Smart Materials and Structures

PAPER
Recent citations
Multi-level SMA/lead rubber bearing isolation - Development and experimental validation
system for seismic protection of bridges of anchorage systems for shape memory
alloy cables
Fei Shi et al

To cite this article: Sasa Cao et al 2020 Smart Mater. Struct. 29 055045 - Analysis and design of a novel and
compact X-structured vibration isolation
mount (X-Mount) with wider quasi-zero-
stiffness range
Jing Bian and Xingjian Jing
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 202.3.77.210 on 04/04/2021 at 14:30

 Smart Materials and Structures

Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045 (18pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665X/ab802b

Multi-level SMA/lead rubber bearing

isolation system for seismic protection
of bridges
Sasa Cao1,2, Osman E Ozbulut2, Suiwen Wu3, Zhuo Sun1 and Jiangdong Deng1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, People’s Republic of
China
2
Department of Engineering Systems and Environment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
22904, United States of America
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, MS258, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV
89557, United States of America

E-mail: ozbulut@virginia.edu

Received 17 February 2020

Accepted for publication 16 March 2020
Published 20 April 2020

Abstract
In performance-based seismic design, bridges are expected to satisfy specific performance
objectives under several levels of seismic hazard. In this paper, a multi-level SMA/lead rubber
bearing (ML-SLRB) isolation system was proposed to ensure both isolation efficiency and
capability to limit excessive bearing displacements under different levels of earthquake
excitations. The ML-SLRBs also offer advantages such as the ability to provide re-centering
forces and good fatigue and corrosion-resistant. The ML-SLRB isolation system consists of
three groups of SMA cables, each is designed to be activated at a certain seismic hazard level,
and a conventional lead rubber bearing. First, the design and working mechanism of this new
isolation system were described in detail. Then, a design procedure was proposed for seismic
isolation of bridge structures with ML-SLRBs. Next, the hysteretic response of ML-SLRBs was
simulated in a general-purpose structural engineering software. A four-span continuous
box-girder bridge was designed and modeled with different isolation systems including
ML-SLRBs. Nonlinear dynamic analyses of the isolated bridges were conducted under both
far-fault and near-fault earthquakes. Results show that compared to isolations systems that do
not adapt their stiffness according to increasing seismic demand, e.g. the isolators with a
bilinear force–displacement response, the proposed isolation system exhibits high isolation
efficiency at small or moderate earthquakes, while effectively limits the bridge displacements to
avoid pounding and girder unseating under extreme earthquakes.
Keywords: isolated bridges, shape memory alloy, multi-level hazard, displacement control,
rubber bearings, isolation efficiency

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction by the isolation systems limits the displacement response of

Seismic isolation has been considered as one of the effect-
ive earthquake-resistant design measures for girder bridges
over the past decades. Seismic isolation systems decouple the
superstructure of the bridge from piers and thereby consider-
ably reduce the earthquake forces that are transferred to the
superstructure. In addition, supplemental damping provided
the superstructure. However, achieving satisfactory perform-
ance of isolated bridges under strong earthquakes still remains
challenging [1]. The reasons for this challenge are three-fold:
(1) the low force demand in the system is at the sacrifice
of significant in-plane peak and residual displacements of
girders, which could lead to pounding of the bridge to the
abutment or even girder unseating [2–8]; (2) the isolation

1361-665X/20/055045+18$33.00 1 © 2020 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK

Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045
bearing is susceptible to instability at large deformations; and
(3) the damaged bearings are required to be replaced. A num-
ber of isolated bridges have been significantly damaged or
completely collapsed due to lack of sufficient displacement
limiting capacity during the past major earthquakes (e.g. 1994
Northridge, 1995 Kobe, 1999 Duzce, 1999 ChiChi and 2008
Wenchuan earthquakes, etc) [6, 9–11].
In order to control the displacement response and improve
the re-centering capacity of the seismic isolation systems,
shape memory alloys (SMA) that can be incorporated into an
isolation system have gained attention more recently [12–17].
SMAs can contribute to the characteristics of an isolation sys-
tem in several ways. First, the hysteresis of SMAs is flag-
shaped with considerable energy dissipation capability. In
addition, they have almost no residual displacement upon
unloading as a result of its superelastic effect. Furthermore,
SMAs have good fatigue and corrosion resistance [18]. Due
to their appealing properties, a number of researchers have
investigated the performance of SMA-based isolators in high-
way bridges, in which the SMAs act as both damper and
restrainer.
Several researchers have studied the use of SMA elements
in friction-based isolation systems. Dolce et al [19] investig-
ated the seismic performance of bridges isolated with steel-
PTFE sliding bearings and SMA-based auxiliary devices.
Ozbulut and Hurlebaus [20] evaluated the performance of
sliding-type isolation systems with an SMA device consider-
ing environmental temperature changes. They [14] also stud-
ied the optimal design parameters of the superelastic fric-
tion base isolators for seismic design of bridge structures
under near-field ground motions. Casciati et al [12, 21] pro-
posed an isolation system that combines a sliding system
with multiple SMA bars for seismic protection of highway
bridges.
Some other researchers have explored the performance of
SMA-based rubber bearing isolators. Choi et al [22] proposed
an isolation bearing that consists of an elastomeric bearing
and SMA wires for highway bridges. Dezfuli and Alam pro-
posed shape memory alloy wire-based natural rubber bearings
[13] and studied their performance for steel-girder highway
bridges [23]. They also examined the combination of SMA
wires with lead rubber bearings and studied the seismic fragil-
ity of both steel girder bridges [24] and long-span cable-stayed
bridges [25]. Ozbulut and Hurlebaus [26] conducted a sensitiv-
ity analysis to evaluate the performance of SMA/rubber-based
(SRB) isolation system for seismic protection of bridges. They
also carried out a comparative performance assessment of
SMA/rubber-based and SMA/friction-based isolation systems
for seismic protection of bridges [27]. Mishra et al [28] studied
the optimal parameters for SMA-based rubber bridge bearings
through nonlinear random vibration analysis and developed
closed-form expressions for estimating these optimal
parameters.
Note that in all of the above studies only a single level of
SMA element has been adopted together with either rubber-
based or friction-based bearings. Therefore, in these isolation
systems, if SMA elements with very high stiffness are used, the
isolation efficiency will be low, whereas large displacements
2
S Cao et al
or even unseating may occur if SMA elements with low stiff-
ness are used, especially during strong earthquakes. However,
a smart seismic isolation system should be capable of adjust-
ing its stiffness during the course of motion [29]. To ensure
both isolation efficiency and capability to limit excessive bear-
ing displacements, an isolation system with multiple mechan-
isms are needed. To this end, several isolation devices with
multi-level performance have been proposed [30–33]. How-
ever, these devices adjust the energy dissipation capacity to the
earthquake levels at the sacrifice of damages to specific com-
ponents. Therefore, significant residual deformations can be
observed in such systems due to lack of restoring forces and
they also require replacement after an event. To improve the
re-centering ability, Calvi et al [34]. proposed a BowC isol-
ation device that has a curved surface similar to the friction
pendulum bearing but with different ring zones with increas-
ing friction coefficients from inside to outside. SMA ele-
ments can also provide multi-level stiffness as well as the re-
centering force for conventional bearings if a judicious design
is achieved.
In this paper, a new SMA isolation system that can enable
seismic protection of bridge structures under multi-level seis-
mic hazards was proposed. The proposed system, named as
multi-level SMA/lead rubber bearing (ML-SLRB) consists
of three groups of SMA cable and a lead rubber bearing.
In the following, first, a detailed description and working
mechanism of ML-SLRBs were discussed. Then, the design
of bridges with ML-SLRB isolation systems was described.
Next, a numerical model to simulate the response of ML-
SLRBs was presented. A four-span continuous box girder
bridge was selected as a case-study structure and dynamic
analyses of the bridge isolated with different isolation sys-
tems were conducted. The performance of the ML-SLRBs was
comparatively evaluated under both far-fault and near-fault
earthquakes.
2. Multi-level SMA/lead rubber bearing (ML-SLRB)
2.1. Description and design principles
An ideal isolation system should have the ability to adjust its
design properties such as stiffness and damping with induced
earthquake excitation. This will ensure isolation efficiency at
frequent to moderate earthquake levels while limiting excess-
ive displacements at high seismic hazard levels. To achieve
these characteristics, a multi-level SMA/lead rubber bearing
(ML-SLRB) that consists of a rubber bearing with a lead core,
i.e. a lead-rubber bearing (LRB) and three groups of SMA
cables as shown in figure 1(a) was proposed in this study. In
the proposed isolation system, the rubber bearing provides low
lateral stiffness while the lead core dissipates energy. Three
groups of SMA cables as shown in figure 1(b) are included
in the design to alter the stiffness of the isolation bearing and
dissipate additional energy as the intensity of seismic event
increases. The SMA cables also provide a re-centering cap-
ability to the isolation system when the earthquake loading
ceases.
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045
Figure 1. (a) Multi-level SMA/rubber bearing and (b) three groups of SMA cables.
SMA cables selected as the shape memory alloy compon-
ent of the proposed bearing offer unique advantages. Wires
are the most common form of SMA products in the market,
however; the use of SMA wires is not realistic for most of
the civil engineering applications where high axial stiffness
and large force capacity are needed [13, 14, 35]. On the other
hand, large-diameter SMA bars are difficult to fabricate, have
higher costs and are vulnerable to early fracture, especially if
they are machined. SMA cables, composed of a large num-
ber of small diameter wires, possess the advantages of SMA
wires such as ease fabrication, low-cost, and excellent supere-
lasticity and can produce large forces [36–40].
The connection of the specific group of SMA cables to
the cover plates of the proposed isolation system is shown in
figure 2. The first group of SMA cables is connected to top and
bottom steel plates by hooks at the corners. The second and the
3
S Cao et al
third group of SMA cables are connected to the steel plates of
the bearing by hinges.
Figure 3 shows a typical shear force–displacement relation-
ship of various isolation systems and the design spectrum in
acceleration–displacement (A–D) format. Two seismic haz-
ard levels corresponding to a probability of exceedance 10%
in 50 years (E1) and 5% in 100 years (E2) are considered
in Guidelines for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges [41]
and target response spectra at these hazard levels are shown
in figure 1. Here, a higher seismic hazard level (named as
E3) that was assumed to be twice of E2 spectrum was also
considered to represent extreme earthquakes. The pushover
response of an isolated bridge with lead rubber bearing can
be idealized as a bilinear curve. According to the capacity
spectrum method, the performance point of the bridge with
LRBs can be denoted by u1 , u2 and u3 for frequent, moderate,
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045 S Cao et al

Table 1. Performance objectives of ML-SLRB.

Performance Earthquake Return period

level level (year) Performance objectives

1 Frequent or 475 High isolation effi-

moderate ciency; immediate
earthquake use; no damage to the
(E1) system; no repair; no
closure
2 Design 2000 High isolation effi-
earthquake ciency; small residual
(E2) displacement; no clos-
ure; minor repair
3 Extreme Over 2000 No girders unseat-
earthquake ing; no collapse;
Figure 2. The specific connection of SMA cables.
(E3) repair/limited closure

Figure 3. Typical shear force–displacement relationships of

different isolation bearings.
Figure 4. The idealized response of ML-SLRB.

and large earthquakes respectively [42]. It can be seen that

the extensive displacements will occur at high seismic haz-
ards. When each group of SMA cables was included into
the bearing system for the ML-SLRB, the pushover curve
was modified as shown in figure 3. The performance points
for the ML-SLRB with all SMA groups are denoted by
u1 ′′′ , u2 ′′′ and u3 ′′′ . It can be seen that the displacement
response can successfully be controlled at each seismic hazard
level.
Three performance objectives adopted here for the design
of ML-SLRB include: (i) no damage in a low or moderate
level of earthquake; (ii) no severe damage in design earth-
quake; (iii) no girder unseating during an extreme earthquake.
With an increase in seismic demand, the stiffness of ML-
SLRB increases step-by-step. In this way, the isolation effi-
ciency was ensured during a small or moderate earthquake,
while the relative displacements between piers and girders are
limited during extreme earthquakes. The specific performance
objectives at various levels of earthquakes are summarized in
table 1.
2.2. Working mechanism
In ML-SLRB, each group of SMA cables is designed to
be activated at different seismic hazard levels as shown in
figure 4. During a frequent earthquake, the first group of
SMA cables is tensioned and experience phase transforma-
tions at a displacement level of u1 , while the second and the
third group are not activated as a result of available slacks.
When the isolation displacement reaches u20 , the second group
of SMA cables is also tensioned, while the third group of
SMA cables is still in slack. The second group of SMA
cables experiences martensitic transformation at a displace-
ment of u2 , which leads to another change in the overall
stiffness of the bearing. During a very large earthquake, the
third group of SMA cables is also activated at a displace-
ment level of u30 to limit the relative displacements between
piers and girders. They exhibit phase transformations at a
displacement of u3 .

4
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045 S Cao et al

Figure 5. The tensile stress-strain relationship of SMA cable.

Table 2. Parameters of lead rubber bearing component of Table 3. The initial dimension of each group of SMA cables (unit:
ML-SLRB. mm).
Parameters Values Slacks Cable lengths

a (mm) 1770 u10 u20 u30 l1 l2 l3

h (mm) 222 0 50 50 7108 1833 228
K 0 (kN m−1 ) 62 300 100 100 1883 243
Keff (kN m−1 ) 13 200 150 268
Fy (kN) 817
α 0.154

The controlling design parameters include yield force F y ,
yield displacement uy , initial stiffness K 0 and ratio of post-
yield to initial stiffness α for lead-rubber bearing compon-
ent, yielding forces f yi , yield displacements ui , stiffness K i and
cable slack ui0 (i = 1 ~ 3)of each group of SMA cables.
A commercially available lead rubber bearing was selec-
ted as the first component of the ML-SLRB. Table 2 provides
the geometric and structural properties of the selected bearing.
The top and bottom steel plates for the bearing have a square
geometry with a side length a, and the height of the rubber
compound is denoted as h. The parameters K 0 , Keff , Fy and α
are the initial stiffness, effective stiffness, yielding force and
ratio of post-yield to initial stiffness, respectively.
For the SMA cable component of the ML-SLRB, the stress-
strain behavior was taken as shown in figure 5. This mech-
anical response of SMA cable was obtained from uniaxial
tensile tests conducted at the University of Virginia. The tested
cable had a diameter of 8 mm and consisted of seven strands.
Each strand was composed of seven wires with a diameter
of 0.885 mm. The details of the experimental testing were
provided in another study [37].
The length of each group of SMA cables shown in figure 1
can be determined as follows:
√ Step 1: Determine the design parameters of the lead-rubber
l1 = 2( a2 + h2 + a) (1)
√
2
l2 = (a + u20 ) + h2 (2)
√
l3 = u230 + h2 (3)
where l1 , l2 and l3 is the length of the first, second and third
group of SMA cables, respectively. Remember that a is the
side length of the bearing plate and u20 and u30 are the initial
slacks provided in the second and third SMA cable groups. For
the selected dimensions of the lead rubber bearing, the possible
slack lengths and the corresponding lengths of each group of
SMA cables are provided in table 3.
2.3. Design procedure
The design of ML-SLRB involves several steps as illustrated
in figure 6. The key parameters needed to be determined for
ML-SLRB are cross-sectional area and slack displacements of
each group of SMA cables. Here, all groups of SMA cables are
assumed to have the same cross-sectional area to simply both
design and fabrication procedures. The design procedure for
seismic isolation of bridges with ML-SLRB is discussed step-
by-step below.
bearing component of ML-SLRB. Follow the guidelines and

5
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045
Figure 6. Design procedures of ML-SLRB.
Figure 7. Experimental and simulated stress-strain relationships of SMA cables.
provisions provided for the design of bridges with typical
LRBs.
Step 2: Select ground motion records that represent differ-
ent hazard levels. Develop a finite element model of a bridge
system isolated with LRBs. Conduct nonlinear dynamic ana-
lyses on the bridge model under the selected accelerograms
to compute the maximum displacements of isolation systems:
u1 , u2 and u3 (see figure 3) corresponding to the three seismic
hazard levels, respectively.
Step 3: Chose no slack, i.e. u10 = 0, to ensure the first
group SMA cables will be activated immediately with the seis-
mic loading. Considering the seat-width of piers or abutments,
choose a maximum limiting displacement, ulimit , of isolation
system according to seismic design codes. Choose u30 consid-
ering the values of u3 and ulimit . The slack in the third group of
SMA cable, u30 , should be 5–10 cm less than the smaller of u3
and ulimit . Select an initial slack for the second group of SMA
cables, u20 , which could be a value between u1 and u2 . The
slack u20 should be smaller than u30 to ensure the second group
of SMA cables will be activated earlier than the third group
6
S Cao et al
SMA cables. Moreover, u10 and u20 should be large enough
to ensure that the second and third group of SMA cables will
not fracture before the isolation system attains its maximum
displacement ulimit .
Step 4: Choose the diameter, which is correlated to
the cross-section area, for SMA cables. Conduct nonlinear
dynamic analyses again on the updated bridge model with ML-
SLRB under the selected accelerograms to compute the max-
imum displacements of the isolation system and maximum
moments at the bottom of piers at three seismic hazard levels.
Repeat this step for different ML-SLRB with a different cross-
sectional area of SMA cable.
Step 5: Compare the responses for the isolation displace-
ment and pier moments obtained for the bridge structure isol-
ated with ML-SLRB for the different cross-sectional area
of SMA cable. Choose an optimum cross-sectional area,
i.e. equivalent diameter, for SMA cables, with which the
ML-SLRB can limit the displacement of the isolation sys-
tem below ulimit without a considerable increase in pier
moments.
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045
Figure 8. Simplified stress-strain relationships of SMA cables.
Figure 9. Force–displacement response of ML-SLRB.
Step 6: Check the response of the new bridge sys-
tem. If the response satisfies the design principle shown
in figure 4, the design procedure is completed. If not,
u20 and u30 of SMA cables can be adjusted to fulfill the
multi-level performance target. They can be increased if
they are activated early and causes large forces, or they
can be decreased if they are not activated timely. Then,
repeat steps 3–5 until the multi-level performance targets are
obtained.
3. Modeling of SMA cables and ML-SLRB
In this section, a numerical model to represent the lateral
force–displacement response ML-SLRB was developed using
SAP 2000 software package [43].
7
S Cao et al
3.1. Simulation of SMA cable groups
To model the SMA cables, a procedure proposed by Tazarv
and Saiidi was used to obtain the simplified flag shape model
[44]. In this procedure, the austenite modulus was taken as the
average slope between 15% and 70% of observed phase trans-
formation start stress level called as yield strength (f yo ), the
post-transformation stiffness was taken as the average slope
between 2.5% and 3.5% of strain on the upper plateau of 6%
strain loading cycle, and the martensite modulus was taken as
the slope of the curve between 8% and 9% strain. A ‘multilin-
ear elastic element’ and a ‘multilinear plastic element’ were
used to simulate the stress-strain relationship of a group of
SMA cables. Isotropic hysteretic rules were adopted in the
multilinear plastic element to simulate the energy dissipation
capacity of the SMA cables. The cyclic tensile response of
SMA cables obtained from experimental testing [37] was used
for selecting the model parameters and the model verifica-
tion. Figure 7 compares the hysteretic stress-strain response of
SMA cables obtained from experimental testing and numerical
simulations. Some residual displacements can be observed in
the numerical prediction of the SMA cable response. This is
due to the use of ‘multilinear plastic element’ in the developed
model, which always exhibit some plastic deformation. How-
ever, it can be seen that the residual displacements are very
small at low strain amplitudes while it is less than 0.5% for
the loading at 7.7%. In general, the skeleton curve and the area
encased by hysteretic loop of simulation match with experi-
mental results well.
3.2. Simulation of ML-SLRB
To model ML-SLRB in SAP 2000, three ‘multilinear elastic’,
three ‘multilinear plastic’ and a ‘plastic (Wen)’ elements are
arranged in parallel. Each group of SMA cables was simu-
lated by a multilinear elastic element and a multilinear plastic
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045 S Cao et al

Figure 10. A typical 4-span continuous box-girder bridge (unit: m).

Figure 11. Section of the girder (unit: m).

element while the lead rubber bearing was modeled by a

‘plastic (Wen)’ element. The lateral force–displacement rela-
tionship of each cable was computed based on their deformed 1.45
shape. 6.25 6.25 6.25 2.5
As shown in figure 8, the simplified flag shape stress-strain
relationship of SMA cables was represented by multilinear
lines between different points i, where i = 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
The stress and strain at these points can be denoted by σi 1.5 3.75 1.5 3.95 1.5 3.75 1.5 1.5 3.75 1.5
and εi .
Then, the tensile force and overall length of each SMA a Elevation view b Side view
cable group at a point i are given by: 1.45
6.25 6.25
fji = σi Aj (4)

6.25
lji = lj (1 + εi ) (5)

where j denotes the jth group of SMA cables and Aj is the

c Plan view
cross-sectional area of the jth group of SMA cables.
Considering the configuration of three groups of SMA
cables of the proposed ML-SLRB, when each group of SMA Figure 12. A pier (unit: m).
cables is tensioned to the strain of points i in figure 8, the cor-
responding lateral displacements can be computed as: a + x1 h
f1ix = σi A1 √ f1iy = σi A1 √
√
( )2 2
(a + x1 ) + h2
2
(a + x1 ) + h2
1
x1i = (l1i − 2a) − h2 − a (6a) (7a)
2
a + x2 h
√ f2ix = σi A2 √ f2iy = σi A2 √
2 2
x2i = l22i − h2 − a (6b) (a + x2 ) + h2 (a + x2 ) + h2
(7b)
√ x3 h
f3ix = σi A3 √ f3iy = σi A3 √ (7c)
x3i = l23i − h2 (6c) x3 2 + h2 x3 + h2
2

where xji are the lateral displacements of the proposed ML-
SLRB when the jth SMA group of SMA cables attain strain
εi at an ith point in figure 8. In addition, the horizontal and
vertical components of forces of each group of SMA cables,
fjix and fjiy can be computed by:
The horizontal force components fjix can be used to describe
the lateral force–displacement relationships of each group of
SMA cables.
Figure 9 illustrates the force–displacement response of ML-
SLRB predicted by the developed model under a quasi-static

8
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045 S Cao et al

Table 4. The stiffness of the 6 DOF springs.

Kx (kN m−1 ) Ky (kN m−1 ) Kz (kN m−1 ) Rx (kN m Rad−1 ) Ry (kN m Rad−1 ) Rz (kN m Rad−1 )

4 070 000 4 070 000 15 630 000 74 940 000 74 940 000 32 610 000

Figure 13. Design earthquake spectra and the spectra of scaled ground motions: (a) far-fault earthquakes and (b) near-fault earthquakes.

Table 5. Ground motions used in nonlinear dynamic analyses. loading and unloading history. The response of the lead-rubber
Moment PGA PGV bearing component of the isolation system is also provided on
ID No. Vs_30 magnitude Fault type (g) (cm s−1 ) Pulse the same plot for comparison purposes. It can be seen that
with the addition of SMA cables to the lead-rubber bearing,
Far-fault the stiffness of the bearing experience a step-by-step increase
FF01 356 6.7 Thrust 0.52 66.7 for the increased loading levels. In particular, there is a consid-
FF02 309 6.7 Thrust 0.48 44.4 erable increase in the stiffness of the isolation system at large
FF03 326 7.1 Strike-slip 0.82 65.8
displacements, which can help to prevent girder unseating at
FF05 275 6.5 Strike-slip 0.35 36.1
high seismic hazards. In addition, the area under the hysteretic
FF08 256 6.9 Strike-slip 0.24 38.1
FF09 276 7.5 Strike-slip 0.36 58.8 response of the ML-SLRB, which indicates the energy dissipa-
FF10 523 7.5 Strike-slip 0.22 42.2 tion, is almost twice as large as that of the lead-rubber bearing.
FF11 354 7.3 Strike-slip 0.24 51.1
FF13 289 6.9 Strike-slip 0.53 38.0 4. Dynamic analysis of a bridge structure isolated
FF14 350 6.9 Strike-slip 0.56 45.4
with ML-SLRB
FF17 208 6.5 Strike-slip 0.45 36.0
FF19 259 7.6 Thrust 0.44 115.0
FF21 316 6.6 Thrust 0.21 27.6 4.1. Description of the bridge model
FF22 425 6.5 Thrust 0.35 30.5 In this section, a case study was performed in order to explore
Near-fault
the effectiveness of the proposed ML-SLRB in seismic protec-
NF04 349 6.5 Strike-slip 0.42 106.8 Yes
tion of bridges. A typical 4-span continuous box-girder bridge
NF05 371 6.9 Strike-slip 0.38 55.6 Yes
NF06 275 6.7 Strike-slip 0.49 95.5 Yes
in China, shown in figure 10, was selected for this purpose. The
NF09 282 6.7 Thrust 0.87 167.3 Yes span lengths are all equal to 30 m. The section of the girder and
NF10 441 6.7 Thrust 0.73 122.8 Yes structure of a bent are shown in figures 11 and 12, respectively.
NF12 306 7.6 Thrust 0.82 127.7 Yes The total mass of the deck is 11 510 t. Lead rubber isolation
NF14 276 7.1 Strike-slip 0.52 79.3 Yes bearings are installed on all bents. The fundamental period of
NF20 376 6.9 Strike-slip 0.64 55.9 No the original bridge was 1.21 s. A Rayleigh damping of 5% was
NF21 462 6.9 Strike-slip 0.51 45.5 No assumed for the first and second modes.
NF22 514 7.0 Thrust 1.43 119.5 No SAP 2000 was employed to model the bridge system with
NF23 380 6.7 Thrust 0.73 70.1 No the ML-SLRB isolation system. In this model, the bents and
NF24 281 6.7 Thrust 0.42 53.2 No girders were assumed elastic and simulated by elastic-beam
NF25 297 7.5 Strike-slip 0.31 73.0 No
elements. The ML-SLRB isolators were modeled as discussed
NF26 434 7.6 Thrust 0.56 91.8 No
earlier. The piles and soil were simulated by 6 DOF springs,

9
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045 S Cao et al

Figure 14. (a) Displacement response history of ML-SLRB isolation system; force response history of (b) first group of SMA cables, (c)
second group of SMA cables, and (d) third group of SMA cables.

10
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045
Figure 15. Lateral force–displacement relationships of different
isolation systems.
three translational and three rotational springs, assigned to the
base of piers. The stiffness of the springs should be derived
by accounting for the properties of the soil and piles and their
interaction. Table 4 provides the stiffness coefficients selec-
ted in this study. In the table, Kx , Ky and Kz are the trans-
lational stiffness in longitudinal, transverse and vertical dir-
ection, respectively; Rx , Ry and Rz are the rotational stiffness
around longitudinal, transverse and vertical direction, respect-
ively. The same 6 DOF springs were adopted for all piers for
simplicity. For convenience, the results from only the right
isolator and the right column of the middle pier were presen-
ted in the following sections to discuss the maximum isolator
displacement and column bottom moment of the bridge.
4.2. Selected ground motion records
Three design earthquake spectra were chosen to represent E1,
E2 and E3 respectively., The equivalent velocities of the shear
wave of the soil for the selected side were 208–514 m s−1 .
Fourteen far-fault and 14 near-fault ground motion records
from FEMA P-695 [45] were used in nonlinear dynamic ana-
lyses. Previous studies have shown that pulse-like near-fault
earthquakes, which are usually identified by forward directiv-
ity effects, may result in larger seismic demands [46–48].
Therefore, here, seven pulse-like near-fault and seven non-
pulse-like near-fault earhquakes are considered. The charac-
teristic properties of selected records such as peak ground
acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV) and the
average shear-wave velocity in the topmost 30 m of sedi-
ments (Vs_30) are provided in table 5. The accelerograms
were scaled to E1, E2 and E3 respectively using Seismo-
Match software [49]. In the scaling procedure of Seismo-
Match, the improved method proposed by Al Atik and Abra-
hamson was adopted [50]. The baseline correction and filtering
were applied by whenever correction of the scaled accelero-
grams were needed [51]. The design spectra and the spectra of
11
S Cao et al
the scaled far-fault and near-fault ground motions are shown
in figure 13.
4.3. Design of bridge structure with ML-SLRB
The procedure described in section 2.3 was followed to design
the selected bridge with an ML-SLRB isolation system. The
properties of the LRB component of the isolation system were
selected as shown in table 2. Considering the geometric prop-
erties of the selected bearing, the initial lengths of SMA cables
of ML-SLRB can be computed and are provided in table 3.
Then, the cross-sectional area of each SMA cable group and
slacks in each SMA group were determined through nonlinear
dynamic analyses.
First, nonlinear dynamic analyses of the bridge system with
LRB under the scaled near-fault accelerograms were conduc-
ted. The mean values for u1 , u2 and u3 are found to be 26 mm,
97 mm and 250 mm respectively. According to Guidelines for
Seismic Design of Highway Bridges [41], the maximum dis-
placement of the isolation system, which is controlled by max-
imum shear deformation of LRB, should be below 200 mm.
As a result, the slacks u20 and u30 were chosen as 50 mm and
150 mm respectively. Then, an initial diameter (10 mm) was
selected for the SMA cables and the numerical simulations are
conducted. The diameter of the SMA cables was increased to
meet the desired maximum displacement limit of 200 mm. The
final diameter of the SMA cables was determined as 25 mm.
Figure 14 shows the total and component force response
histories one of the ML-SLRBs at the middle pier of the bridge
subjected to ground motion FF01 scaled to the E3 level. It can
be seen that the first group of SMA cables were always ten-
sioned; however, the second and third groups of SMA cables
were activated only when the later displacement was larger
than their respective slacks. It can be seen from figures 14(c)
and (d) that the second and third groups of SMA cables were
not tensioned at the beginning. The second group of SMA
cables was activated at about 1.9 s when the relative displace-
ment exceeds 50 mm, and the third group of SMA cables
was activated at about 2.11 s when the displacement exceeds
150 mm. Throughout the time history, the forces of the second
and the third group of SMA cables increased whenever the
isolator displacement exceeds 50 mm and 150 mm respect-
ively. This observation confirms the working mechanism of
SMA cables.
4.4. Comparative seismic response evaluation
To evaluate the performance of the proposed ML-SLRB com-
paratively with conventional LRB and SMA-LRBs that con-
sist of only a single group of SMA cables, additional nonlin-
ear response history analyses of the bridge described above
were conducted. In particular, four cases were considered for
the isolation of the selected bridge. Figure 15 shows the lateral
force–displacement response of the four isolation systems. For
Case 1, the isolation system consists of only the LRB com-
ponent of the ML-SLRB designed above, i.e. this case repres-
ent a typical LRB isolation system. Case 2 and Case 3 are the
bridges isolated with SMA-LRB systems, where the isolation
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045 S Cao et al

Figure 16. Hysteretic loops of the right isolator at the middle pier under far-fault earthquake FF01 scaled to E1, E2, and E3 hazard levels.

12
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045 S Cao et al

Figure 17. Hysteretic loops of the right isolator at the middle pier under near-fault earthquake NF04 scaled to E1, E2, and E3 hazard levels.

13
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045 S Cao et al

Figure 18. Comparison of the maximum displacement of the middle pier of the bridge under (a) far-fault earthquakes and (b) near-fault
earthquakes.

Figure 19. Maximum moment of the bottom section of the right column of the middle pier under (a) far-fault earthquakes and (b) near-fault
earthquakes.

system consists of an LRB and only first cable group of ML-

SLRB with a cable diameter of 25 mm for Case 2; and with
a larger cable diameter selected such that the equivalent stiff-
ness of the isolation system matches with that of ML-SLRB
at limit displacement of 200 mm for Case 3. Case 4 repres-
ents the bridge isolated with ML-SLRB with 25 mm diameter
SMA cables.
Nonlinear dynamic analyses were performed in the lon-
gitudinal direction of the bridge systems for Case 1 to
Case 4 using the far-fault and near-fault ground motions
provided in table 4 and scaled to three seismic hazard levels.
Figures 16 and 17 show the hysteretic loops for one of the isol-
ators at the middle pier for the bridge isolated with different
systems under a far-fault (FF01) and near-fault (NF04) ground
motion records, respectively. It can be seen compared to the
Figure 20. Connection of adjacent girders for selected case-study SMA-LRB with high stiffness (Case 3), the ML-SLRB sys-
bridge. tem (Case 4) exhibited good energy dissipation at all seismic

14
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045
Figure 21. Time-histories of the left bearing in the first pier under: (a) NF 04, (b) NF 05, (c) NF 06, (d) NF 09, (e) NF 10, (f) NF 12, and (g)
NF 14 ground motions.
hazard levels and exhibited a step-by-step increase in its stiff-
ness. This helped to ensure isolation efficiency at small or
moderate earthquakes while preventing excessive displace-
ments at high hazard level. On the other hand, when an SMA-
LRB with relatively lower stiffness was used (Case 2), the
response of the isolation system was similar to that of the LRB
system (Case 1). This suggests that the use of only one group of
SMA cables will only be efficient in limiting the isolation dis-
placements at high seismic hazard levels if a very large cross-
sectional area is selected for the SMA cables, i.e. (Case 3).
To enable quantitative comparison, the seismic responses
of the isolated bridges under all ground motion records were
computed and the mean results are illustrated in figures 18
and 19. Figure 18 shows the maximum relative displacements
15
S Cao et al
between the girder and piers of the bridge under far-fault and
near-fault earthquakes for different isolation systems. As can
be seen from the figure, at relatively low seismic hazards, all
isolation systems have similar responses but there are large
differences in response for the E3 hazard level. The largest
isolation displacements were observed for the LRB system
(Case 1) at all seismic hazard levels. The isolation displace-
ment responses for Case 3 and Case 4 were considerably smal-
ler than that of bridge isolated by LRB (Case 1) during all
levels of motions, especially under E3. In particular, the isol-
ation displacements decreased 31.2% and 27.1%, respectively
for the Case 3 and Case 4 compared to Case 1 for the far-
fault earthquakes, and decreased 34.4% and 31.3% for the
near-fault earthquakes. Also, the maximum displacements for
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045
Case 3 and Case 4 were successfully limited below the design
value of 0.2 m. Some reductions in the isolation displacement
were also obtained for Case 2 but these reductions were not
substantial (below 12.1%). In addition, compared to far-fault
earthquakes, near-fault earthquakes create higher displace-
ment demands. Figure 18 (b) also compares the maximum rel-
ative displacements between the girder and piers of the bridge
under pulse-like and non-pulse-like near-fault earthquakes
scaled to E3 hazard level. It can be observed that the near-
fault earthquakes with pulse cause slightly higher displace-
ment demands compared to no pulse near-fault earthquakes.
Figure 19 shows the maximum moments of the bottom
section of the right column of the middle pier for all bridge
systems under different seismic hazard levels. As seen in
figure 19, the maximum moments increased significantly for
the SMA-LRB system with high stiffness (Case 3). Com-
pared to the LRB system, there were 38%, 78.8%, and 35.2%
increases in the column moments at E1, E2, and E3 seismic
hazard levels for the far-fault earthquakes and 36.1%, 69.3%,
and 32.0% increases for the near-fault earthquakes, respect-
ively. Although there was an increase in the column moment
for the ML-SLRB system as well, these increases were relat-
ively smaller with values of 9.8%, 31.0%, and 33.8% for far-
fault earthquakes and 9.6%, 26.7%, and 37.4% for near-fault
earthquakes. Note that especially for E2 design level seismic
hazard, the ML-SLRB isolation system reduced the column
moments by more than half compared to Case 3 while keep-
ing the isolation displacements quite similar to that case. In
addition, figure 19(b) illustrates the maximum moments of the
bottom section of the right column of the middle pier under
pulse-like and non-pulse-like near-fault earthquakes. A some-
what higher moment demands were observed for the pulse-
like near-fault earthquakes compared to no pulse near-fault
earthquakes.
In general, the unseating of bridges are in a relationship
with the minimum support length (MSL) of bridge girders
shown in figure 20, which may be different from bridges to
bridges. On the other hand, the pounding of bridges has a close
relationship with the dynamic characteristics of the adjacent
spans. In particular, if two adjacent spans have very differ-
ent fundamental periods, the possibility of pounding increases.
However, both the unseating possibility of a bridge and pound-
ing are directly correlated to displacement demand on bear-
ings. The larger the displacement of bearings is, the more
likely unseating and pounding problems will occur. There-
fore, the displacement of bearings is an important parameter
for pounding and unseating problems.
The configuration of the connection of adjacent girders is
shown in figure 20 for the selected case-study bridge. The
MSL and clearance between adjacent girders are 1450 mm and
100 mm, respectively. Since this is a continuous bridge and its
MSL is quite large, the unseating is not expected to be a prob-
lem for the studied bridge. However, to provide insights for the
design of other types of bridges, the displacement response of
bearings in a transitional pier is discussed below.
Figure 21 illustrates the time-histories of the left bearing
in the first pier for four bridge design cases. Since pulse-like
near-fault earthquakes result in larger demands, the results are
16
S Cao et al
presented for seven pulse-like near-fault earthquakes scaled to
E3 level. It can be seen that the SMA-LRB system with high
stiffness (Case 3) or ML-SLRB system (Case 4) successfully
control the bearing displacement. On the other hand, bearing
displacements over 300 mm was observed for Case 1 and Case
2 under NF04, NF05, NF06, NF09 and NF14.
It should be also emphasized that the bridges designed with
LRB isolation systems does not commonly suffer from resid-
ual displacements as opposed to bridges designed with flat
friction bearings. However, it can be seen in figure 21, the LRB
system (Case 1) exhibits residual displacements of 29 mm and
12 mm under NF 04 and NF 09 respectively, which might
require some repair. On the other hand, SMA-LRB and ML-
SLRB systems (Case 3 and Case 4) return to their original pos-
ition for all ground motion cases.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a new isolator system was proposed to achieve
the protection of bridge structures under multi-level seismic
hazard by increasing re-centering and energy dissipation cap-
abilities of the system. This system incorporates three groups
of SMA cables with different configurations and a conven-
tional lead-rubber bearing isolator. With increasing earth-
quake levels, each group of SMA cables was sequentially
activated to enable higher damping and force capacities. The
design principle of the proposed isolator and a numerical
model was developed through SAP2000 to represent its hys-
teretic response. A case study was presented to show the effect-
iveness of the proposed ML-SLRBs in seismic response pro-
tection of a typical box-girder bridge subjected to far-fault
and near-fault earthquakes scaled to different seismic hazard
levels. The study leads to the following conclusions:
(a) Compared to conventional lead rubber bearings, the ML-
SLRBs can more effectively limit the isolation displace-
ments at high seismic hazard levels, especially under near-
fault ground motions.
(b) However, the maximum moments of the pier of the ML-
SLRB bridge system increase as compared with the LRB
bridge system. In practical design, more attention should
be paid on the internal forces of piers and piles when the
ML-SLRB bridge system is adopted.
(c) Compared to SMA-based rubber bearings, the ML-SLRBs
can control both the isolation displacements and forces
transferred to the foundation of the bridge for different
levels of earthquake excitations. On the other hand, when
an SMA-based rubber bearing that incorporates only the
first group SMA cables of ML-SLRBs with the same
cable cross-sectional area is used, there is no considerable
decrease in the displacement response. But if an SMA-
based rubber bearing with larger diameter first group SMA
cables of ML-SLRBs is used, then there are substantial
increases in base moments.
(d) The proposed ML-SLRB can achieve multi-performance
under various earthquake levels by gradually activating
different groups of SMA cables. This helps to ensure high
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045
isolation efficiency under low or moderate earthquakes,
while the bridge displacements are limited to avoid pound-
ing and girder unseating under extreme earthquakes.
(e) Compared with no pulse near-fault earthquakes, the pulse-
like near-fault earthquakes resulted in higher displacement
and force demands due to their velocity pulse.
(f) The isolation efficiency of ML-SLRB will decrease with
the increase of earthquake intensity due to the gradual
increase of stiffness caused by the activation of three
groups of SMA cables in a sequence.
Acknowledgments
The project was financially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grants 51608136, 51278134),
Scientific Research Fund of Institute of Engineering Mechan-
ics, China Earthquake Administration (Grant 2019D19) and
Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou City
(Grant 201804010291).
ORCID iDs
Sasa Cao  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1014-5855
Osman E Ozbulut  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3836-3416
References
[1] Jangid R S and Kelly J M 2001 Base isolation for near-fault
motions Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 30 691–707
[2] Deb S K and Deb S K 2004 Seismic base isolation—an
overview Curr. Sci. 87 1426–30
[3] Li J, Peng T and Yan X 2008 Damage investigation of girder
bridges under the Wenchuan earthquake and corresponding
seismic design recommendations Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib.
7 337–44
[4] Raheem S E A 2009 Pounding mitigation and unseating
prevention at expansion joints of isolated multi-span
bridges Eng. Struct. 31 2345–56
[5] Matsagar V A and Jangid R S 2003 Seismic response of
base-isolated structures during impact with adjacent
structures Eng. Struct. 25 1311–23
[6] Roussis P C, Constantinou M C Erdik M et al 2003
Assessment of performance of seismic isolation system of
Bolu Viaduct J. Bridge Eng. 8 182–90
[7] Karalar M, Padgett J E and Dicleli M 2012 Parametric analysis
of optimum isolator properties for bridges susceptible to
near-fault ground motions Eng. Struct. 40 276–87
[8] Shen J, Tsai M H Chang K C et al 2004 Performance of a
seismically isolated bridge under near-fault earthquake
ground motions J. Struct. Eng. 130 861–8
[9] Housner G W and Thiel C C 1995 The continuing challenge:
report on the performance of state bridges in the Northridge
earthquake Earthq. Spectra 11 607–36
[10] Bruneau M, Wilson J C and Tremblay R 1996 Performance of
steel bridges during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe,
Japan) earthquake—a North American perspective Can. J.
Civ. Eng. 23 678–713
[11] Investigation Group of 921 1999 Chichi Earthquake.
Investigation Report of Damage of Bridges on 921 Chichi
Earthquake (Taiwan: NCEER) (in Chinese)
[12] Casciati F, Faravelli L and Saleh R A 2009 An SMA passive
device proposed within the highway bridge benchmark
Struct. Control Health Monit. 16 657–67
17
S Cao et al
[13] Dezfuli F H and Alam M S 2013 Shape memory alloy
wire-based smart natural rubber bearing Smart Mater.
Struct. 22 045013
[14] Ozbulut O E and Hurlebaus S 2011 Optimal design of
superelastic-friction base isolators for seismic protection of
highway bridges against near-field earthquakes Earthq.
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 40 273–91
[15] Shinozuka M, Chaudhuri S R and Mishra S K 2015
Shape-memory-alloy supplemented lead rubber bearing
(SMA-LRB) for seismic isolation Probab. Eng. Mech.
41 34–45
[16] Yang J 2012 Development of SMA Isolation Bearing and Its
Analysis of Damping Effect in Bridge (Liaoning: Liaoning
Technical University) (in Chinese)
[17] Dezfuli F H and Alam M S 2014 Performance-based
assessment and design of FRP-based high damping rubber
bearing incorporated with shape memory alloy wires Eng.
Struct. 61 166–83
[18] Dolce M and Cardone D 2001 Mechanical behaviour of shape
memory alloys for seismic applications 2. Austenite NiTi
wires subjected to tension. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 43 2657–77
[19] Dolce M, Cardone D and Palermo G 2007 Seismic isolation of
bridges using isolation systems based on flat sliding
bearings Bull. Earthq. Eng. 5 491–509
[20] Ozbulut O E and Hurlebaus S 2010 Evaluation of the
performance of a sliding-type base isolation system with a
NiTi shape memory alloy device considering temperature
effects Eng. Struct. 32 238–49
[21] Casciati F and Faravelli L 2009 A passive control device with
SMA components: from the prototype to the model Struct.
Control Health Monit. 16 751–65
[22] Choi E, Nam T H Oh J T et al 2006 An isolation bearing for
highway bridges using shape memory alloys Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 438 1081–4
[23] Dezfuli F H and Alam M S 2016 Seismic vulnerability
assessment of a steel-girder highway bridge equipped with
different SMA wire-based smart elastomeric isolators Smart
Mater. Struct. 25 075039
[24] Dezfuli F H and Alam M S 2017 Smart lead rubber bearings
equipped with ferrous shape memory alloy wires for
seismically isolating highway bridges J. Earthq. Eng.
22 1042–67
[25] Li S, Dezfuli F H Wang J et al 2017 Longitudinal seismic
response control of long-span cable-stayed bridges using
shape memory alloy wire-based lead rubber bearings under
near-fault records J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 29 703–28
[26] Ozbulut O E and Hurlebaus S 2010 Seismic assessment of
bridge structures isolated by a shape memory
alloy/rubber-based isolation system Smart Mater. Struct.
20 015003
[27] Ozbulut O and Hurlebaus S 2011 Energy-balance assessment
of shape memory alloy-based seismic isolation devices
Smart Struct. Syst. 8 399–412
[28] Mishra S K, Gur S Roy K et al 2015 Response of bridges
isolated by shape memory–alloy rubber bearing J. Bridge
Eng. 21 1–15
[29] Fenz D M and Constantinou M C 2008 Spherical sliding
isolation bearings with adaptive behavior: theory Earthq.
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 163–83
[30] Xu L and Li J 2016 Design and experimental investigation of a
new type sliding retainer and its efficacy in seismic
fortification Eng. Mech. 33 111–18 (in Chinese)
[31] Xu W 2011 Seismic Behavior Analysis of a New Structure
System Based on Multilevel Displacement Restricting and
Energy Dissipation Device (Dalian: Dalian University of
Technology) (in Chinese)
[32] Peng T, Yu X Wang L et al 2012 Development and test of a
multi-defense aseismic spherical bearing J. Tongji Univ.
(Nat. Sci.) 40 992–5 (in Chinese)
Smart Mater. Struct. 29 (2020) 055045
[33] Yuan W, Cao X and Rong Z 2010 Development and
experimental study on cable-sliding friction aseismic
bearing J. Harbin Eng. Univ. 31 1593–600 (in Chinese)
[34] Calvi P M, Moratti M and Calvi G M 2016 Seismic isolation
devices based on sliding between surfaces with variable
friction coefficient Earthq. Spectra 32 2291–315
[35] Dezfuli F H, Li S Alam M S et al 2017 Effect of constitutive
models on the seismic response of an SMA-LRB isolated
highway bridge 148 113–25
[36] Reedlunn B, Daly S and Shaw J 2013 Superelastic shape
memory alloy cables: I. Isothermal tension experiments Int.
J. Solids Struct. 50 3009–26
[37] Ozbulut O E, Daghash S and Sherif M M 2016 Shape memory
alloy cables for structural applications J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
28 1–10
[38] Carboni B, Lacarbonara W and Auricchio F 2015 Hysteresis
of multiconfiguration assemblies of nitinol and steel
strands: experiments and phenomenological identification J.
Eng. Mech. 141 04014135
[39] Sherif M M and Ozbulut O E 2018 Tensile and superelastic
fatigue characterization of NiTi shape memory cables Smart
Mater. Struct. 27 015007
[40] Fang C, Zheng Y Chen J et al 2019 Superelastic NiTi SMA
cables: thermal-mechanical behavior, hysteretic modelling
and seismic application Eng. Struct. 183 533–49
[41] Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China 2008
Guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges JTG/T
B02-01-2008
18
S Cao et al
[42] Chopra A K and Goel R K 1999 Capacity-demand-diagram
methods based on inelastic design spectrum Earthq. Spectra
15 637–56
[43] Sap C S I 2007 Integrated Software for Structural Analysis &
Design (Berkeley, CA: Computer and Structures, Inc)
[44] Tazarv M and Saiidi M S 2015 Reinforcing NiTi superelastic
SMA for concrete structures J. Struct. Eng. 141 04014197
[45] Fema F E M A 2009 Quantification of Building Seismic
Performance Factors (Washington, DC: Applied
Technology Council)
[46] Shahi S K and Baker J W 2014 An efficient algorithm to
identify strong-velocity pulses in multicomponent ground
motions Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 104 2456–66
[47] Mazza F and Mazza M 2016 Nonlinear seismic analysis of
irregular rc framed buildings base-isolated with friction
pendulum system under near-fault excitations Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 90 299–312
[48] Mazza F 2018 Seismic demand of base-isolated irregular
structures subjected to pulse-type earthquakes Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 108 111–29
[49] Seismosoft 2013 Seismomatch V2. 1—a computer program
for spectrum matching of earthquake records
[50] Atik L A and Abrahamson N 2010 An improved method for
nonstationary spectral matching Earthq. Spectra
26 601–17
[51] Antoniou S, Pinho R and Bianchi F 2015 SeismoSignal V5.1:
A Computer Program for Signal Processing of
Strong-Motion Data 5.1 edn (Pavia, Italy: Seismosoft Ltd)