behavior of response
curve which are, the yielding strength Fy (150 kN); the initial stiff-
ness Ky (42,750 kN m); the post yielding to initial stiffness ratio a
(0.0197); the outer loop stiffness degradation factor b0; and the
inner loop stiffness degradation factor b1. Different parameters
required for describing the response curve were obtained from
the moment-rotation relationship of SMA-RC pier, and the stiffness
degradation factors b0 and b1 were specified as 0.1 and 0.9, respec-
tively, as to make the unloading stiffness close to the initial stiff-
ness during the cyclic loading. Moment-rotation relationship of
the bar-slip rotational spring is derived based on the calibration
procedures described in [31]. More details about the stress-slip
relationship of bars inside the coupler and the details of the splic-
ing can be found elsewhere [31]. The rotational spring was pro-
vided at the bottom of the column since couplers are provided at
the column—foundation interface (beginning of plastic hinge)
and at the end of plastic hinge length. The rotational spring used
in the model is an idealized condition that represents the slippage
of SMA rebar inside the couplers. The authors believe that the
modeling technique adopted in this study can be extended to other
cases. Similar modeling approach has also been used by other
researchers and the authors have also validated their models with
experimental results which proved the accuracy of adopted model-
35 ing technique.
0.0029
3.5
23.1
4. Model validation
200
475
692 The accuracy of the adopted finite element modeling program
0.14 in predicting the seismic response of bridge structures has been
0.016 demonstrated by several researchers through comparisons with
0.0125
experimental results [32,33]. However, in order to investigate the
19.5
18.5 accuracy of the modeling technique in predicting the strain and
0.15 curvature distribution, comparisons were made with experimental
results of rectangular and circular SMA-RC bridge piers. Nakashoji
and Saiidi [19] conducted experimental investigation on SMA-RC
bridge piers and extensive measurements of rebar strains were
made along the height of the pier. Specimen SR-99 LSE was a
square column having an 18 in [457 mm] square cross section
and a height of 62 in. [1575 mm]. The plastic hinge length (18 in
or 457 mm) of the specimen was reinforced with 16–0.5 in
[12.7 mm] diameter Ni–Ti SMA rebar and the remaining portion
was reinforced with 16-#5 steel rebar. The vertical strains mea-
sured over a 20 inch [508 mm] gauge length from the base of Spec-
imen SR-99 LSE are shown in Fig. 3a at two drift levels: 1% and 2%
for strain gauges 2, 8, 18, 28, and 38. The predicted SMA rebar
strains at 1% and 2% drift are also shown in Fig. 3a. Observation
from Fig. 3a shows that, there is good agreement between the mea-
sured and predicted strains. From Fig. 3a it is evident that the ana-
lytical model was also able to predict the nonlinear strain profile
observed from the experiment. This comparison shows that the
local response of SMA-RC bridge pier can be determined satisfacto-
rily with the adopted nonlinear finite-element modeling
technique.
Since this study used both rebar strain and curvature profile to
predict the plastic hinge length of SMA-RC bridge pier, the ability
of the adopted modeling technique in accurately predicting the
curvature distribution was also investigated. O’Brien et al. [24]
investigated the performance of a 1/5-scale circular SMA-RC bridge

Table 4
Properties of different types of SMA.

Alloy es (%) E (GPa) fy (MPa) fp1 (MPa) fT1 (MPa) fT2 (MPa) fy/E Reference
NiTi45 6 62.5 401.0 510 370 130 0.0065 Alam et al. [32]
FeNCATB 13.5 46.9 750 1200 300 200 0.0159 Tanaka et al. [40]
CuAlMn 9 28 210.0 275.0 200 150 0.0075 Shrestha et al. [41]

fy (austenite to martensite starting stress); fP1(austenite to martensite finishing stress); fT1 (martensite to austenite starting stress); fT2 (martensite to austenite finishing
stress), es (superelastic plateau strain length); and E (modulus of elasticity).

25 16
(a) 1% drift (experiment) (b)
2% drift (experiment) 14 1.5 % drift (experiment)
20 1% drift (predicted)
2% drift (predicted) 12 3% drift (experiment)
Height (inch)

1.5% drift (predicted)

Height (inch)

15 10 3% drift (predicted)
8
10 6
4
5
2
0 0
0 4000 8000 12000 0 0.002 0.004 0.006
Strain (μ) Curvature (rad/inch)

Fig. 3. (a) Comparison of predicted and measured strain on SMA rebar [19] and (b) comparison of predicted and measured curvature [24].
 A.H.M.M. Billah, M. Shahria Alam / Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331
pier having a diameter of 254 mm and the height of the pier was
1143 mm. The bridge pier was reinforced with 15.9 mm diameter
Ni–Ti SMA in the plastic hinge region. They tested the pier under
reverse cyclic loading and measured the curvature distribution
over a 355.6 mm gauge length from the base of Specimen RNC.
Fig. 3b shows the comparison of the measured and predicted cur-
vature at two different drift levels: 1.5% and 3% over the height of
the specimen. From Fig. 3b it can be observed that, the profile of
the curvature distribution predicted along the length of the pier
not only matches closely to the measured response, but also mim-
ics the trend in the curvature profile along the section.
In the physical experiment (O’Brien et al. [24]), curvature was
measured using displacement transducer. The transducer provided
strain in the concrete by measuring the changes in length over the
gauge length of 102 mm. The measured concrete strains on oppo-
site sides of the column were added together and then divided by
the horizontal distance between the transducers to obtain the cur-
vature at the column cross section. This calculation was done for
each layer of displacement transducers. The curvatures in the bot-
tom two layers (the approximate plastic hinge length) were com-
bined to better represent the curvature in the plastic hinge area.
O’Brien et al. [24] represented the curvature distribution as a ver-
tex of a broken line. In order to compare the results the curvature
distribution are presented in the same pattern in this paper.
In the numerical model, the curvature profile along the height
of the pier was obtained directly from the numerical model. In
the numerical model developed in Seismostruct, it is possible to
define the elements for which the curvature output is necessary.
In the preprocessor, different element groups were defined for gen-
erating the curvature output along the height of the pier. After the
analysis, the curvature distribution at different integration sections
were obtained and plotted against the height of the pier.
5. Approach for predicting plastic hinge length
Accurate estimation of plastic hinge lengths in RC bridge piers
using analytical approach can be complicated. Typically plastic
hinge lengths are calculated using experimental results. However,
several researchers [21,23] derived plastic hinge lengths of RC ele-
ments using analytical approach based on strain and curvature.
This study adopted a numerical approach for deriving an expres-
sion for plastic hinge length of SMA-RC pier as there is lack of ade-
quate test results. Two different measures, namely, the
longitudinal rebar compressive strain profile and the curvature
profile along the height of the pier were used to calculate the plas-
tic hinge length of SMA-RC bridge pier.
During an earthquake, bridge piers are subjected to lateral dis-
placements while supporting gravity loads and the plastic hinges
usually form at the maximum moment region. This inelastic por-
tion causes a significant increase in inelastic curvature near the
base of the bridge pier and forms the plastic hinge zone. As the cur-
vature increases, the compression side of the member experiences
increased strain and subsequently reaches a critical value when the
concrete cover spalls off. After that, the longitudinal bars on the
compression side experience yielding and subsequently core con-
crete starts to crush. Under increasing compressive strain, damage
starts to accumulate and forms plastic hinges. The compressive
strain in the longitudinal rebar is equal to the compressive strain
in the outer core concrete fiber. Therefore, a rebar compressive
strain profile along the height should give a clear indication on
the formation of the plastic hinge. Similar approach was used by
Bae and Bayrak [21] in predicting the plastic hinge length of rein-
forced concrete columns. In this study, the SMA-RC bridge piers
were analyzed under reverse cyclic loading and the compressive
strain profiles in the longitudinal rebar were plotted. By tracking
325
the yielding of longitudinal rebar in compression, the most dam-
aged area i.e. the plastic hinge was identified.
This study also used the curvature profile along the height of
the pier to determine the plastic hinge length. After analyzing
the bridge pier under reverse cyclic loading, the curvature profile
of the piers were plotted to identify the zone where inelastic cur-
vatures are localized. By tracking the yield curvature in the curva-
ture profile, the plastic hinge was identified. The following section
describes the effect of different parameters on the plastic hinge
length of SMA-RC bridge pier.
5.1. Effect of axial load
Several researchers [21,23] have considered axial load level as
an important parameter for plastic hinge estimation of RC col-
umns. However, researchers have reported contradictory conclu-
sions regarding the effect of axial load. Mendis [34] and Park
et al. [35] reported that the level of axial load does not have any
influence on plastic hinge lengths. However, Tanaka and Park
[36] and Légeron and Paultre [37] found that as the axial load
increases the plastic hinge length increase. Except Berry et al.
[38], most of the researchers considered very high levels of axial
load which are unusual for bridge piers and most of them were
for columns in a frame structure. In this study, three different axial
load levels were considered to study the effect of axial load on the
plastic hinge length. The ranges of axial loads (5%, 10% and 20%)
were selected based on design codes or common practices. Keeping
the other parameters constant, the piers were analyzed under
reverse cyclic loading. Fig. 4 shows the variation of rebar compres-
sive strain and curvature profile along the height of the pier. From
Fig. 4a it is evident that the curvature profiles do not show any
effect of axial load on the plastic hinge length. However, the com-
pressive strain profile, as shown in Fig. 4b, clearly depicts the effect
of increasing axial load on the compressive strain in the longitudi-
nal reinforcement. It is evident from Fig. 4b that with the increase
in axial load, the plastic hinge length increases. The strain profile in
the significantly damaged zone drastically changes with the axial
load as identified in the plastic hinge region. Yield strain of longi-
tudinal rebar was used to determine the plastic hinge length. For
different level of axial load the plastic hinge length varied between
0.78d to 1.18d where d is the diameter of the pier.
5.2. Effect of aspect ratio
Previous researchers [11–13,34] identified that the plastic hinge
length of a RC member is influenced by the aspect ratio (L/d). How-
ever, the widely used plastic hinge length equation proposed by
Paulay and Priestley [9] does not account for the effect of aspect
ratio. In order to investigate the influence of the aspect ratio on
the plastic hinge length, circular SMA-RC piers with varying aspect
ratios (3, 5, and 7) were considered keeping other parameters con-
stant. The results of the analyses are summarized in Fig. 5. As can
be observed in the curvature profile (Fig. 5a), plastic hinge length is
independent of the aspect ratio of the pier. However, the plastic
hinge length increases with the increasing aspect ratios as evident
from the strain profile (Fig. 5b). As the aspect ratio increased from
3 to 7, the plastic hinge lengths were found to increase from 0.82d
to 1.25d. Bae and Bayrak [21] and Alemdar [15] also reported that
the lp increases with the increasing L/d for a given axial load level.
Bae and Bayrak [21] found that the effect of change in aspect ratio
is less pronounced in columns with small aspect ratio (2 < l/d < 3)
as compared to columns having larger aspect ratio. They also con-
cluded that the changes in plastic hinge length with increasing
aspect ratio are insignificant for columns under low axial load.
However, in this study it was found that aspect ratio contributes
to the plastic hinge zone in SMA-RC bridge pier.
326 A.H.M.M. Billah, M. Shahria Alam / Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331

9 9
(a) (b)

Distance from base (m)

Distance from base (m)

8 0.2 Po 8 0.2 Po
7 0.1 Po 7 0.1 Po
6 0.05 Po 0.05 Po
6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 εy-sma=0.0064
2
1 1
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Curvature (1/m) Longitudinal rebar strain (εs)

Fig. 4. Effect of axial load on (a) curvature profile and (b) longitudinal rebar strain profile.

12 12
(a) AR-3 (b)

Distance from base (m)

Distance from base (m)

AR-3
10 AR-5 10
AR-5
AR-7
8 8
AR-7
6 6

4 4
εy-sma =0.0064
2 2

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Curvature (1/m) Longitudinal rebar strain (εs)

Fig. 5. Effect of axial load on (a) curvature profile and (b) longitudinal rebar strain profile.

5.3. Effect of SMA properties elastic modulus (E), austenite to martensite starting stress (fy);
austenite to martensite finishing stress (fP1); martensite to austen-
Since SMA possesses significantly different mechanical proper- ite starting stress (fT1); martensite to austenite finishing stress (fT2);
ties than conventional steel, it might affect the plastic hinge forma- superelastic strain (es) are listed in Table 4. These three SMA’s were
tion in the SMA reinforced bridge pier. In addition, several selected because of their variation in yield strength. Moreover, the
compositions of SMAs have been developed which have potential selected SMA’s have very large superelastic strain, which allows
for application in bridge pier such as Ni–Ti, Fe-based and recentering of bridge piers after a seismic event. As three different
Cu-based. Most of the applications have been focusing on the use types of SMAs were used, the bridge piers were designed in such a
of Ni–Ti alloy while very few focused on the application of the way that they have comparable moment capacities. Fig. 6 shows
alloys such as Cu-based SMAs [16,39], Fe- based SMAs [3]. This the effect of different types of SMA on the curvature and rebar
study employed three different types of SMA’s having different compressive strain profile. From Fig. 6a it can be observed that dif-
composition, yield strength, and superelastic strain to investigate ferent types of SMA affects the curvature profile thereby affecting
the effect of SMA properties on the plastic hinge length. In this the plastic hinge length. Fig. 6b depicts that as the yield strength of
study, one nickel–titanium, one Cu-based, and one Fe- based shape SMA rebar increases the plastic hinge length increases. As the yield
memory alloys have been selected for the use in bridge piers. The strength of SMA increased from 210 MPa to 750 MPa, the plastic
selected SMAs along with their mechanical properties such as the hinge length increases from 0.8d to 1.06d. Previous researchers

9 9
(a) SMA-210 (b)
Distance from base (m)

8 8
Distance from base (m)

SMA-450 SMA-210
7 7
SMA-750 SMA-450
6 6
5 5 SMA-750

4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Curvature (1/m) Longitudinal rebar strain (εs)

Fig. 6. Effect of fy-SMA on (a) curvature profile and (b) longitudinal rebar strain profile.
 A.H.M.M. Billah, M. Shahria Alam / Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331 327

[15,38] also concluded that the plastic hinge length of concrete expression. Only few researchers [14,34] considered the effect of
bridge pier increases as the yield strength of the reinforcement qs on the plastic hinge length. Mendis [34] and Hines et al. [14]
increases. have concluded that as the qs increases the plastic hinge length
decreases as evident from their proposed plastic hinge equation.
Fig. 8 shows the variation in curvature and strain profile with
5.4. Effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio
changes in the transverse reinforcement ratio (qs). The change in
plastic hinge length is more pronounced from strain profile as
The effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ql) on the plastic
compared to the curvature profile. From the curvature profile
hinge length has been ignored by many researchers. However, sev-
(Fig. 8a) the plastic hinge length varied from 0.84d to 0.88d. How-
eral researchers investigated the effect of ql on the plastic hinge
ever, from longitudinal rebar strain profile (Fig. 8b) the plastic
length and reported contradictory conclusions. Mattock [11] con-
hinge length varied from 0.76d to 1.02d. This can be attributed to
cluded that, as the net tension reinforcement increases, the plastic
the fact as the amount of transverse reinforcement increases, the
hinge length also increases. On the contrary, Mendis [34] found that
core concrete experiences less damage, thereby, reduces the plastic
the plastic hinge length increases with increasing amount of tension
hinge length.
reinforcement. These conclusions were based on beam test results.
However, Bae and Bayrak [21] concluded that the plastic hinge
length of column tend to increase with increasing longitudinal rein-
5.6. Effect of concrete strength
forcement ratio (ql). To study the effect of ql on the plastic hinge
length of SMA-RC pier, three different reinforcement ratios (1%, 2%
Several researchers have considered the effect of concrete
and 3%) consistent with current seismic design guidelines were
strength on the plastic hinge length of RC members. Plastic hinge
selected. Fig. 7 shows the effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio
equations provided in the most of the design codes and proposed
(ql) on the curvature and strain profile. As evident from both curva-
by different researchers do not consider the effect of concrete
ture and strain profile, the plastic hinge length tends to decrease
strength (Table A1, Appendix). However, only the plastic hinge
with increasing longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ql). The change
expression proposed by Berry et al. [38] and Alemdar [15] consider
in plastic hinge length is more pronounced from longitudinal rebar
the effect of concrete strength. They found that the plastic hinge
strain profile (Fig. 7b) as compared to the curvature profile (Fig. 7a).
length decreases as the concrete compressive strength increase
as evident from their plastic hinge equations. This study also con-
5.5. Effect of transverse reinforcement sidered three different concrete strengths (35, 50 and 60 MPa) to
investigate the variation in plastic hinge length of SMA-RC pier
Most of the available plastic hinge equations do not consider with varying concrete strength. Fig. 9 shows the changes in curva-
the effect of transverse reinforcement ratio (qs). Corley [12] and ture and strain profile as the compressive strength varied from 35
Kazaz [23] did not consider qs in their proposed plastic hinge to 60 MPa. The curvature profile depicts that (Fig. 9a) the change in

9 9
8 (a) 1% 8 (b) 1%
Distance from base (m)
Distance from base (m)

2% 2%
7 7
3% 3%
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Curvature (1/m) Longitudinal rebar strain (εs)

Fig. 7. Effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio on (a) curvature profile and (b) longitudinal rebar strain profile.

9 9
(a) (b)
Distance from base (m)
Distance from base (m)

8 0.8% 8 0.8%
1% 7 1%
7
1.2% 1.2%
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Curvature (1/m) Longitudinal rebar strain (εs)

Fig. 8. Effect of transverse reinforcement ratio on (a) curvature profile and (b) longitudinal rebar strain profile.
328 A.H.M.M. Billah, M. Shahria Alam / Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331

9 9
(a) (b)

Distance from base (m)

Distance from base (m)

8 35 MPa 8 35 MPa
7 50 MPa 7 50 MPa
6 60 MPa 6 60 MPa
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Curvature (1/m) Longitudinal rebar strain (εs)

Fig. 9. Effect of concrete compressive strength on (a) curvature profile and (b) longitudinal rebar strain profile.

!  
plastic hinge length is independent of concrete strength as the LP P L
plastic hinge length varied between 0.75d to 0.78d. On the other ¼ 1:05 þ 0:25 0 þ 0:08 þ ð0:0002f ySMA Þ
d f c Ag d
hand, the strain profile shows that as the concrete strength
0
increased from 35 to 60 MPa, the plastic hinge length decreased  ð0:16ql Þ  ð0:019f c Þ  ð0:24qs Þ ð1Þ
from 1.08d to 0.68d.
In Eq. (1) Lp is the plastic hinge length in mm, d is the diameter
of circular column in mm. Except for the two parameters fy-SMA and
6. Plastic hinge length expression for SMA-RC bridge pier f/c, the regression coefficients of all other parameters are dimen-
sionless. However, the regression coefficients of these two param-
The results presented in previous sections showed that the eters are MPa1. In this equation both ql and qs are expressed as
compressive strain profile of the longitudinal rebar facilitates a percentage (i.e., 1% = 0.01, 2% = 0.02, etc.). From the proposed
clearer observation of the plastic hinge length as compared to equation it can be observed that the plastic hinge length of SMA-
the curvature profile. As a result, this study utilized the compres- RC pier is mostly influenced by the level of axial load, longitudinal
sive strain profile of the longitudinal rebar to develop the plastic and transverse reinforcement ratio and less sensitive to the aspect
hinge length expression for SMA-RC bridge pier. The discussions ratio. Although, the regression coefficients associated with the
presented in preceding sections showed that several factors influ- yield strength of SMA and concrete compressive strength look
ence the length of plastic hinge in SMA-RC pier such as, level of insignificant, a small change in fy-SMA or f/c will result in a significant
axial load, aspect ratio, yield strength of SMA rebar, concrete com- change in the plastic hinge length. This can be attributed to the fact
pressive strength, longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratio. that only these two parameters (fy-SMA and f/c) are one dimensional
Considering the effect of different parameters, a new expression for whereas the other parameters are non-dimensional.
calculating the plastic hinge length of SMA-RC pier was derived by Although Eq. (1) can be used for predicting the plastic hinge
regression analysis. In this study, multivariate regression was used length of SMA-RC bridge pier, the applicability of the proposed
as it allows simultaneous testing and modeling of multiple inde- equation is limited by the following conditions (Eqs. (2)–(6)):
pendent variables. In this study, different forms of regression equa-
tions were tested to find the ‘‘best fit” line or curve for a series of P
0:05 6 0 6 0:20 ð2Þ
data points. Table 5 shows a list of different equations tested for f c Ag
defining the plastic hinge expression for SMA-RC bridge pier. The
0:8 6 ql 6 3:0 ð3Þ
criterion for selecting the suitable equation type was the minimum
200 MPa 6 f ySMA 6 750 MPa ð4Þ
square of the error between the original data and the values pre-
0
dicted by the equation. Although technique may not be the most 30 MPa 6 f c 6 75 MPa ð5Þ
statistically robust method of fitting a function to a data set, it 3 6 L=d 6 15 ð6Þ
has the advantage of being relatively simple. Using the data
obtained from numerical investigations as described in previous
sections, the multivariate regression analysis technique was used 7. Validation of the proposed equation
for deriving the following expression (Eq. (1)) for estimating the
plastic hinge length of SMA-RC pier: To verify the accuracy of the numerically derived expression for
plastic hinge length of SMA-RC bridge pier, comparisons were
made with plastic hinge length measured from experimental
Table 5
investigations. Since very limited number of test results are avail-
List of equations tested.
able on SMA-RC bridge piers which measured the plastic hinge
Equation category Equation name Sample equation length, a database composed of four SMA-RC pier test results were
Standard curves Linear y ¼ y0 þ ax compiled. Table 6 shows the comparison of the measured and cal-
Quadratic y ¼ y0 þ ax þ bx
2
culated plastic hinge length which illustrates that the use of pro-
Logarithm 2 parameter y ¼ y0 þ a ln x posed equation results in good estimates of plastic hinge length
3 parameter y ¼ y0 þ a lnðx  x0 Þ for all test specimens. From Table 6 it can be observed that the
Polynomial Linear y ¼ y0 þ ax
Quadratic 2 maximum variation was observed in Specimen SR99-LSE [19]
y ¼ y0 þ ax þ bx
Power 3 parameter
which was 7.84%. This can be attributed to the fact that all other
y ¼ y0 þ axb
Modified pareto function y ¼ 1  ð1þax
1 piers had circular section while SR99-LSE was a square column.
bÞ
Moreover, the proposed equation was derived based on the
 A.H.M.M. Billah, M. Shahria Alam / Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331 329

Table 6
Comparison of experimental and predicted plastic hinge length.

Parameter Specimens
RNC RNE SR-99-LSE SMAC-1
O’Brien et al. [24] O’Brien et al. [24] Nakashoji and Saiidi [19] Saiidi and Wang [43]
Axial load ratio (P/fc0 Ag) 0.1 0.1 0.0864 0.25
Aspect Ratio (L/d) 4.5 4.5 3.44 4.5
Fy-SMA (MPa) 413.7 413.7 352 379.2
ql 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.026
fc’ (MPa) 31.03 35.8 49.6 43.8
qs 0.024 0.024 0.015 0.0068
Lp/d (measured) 0.98 0.84 0.44 0.75
Lp/d (calculated) 0.92 0.83 0.47 0.71
Lp (measured) (mm) 249.9 212.3 199 229
Lp (calculated) (mm) 233.48 210.46 214.61 216.66
Error (%) 6.57 0.87 7.84 5.39

1
In order to predict the accuracy of the proposed plastic hinge
y/x: μ=0.98 expression in predicting the ultimate drift capacity of SMA-RC
σ= 0.059 bridge pier, comparisons were made with experimental results
0.8
Lp/d (Predicted)

COV= 6%
and other plastic hinge expression available in literature. Table 7
0.6 shows a comparison of the measured ultimate drift value and ulti-
mate drift calculated with different plastic hinge equations. From
0.4 Table 7, it is evident that the proposed plastic hinge equation pro-
vides a reasonable estimate of the drift capacity of SMA-RC pier.
0.2 The proposed Lp equation could predict the ultimate drift of the
specimen RNE with only 5.09% error, which was the second most
0 accurate among all the compared equations. The plastic hinge
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
equation proposed by Nakashoji and Saiidi [19] predicted the drift
Lp/d (Experiment)
capacity with higher accuracy where the difference was only 3.20%.
Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and predicted plastic hinge lengths. This can be attributed to the fact that, the equation proposed by
Nakashoji and Saiidi [19] back calculates the plastic hinge length
using the results from the average measured moment curvature
and force displacement idealizations. Moreover, this equation
analyses on circular columns. Best match was observed for Speci-
was derived for rectangular columns and they [19] recommended
men RNE [24] where the measured and predicted value differed
to use Paulay and Priestley [9] equation over their proposed equa-
by only 0.87%. Fig. 10 compares the Lp/d values measured from
tion for predicting the plastic hinge length of SMA-RC bridge pier.
experimental results with those predicted using Eq. (1). Statistical
The plastic hinge equation proposed by Paulay and Priestley [9]
parameters (mean, standard deviation and COV) displaying the
also predicted the ultimate drift with only 10.4% error. The other
degree of correlation between the measured and predicted values
equations differed by a large margin where the largest difference
is also shown in the same figure. From Fig. 10 it is evident that
was 30.5% as predicted by the equation proposed by Alemdar [15].
the proposed equation provides a reasonable estimate of the plas-
tic hinge length of SMA-RC bridge pier.
The proposed plastic hinge equation was also used to calculate 8. Conclusions
the maximum drift of a SMA-RC bridge pier (RNE) tested by O’Brien
et al. [24]. Using plastic hinge length and the yield and ultimate This study proposed a new expression for estimating the plastic
curvature, the ultimate drift of a cantilever bridge pier can be cal- hinge length in SMA-RC bridge pier. The finite element model was
culated using the following equation: validated with different experimental results to ensure the accu-
racy of the adopted modeling technique. A parametric study was
1 conducted to evaluate the effect of different factors on plastic
Du ¼ /y L2 þ ð/u  /y ÞLp ðL  0:5Lp Þ ð7Þ
3 hinge length of SMA-RC bridge pier. A multivariate regression anal-
ysis was performed to develop the proposed plastic hinge length
expression. The proposed equation was verified against test results
Table 7 of SMA-RC pier to check its accuracy. The accuracy of the proposed
Comparison of measured and calculated ultimate drift. equation in predicting the drift capacity of SMA-RC pier was also
validated against test results and compared with other plastic
Reference Lp Ultimate displacement %
(mm) (mm) difference hinge expressions. Based on the analysis results, the following con-
clusions are drawn:
RNC, O’Brien et al. [24]- Test – 137.4 –
Data
Paulay and Priestley [9] 207.10 123.05 10.44 1. The effect of different parameters are more pronounced when
Alemdar [15] 141.45 95.70 30.50 plastic hinge length is estimated in terms of longitudinal rebar
Nakashoji and Saiidi [19] 232.20 133.02 3.20 strain profile as opposed to the curvature profile.
Berry et al. [38] 151.51 100.01 29.25
Mander [42] 182.60 113.06 17.71
2. Compressive strain profile of longitudinal rebar provides a bet-
Proposed equation 233.48 133.52 5.09 ter estimate of plastic hinge length as compared to the curva-
ture profile of SMA-RC bridge pier.
330 A.H.M.M. Billah, M. Shahria Alam / Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331
3. Plastic hinge length of SMA-RC pier increases as the axial load,
aspect ratio and the yield strength of SMA rebar increases. On
the contrary, plastic hinge length decreases with an increase
in concrete compressive strength and the ratio of longitudinal
and transverse reinforcement.
4. The proposed equation showed reasonable accuracy in predict-
ing the plastic hinge length measured from experimental inves-
tigations. The proposed equation predicted the experimental
plastic hinge lengths with a COV of only 6%.
5. The ultimate drift capacity of SMA-RC bridge pier can be pre-
dicted with reasonable accuracy using the proposed plastic
hinge length equation as compared to other existing
expressions.
The scope of the present study was limited to flexure domi-
nated circular bridge piers. Further research needs to be carried
out considering shear dominated piers along with square and rect-
angular geometry.
Acknowledgements
The financial contributions of Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through Discovery Grant and
Industrial Postgraduate Scholarship Program were critical to con-
duct this study and are gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A
Table A1
Author/Code
References
[1] DesRoches R, Delemont M. Design and analysis of innovative dampers for
seismically isolated bridges in the United States. In: Proceedings of the 7th
international seminar on seismic isolation, energy dissipation, and active
control, Assissi, Italy, November, 2001.
[2] Ozbulut OE, Hurlebaus S. Evaluation of the performance of a sliding-type base
isolation system with a NiTi shape memory alloy device considering
temperature effects. Eng Struct 2010;V32(1):238–49.
[3] Dezfuli FH, Alam MS. Shape memory alloy wire-based smart natural rubber
bearing. Smart Mater Struct 2013;22. 17p.
[4] Alam MS, Bhuiyan AR, Billah AHMM. Seismic fragility assessment of SMA- bar
restrained multi-span continuous highway bridge isolated with laminated
rubber bearing in medium to strong seismic risk zones. B Earthq Eng 2012;10
(6):1885–909.
[5] Andrawes B, DesRoches R. Comparison between shape memory alloy seismic
restrainers and other bridge retrofit devices. ASCE J Bridge Eng 2007;12
(6):700–9.
[6] McCarthy E, Wright T, Padgett J, DesRoches R, Bradford P. Mitigating seismic
bridge damage through shape memory alloy enhanced modular bridge
expansion joints. Struct Congrss 2012:708–17.
[7] Saiidi MS, O’Brien M, Zadeh MS. Cyclic response of concrete bridge columns
using superelastic nitinol and bendable concrete. ACI Struct J 2009;106
(1):69–77.
[8] Billah AHMM, Alam MS. Seismic fragility assessment of concrete bridge piers
reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloy. Earthquake Spectra; 2014, in
press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/112512EQS337M.
[9] Paulay T, Priestley MNJ. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc.; 1992.
[10] Bayrak O, Sheikh SA. Plastic hinge analysis. ASCE J Struct Eng 2001;127
(9):1092–100.
[11] Mattock AH. Rotational capacity of hinging regions in reinforced concrete
beams. In: Proceedings international symposium on the flexural mechanics of
reinforced concrete. Miami: ACI SP-12; 1964. p. 143–81.
[12] Corley WG. Rotational capacity of reinforced concrete beams. ASCE J Struct Eng
1966;92(ST5):121–46.
[13] Priestley MJN, Park R. Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns under
seismic loading. ACI Struct J 1987;84(1):61–76.
[14] Hines E, Restrepo JI, Seible F. Force-displacement characterization of well-
confined bridge piers. ACI Struct J 2004;101(4):537–48.
[15] Alemdar JF. Plastic hinging behavior of reinforced concrete bridge columns
PhD Dissertation. Kansas: The University of Kansas; 2010.
Expressions Unit
  0 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

Mattock [11]  pffiffi  in
lp ¼ d=2 1 þ 1:14 dz  1 1  qq
q
d
16:2 b

Corley [12] lp ¼ 2d þ 0:2 pzffiffid in

Park et al. [35] lp ¼ 0:4d in
Priestley and Park [13] lp ¼ 0:08l þ 6db In
Paulay and Priestley [9] lp ¼ 0:08l þ 0:022db f y mm, MPa
pffiffiffiffiffi
Mander [42] lp ¼ 32 db þ 0:06l mm
n       o
Bae [21] lp ¼ 0:3 PPo þ 3 AAgs  0:1 hl þ 0:25 h
Berry et al. [38] lp ¼ 0:05l þ 0:1 py ffiffiffib0
f d mm, MPa
fc
Alemdar [15] lp ¼ 14 þ
3f y db
pffiffiffi0 þ 25000
l mm, MPa
10000 fc
Caltrans 2010 [44] 0.08L + 0.022fydb mm, MPa
JTG/T B02-01 [45] Minimum (0.08L + 0.022fydb P 0.044 fydb or 2/3h mm, MPa
Eurocode 8 [46] 0.1L + 0.015 fydb mm, MPa
JRA 2002 [47] 0.2L-0.1h; 0.1h 6 Lp 6 0.5h mm
NZS-3101:2006 [48] Minimum (0.5he or 0.2 M/V) P 0.5 he mm
Eurocode 8, Part-3 [49] lp ¼ 0:1clv þ 0:17h þ 0:24 py ffiffiffib0
f d mm, MPa
fc

d = h = Section depth; l = L = Member length.

z = Distance of critical section to point of contra-flexure.
db = The diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement.
fy = The yield strength of longitudinal steel.
P/Po = Axial load capacity of the section.
As = Area of the longitudinal reinforcement.
Ag = Area of the column.
fc0 = Compressive strength of the concrete.
c = Concrete cover to reinforcement.
lv = Ratio of moment/shear at the end section.
 A.H.M.M. Billah, M. Shahria Alam / Engineering Structures 117 (2016) 321–331
[16] Shrestha KC, Saiidi MS, Cruz CA. Advanced materials for control of post-
earthqauke damage in bridges. Smart Mater Struct 2015;24(2015):025035.
16p.
[17] Gencturk B, Hosseini SF. Use of Cu-based superelastic alloys for innovative
design of reinforced concrete columns. In: Proceedings of tenth U.S. national
conference on earthquake engineering, frontiers of earthquake engineering,
Anchorage, Alaska, July 21–25, 2014.
[18] Billah AHMM, Alam MS. Performance based seismic design of concrete bridge
pier reinforced with Shape Memory Alloy- Part 1: Development of
Performance- Based Damage States, ASCE J Struct Eng; 2016, Manuscript ID:
STENG-4011R2, in press.
[19] Nakashoji B, Saiidi MS. Seismic performance of square nickel-titanium
reinforced ECC columns with headed couplers. CCEER, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, 2014, Report No. CCEER-14-
05.
[20] CHBDC. CAN/CSA-S6-10. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) and
commentary. Mississauga, ON: Canadian Standards Association (CSA); 2010.
[21] Bae S, Bayrak O. Plastic hinge length of reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct
J 2008;105(3):290–300.
[22] Bohl A, Adebar P. Plastic hinge lengths in high-rise concrete shear walls. ACI
Struct J 2011;108(2):148–57.
[23] Kazaz I. Analytical study on plastic hinge length of structural walls. ASCE J
Struct Eng 2013;139(11):1938–50.
[24] O’Brien M, Saiidi MS, Zadeh MS. A study of concrete bridge columns using
innovative materials subjected to cyclic loading. CCEER, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, 2007, Report No. CCEER-07-
01.
[25] SeismoSoft, 2014. SeismoStruct – a computer program for static and dynamic
nonlinear analysis of framed structures, V 7. <www.seismosoft.com>.
[26] Scott MH, Fenves GL. Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam–
column elements. J Struct Eng 2006;132(2):244–52.
[27] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[28] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. 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 bending. Symposium on the resistance and
ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well-defined repeated
loads. Zurich, Switzerland: International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering; 1973. p. 15–22.
[29] Auricchio F, Sacco E. Superelastic shape-memory-alloy beam model. J
Intelligent Materl Syst Struct 1997;8(6):489–501.
[30] Alam MS, Youssef MA, Nehdi M. Exploratory investigation on mechanical
anchors for connecting SMA bars to steel or FRP bars. Mater Struct
2010;43:91–107.
[31] Billah AHMM, Alam MS. Seismic performance of concrete columns reinforced
with hybrid shape memory alloy (SMA) and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)
bars. Constr Build Mater 2012;28(1):730–42.
331
[32] Alam MS, Youssef MA, Nehdi M. Seismic performance of concrete frame
structures reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloys. Smart Struct
Syst 2009;5(5):565–85.
[33] Billah AHMM, Alam MS. Seismic performance evaluation of multi-column
bridge bent retrofitted with different alternatives. Eng Struct 2014;62–
63:105–17.
[34] Mendis P. Plastic hinge lengths of normal and high-strength concrete in
flexure. Adv Struct Eng 2001;4(4):189–95.
[35] Park R, Priestley MJN, Gill WD. Ductility of square- confined concrete columns.
ASCE J Struct Eng 1982;108(ST4):929–50.
[36] Tanaka H, Park R. Effect of Lateral confining reinforcement on the ductile
behavior of reinforced concrete columns, Research Report 90–2. Christchurch,
New Zealand: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury;
1990. June, 458 pp.
[37] Légeron F, Paultre P. Behavior of high-strength concrete columns under cyclic
flexure and constant axial Load. ACI Struct J 2000;97(4):591–601.
[38] Berry M, Lehman DE, Lowes LN. Lumped-plasticity models for performance
simulation of bridge columns. ACI Struct J 2008;105(3):270–9.
[39] Araki Y, Endo T, Omori T, Sutou Y, Koetaka Y, Kainuma R, Ishida K. Potential of
superelastic Cu–Al–Mn alloy bars for seismic applications. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2010;40:107–15.
[40] Tanaka Y, Himuro Y, Kainuma R, Sutou Y, Omori T, Ishida K. Ferrous
polycrystalline shape-memory alloy showing huge superelasticity. Science
2010;327:1488–90.
[41] Shrestha KC, Araki Y, Takuya Nagae T, Koetaka Y, Suzuki Y, Omori T, Sutou Y,
Kainuma R, Ishida K. Feasibility of Cu–Al–Mn superelastic alloy bars as
reinforcement elements in concrete beams. Smart Mater Struct 2013;22. 12p.
[42] Mander JB. Seismic design of bridge piers PhD Thesis. Christ Church, New
Zealand: University of Canterbury; 1983.
[43] Saiidi MS, Wang H. Exploratory study of seismic response of concrete columns
with shape memory alloys reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2006;103(3):435–42.
[44] Caltrans 2010. Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.6. Sacramento: California
Department of Transportation.
[45] MOT (Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China). Guidelines for
seismic design of highway bridges (JTG/T B02-01). Beijing: China
Communications Press; 2008.
[46] EN-1998. Euro code 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part 2:
Bridges. Brussels: CEN (European Committee for Standardization); 2005.
[47] JRA. Specifications for highway bridges- Part V Seismic design. Tokyo: Japan
Road Association; 2002.
[48] NZS. Concrete structure standard, Part 1 – the design of concrete structures
(NZS 3101: Part 1: 2006). Wellington: Standards New Zealand; 2006.
[49] EN-1998. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 3:
assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Brussels: CEN (European Committee
for Standardization); 2005.