Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Seismic performance analysis of multi-story steel frames equipped with

FeSMA BRBs
Canxing Qiu, Aifang Zhang, Tianyuan Jiang, Xiuli Du *
Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) have been widely used in seismic prone areas around the world. However, one
BRB major problem associated with the steel BRB frames is the excessive residual deformation under strong earth­
FeSMA quakes, mainly due to the low post-yield stiffness ratio of the steel BRBs. Recently, the community has fabricated
Frame
the iron-based shape memory alloy (FeSMA) BRBs, which exhibited full hysteresis with high post-yield stiffness
Seismic performance
Residual deformation
ratios, but the seismic behavior of the FeSMA BRB frames still remains unknown. As such, this paper conducts
seismic performance analysis of multi-story steel frames equipped with the FeSMA BRBs, through a comparison
with those equipped with conventional steel BRBs. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is further conducted to
establish the probability seismic demand models. Based on the IDA data, bivariate fragility analysis is conducted
to quantify the probability of exceedance, conditioned on various limitations of the maximum and residual
interstory drift ratios. According to current analysis, it indicates that both the maximum interstory drift ratios
and the maximum floor accelerations are comparable between these two types of BRB frames. The major
advantage of the FeSMA BRBs over the steel BRBs is that the former can better control residual interstory drift
ratios.

1. Introduction
Owing to excellent damping capability and stable hysteresis,
buckling-restrained brace (BRBs) are widely used in seismic prone re­
gions around the world, and BRB frames (BRBFs) have become a popular
seismically-resistant structural system [1,2]. As the kernel material for
making up the yielding core of BRBs, the steel with low-to-moderate
yielding strength is often favored, thanks to high ductility and large
damping. One major concern noticed by the community is that the
post-yield stiffness ratio (α) of traditional steel BRBs is usually very small
[3–6]. Although a small α value brings benefit of capping strength de­
mand to the adjacent structural members, the yielded BRBs fail to pro­
vide stiffness for the protected structures. Due to this, at the system level,
increasing studies have revealed that BRBFs tend to accumulate exces­
sive residual interstory drift ratios after strong earthquakes. For
example, Tremblay et al. [7] and Erochko et al. [8] found that the re­
sidual interstory drift ratios of BRBFs could exceed 0.5% after design
level earthquakes. Considering residual deformation takes a large
portion of earthquake induced loss [9] and impedes the post-event re­
covery [10], the inefficiency of controlling residual deformation has
been criticized as one major challenge for conventional steel BRBs [7,8].
Hence, reducing residual deformation for BRBFs becomes an urgent
task.
The iron-based shape memory alloy (FeSMA) materials are emerging
as a potential solution, if they can be used as the core of BRBs. In recent
years, FeSMA has attracted wide interests among the civil engineering
community. Fe-SMA has excellent low-cycle fatigue performance, which
is attributed to the diffusionless solid state phase transformation, in
which the atoms move in an organized manner relative to their neigh­
bors, in comparison to the dislocation-based plasticity with irreversible
slip exhibited by common structural steel [11]. In addition, Fe-SMA
shows good corrosion-resistance due to the existence of Mn and Cr el­
ements [12]. In comparison to NiTi SMAs, which have been employed in
various seismic applications [13–21], the potential advantages of
FeSMA include higher fatigue life, lower cost, and larger
energy-dissipation capacity.
So far, the major applications of FeSMA-based elements are
strengthening and retrofitting structures and infrastructures [22–26].
However, the research on seismic oriented applications is still in the
infancy stage, although the FeSMA BRBs have already been successfully

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: duxiuli@bjut.edu.cn (X. Du).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107392
Received 6 March 2022; Received in revised form 13 May 2022; Accepted 9 June 2022
Available online 17 June 2022
0267-7261/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Qiu et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392

Fig. 1. Cyclic behavior of the FeSMAs: (a) Rosa et al. [29]; (b) Fang et al. [30].

applied in practical constructions [27,28]. Regarding the cyclic behavior

Fig. 2. Effect of post-yield stiffness ratio (α) on residual deformation.
of FeSMAs, Fig. 1 collects the testing results by Rosa et al. [29] and Fang
et al. [30]. As can be seen, the FeSMAs have a stable and full hysteresis
as the steel counterpart, and they also have a noticeably higher α value.
According to a prior study [31], increasing α is usually beneficial in
reducing residual deformations for the seismically-resistant structures.
As schematically shown in Fig. 2, where FeSMA BRBs leave smaller re­
sidual deformation than steel BRBs as the external load is removed,
conditioned on the same ductility demand.
However, to what extent the FeSMA BRBs could outperform the steel
BRBs in controlling residual deformations remains unknown, because
seismic performance evaluation for the FeSMA BRB frames has not been
reported, as so far. Hence, in this work, the effort is paid on analyzing the
seismic performance of frame buildings equipped with the FeSMA BRBs,
with a particular attention on quantifying the efficacy of controlling
residual deformation, in comparison to the steel BRBs. In doing so, three
types of FeSMAs are selected from earlier work [28–30], and they are
assumed as the inner core of BRBs. For comparison purpose, three types
steel BRBs [3–5] are selected as the counterpart. The number of the
selected FeSMA and steel BRBs is deemed sufficient to provide confident
results. At the component level, the cyclic behaviors of steel and FeSMA
BRBs are numerically simulated. At the system level, nonlinear static
and dynamic analysis are conducted, followed by incremental dynamic
analysis (IDA) and fragility analysis. The response indexes of interest
include the maximum transient interstory drift over all stories, θmax,t, the
peak transient interstory drift in the individual story, θpeak,t, the uni­
formity of θpeak,t along the vertical direction, the residual interstory drift
in the individual story, θr, the maximum residual interstory drift over all
stories, θmax,r, the peak transient floor acceleration, Apeak,t, the dissi­
pated energy and accumulated ductility of the braces.

2. Simulation of BRBs

As a numerical study, the cyclic behaviors of BRBs are simulated first

Fig. 3. Numerical model of the BRBs established in OpenSees.
prior to system level analysis. The calibrated parameters for the nu­
merical models can be further utilized in the proceeding structural
analysis. Owing to the easy identification of the constitutive parameters
and accurate predictions, the constitute model developed by Zona and
Dall’Asta [32] was adopted in this paper. This model has been

Table 1
Calibrated parameters for the material of SteelBRB.
Name Material E (GPa) σY0 (Mpa) σYT (Mpa) αT βT δT σYC (Mpa) αC βC δC

S1 Steel 200 267.5 446.7 1.5 0.015 0.2 500 1.0 0.016 0.2
S2 210 370 492 1.7 0.011 0.1 581 1.3 0.03 0.08
S3 200 420.5 540 0.72 0.011 0.32 569 0.81 0.01 0.28
F1 FeSMA 164 390 770 0.5 0.023 0.9 700 0.3 0.026 0.8
F2 190 285 661 2.5 0.05 0.25 661 1.2 0.05 0.1
F3 173 530 1000 0.9 0.037 6.9 960 0.6 0.04 5.9

2
C. Qiu et al.
Fig. 4. Simulation results of the BRBs using different core materials: (a) steel [3]; (b) steel [4]; (c) steel [5]; (d) FeSMA [30]; (e) FeSMA [28]; (f) FeSMA [29].
implemented in OpenSees [33], i.e., the material of SteelBRB, which
facilitates seismic performance analysis under earthquakes. Fig. 3 pre­
sents the model established for the BRB members. Specifically, the brace
was modeled by one truss element. Only the working segment was
explicitly considered, because the transition and connection zones
usually have much higher axial stiffness and strength. One end was
constrained, and the other end was applied with axial displacement
loadings. The loading scheme was taken from the corresponding
experimental work. The parameters for the steel BRBs were directly
taken from an early work [32]. After several rounds of trial-and-error
iterations, the parameters for the FeSMA BRBs were finally deter­
mined. All the parameters are listed in Table 1. Please note that the
low-cycle fatigue behavior is critical to BRBs [33], if they sustained
excessive inelastic deformation cycles, such as that caused by
long-duration strong earthquakes. However, this is out of the scope of
current study and requires further investigations in future.
Fig. 4 compares the simulation results against the experimental data.
Globally, good agreement can be found between them. Please note that
Fig. 4(d) represents the behavior of buckling-restrained plate dampers.
Although the FeSMA plates were not applied in a bracing form, the
corresponding working mechanism is similar to that of the BRBs. Hence,
it is also included in this work to enrich the data. The test conducted by
Ghowsi et al. [35] was excluded from current analysis, because of the
excessive slippage. The simulations also quantity the α values for the
BRBs. Fig. 4 shows that the BRBs using either steel or FeSMA material
have stable and full hysteresis. However, due to the difference in ma­
terial properties, the FeSMA BRBs pose a higher α value than the steel
BRBs. As schematically shown in the figure, the α value is defined as the
ratio of the stabilized post-yield stiffness to the linear elastic stiffness.
Specifically, the α values are 0.02, 0.017, and 0.021 for the steel BRBs
versus 0.049, 0.081, and 0.05 for the FeSMA BRBs.
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392
3. Example buildings
The 3- and 6- story concentrically braced frames are selected for
demonstrating the seismic behavior of steel and FeSMA BRBFs in this
research. Both buildings have been widely analyzed in many prior in­
vestigations [15,36–38]. Fig. 5 presents floor plan and elevation view of
the example buildings. As shown, a total of four and six bays are braced
along each direction to resist the horizontal seismic forces in the 3- and
6- story frames, respectively. The bay width is 9.14 m. The story height is
4.88 m for the first story of the 6-story building and 3.96 m for the other
stories of both buildings.
In the original version, the steel BRBs for the example buildings were
designed based on the seismic design provision [39]. The work takes the
original BRBFs, i.e., the steel BRBFs, as the reference system to
comparatively reveal the performance of the FeSMA BRBFs. For directly
comparing and isolating the other effects, the frames equipped with
different types of BRBs used identical beams and columns. In addition,
the yielding strength and axial stiffness of the FeSMA BRBs were defined
identical to that of the steel BRBs. Hence, the only difference between
the steel and FeSMA BRBFs is the post-yield stiffness ratio.
4. Numerical models of the BRBFs
The cyclic behavior of the BRBs has been simulated in prior section.
Further, this subsection describes the numerical models of the BRBFs in
OpenSees [34]. For demonstration purpose, Fig. 6 only illustrates the
numerical model of the one-bay three-story building. The bracing
members were modeled with the Truss elements. The beams and col­
umns were modeled by the forceBeamColumn elements, which could well
consider the nonlinear behavior of the components. Following prior
suggestions [38], the beam-to-column connections were modified as pin
C. Qiu et al.
Fig. 5. Example buildings (unit: meter): (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story.
Fig. 6. Numerical model of the 3-story BRBF.
types, hence, the panel zone behavior was not considered. The beams
and columns were made up of ASTM A992 steel with a nominal yield
strength of 345 MPa and a post-yield stiffness ratio of 0.003. The
4
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392
capacity deterioration of steel due to local buckling or low cycle fatigue
was not considered. The Rayleigh damping ratio of 5% was assumed for
the first two modes. An axially rigid leaning column consisting of pin-pin
segments was coupled to the braced frame using EqualDOF command,
which carried the tributary floor mass and gravity load, generated in­
ertial force, and captured the P-Δ effect.
In the numerical calculation, the Newton algorithm and Newmark
integration method were used for the transient analysis. The NormDis­
pIncr test was constructed for convergence test. The tolerance criteria
used to check for convergence was 1.0e-6, and the max number of it­
erations to check before returning failure condition was 10. The material
parameters of the braces have been defined in Table 1. Please note that
any numerical model is always affected by epistemic uncertainties, but
detailed discussions are not presented due to space limitation. Interested
readers could find more discussions in relevant studies [40,41]. As dis­
cussed by an early study [33], the fatigue behavior of BRBs also requires
consideration. According to the experimental results [30], the fatigue
life of FeSMA was nearly ten times that of common steel. Hence, it can be
anticipated that the FeSMA BRBs could possibly endure much more
C. Qiu et al.
Fig. 7. Selected earthquake ground motions: (a) FOE; (b) DBE; (c) MCE.
Fig. 8. Monotonic pushover curves of the frames: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story.
loading reversals than the steel BRBs under long-duration earthquakes.
In future work, the fatigue behavior should be properly simulated to
further compare the seismic performance between the FeSMA BRBs and
steel BRBs.
5. Ground motions
Three suites of ground motion developed by Somerville et al. [42]
are adopted. Each suite contains 20 records, specifically, design-basis
earthquakes (LA01 to LA20), frequently occurred earthquakes (FOE)
(LA21 to LA40), and maximum considered earthquakes (LA41 to LA60),
corresponding to the probabilities of exceedance of 10%, 2% and 50% in
50 years, respectively. Following the discussions made in earlier studies
[43,44], the FOE ground motions can be deemed as frequent ones, and
the DBE and MCE ground motions can be deemed as non-frequent ones.
Each single record was followed by a 10-s time-history with zero ac­
celeration amplitude to obtain the permanent deformation as the vi­
bration completely decays out. Fig. 7 plots the 5%-damped linearly
elastic response spectra (Sa) for each suite of earthquakes. As marked in
Fig. 7(b), the fundamental periods of the 3- and 6- story frames are 0.52 s
and 0.91 s, respectively. Along with the fundamental period, the
5
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392
corresponding median values of Sa are denoted. In particular, the ground
motion record LA59 which belongs to the FOE hazard level is high­
lighted, because the Sa value over the interested period range is very
large. As will be shown in the following section, this record caused
excessive interstory drift demand.
6. Pushover results
To confirm the monotonic behaviors of the steel and FeSMA BRBFs
and quantitatively compare the post-yield stiffness ratios of the two
systems, nonlinear static analysis, i.e., pushover analysis, was conducted
at the early stage of this analysis. The lateral force distributions were
assumed to follow the fundamental mode shape and gravity load was
remained during the total pushover process. The pushover results are
collected in Fig. 8. Notably, both the roof drift ratio and base shear are
respectively normalized by the yielding points, which could better
illustrate the extent of strain hardening under specified ductility de­
mand. The pushover procedure was paused upon a ductility demand of
six, which was deemed sufficient to observe the stabilized nonlinear
behavior. As expected, the pushover curves show the FeSMA BRBFs have
higher post-yield stiffness ratios than the steel BRBFs. On average, the α
C. Qiu et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392

Fig. 9. Behavior of the 3-story BRBFs under earthquake LA16: (a) acceleration time history of the earthquake; (b) response spectrum of the earthquake; (c) time
history response of roof drift ratio; (d) time history response of roof acceleration; (e) cyclic behavior of the braces; (f) height-wise θpeak,t and θr; (g) height-wise Apeak,t;
(h) maximum base shear.

value of the steel BRBFs is 0.034, whereas it is up to 0.075 for the FeSMA ground motion record. In what followed, it discusses the statistical re­
BRBFs. sults of the seismic response indexes under three seismic hazard levels.

7. NLTHA results 8. Case study

Beyond the nonlinear static analysis presented in last section,
nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA) was performed to further
evaluate the dynamic responses of the BRBFs under earthquake ground
motions. This subsection first presents a case study to compare the
representative behavior of the steel and FeSMA BRBFs under a specific
As a case study to illustrate the typical behavior of the FeSMA BRBFs,
the responses of the 3-story BRBFs under ground motion record LA16 are
presented. Fig. 9(a–b) plot the acceleration time history and response
spectra of this record. It shows this record has a PGA of 0.58 g, and the Sa
value at the fundamental period equals to 1.14 g, which is close to that of

6
C. Qiu et al.
Fig. 10. Record-to-record θmax,t: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story.
design spectrum.
As shown in Fig. 9(c), the roof drift time history indicates that both
frames exhibit significant nonlinear responses and the peak demand is
comparable between them, whereas the residual deformation of the
FeSMA BRBF is much smaller. This can be understood by tracing the
time history responses. The strongest pulse of the earthquake occurs at
2.90 s, which induces a roof drift ratio of 1.49% and 1.56% in the steel
and FeSMA BRBFs, respectively. After that, several reversal pulses drive
the structures to vibrate on the opposite side and accordingly recover the
deformed structures toward original position. At the end, the steel BRBF
is left with a residual drift roof of 0.70%, while it is only 0.24% in the
FeSMA BRBF. This can be explained using the discussions made in an
early work [31]. The larger the α value is, the more significant the dif­
ference between the higher and lower yielding limits would be. Mean­
while, the lower yielding limit is closer to original position. When a
structure is vibrating under earthquakes, the yielding behavior tends to
occur on the side associated with a lower yielding limit. Accordingly, the
inelastic deformation would be partially recovered during shakings,
which represents a recentering tendency. A large α represents a stronger
recentering tendency.
To gain a local observation, Fig. 9(e) plots the cyclic behavior of the
braces in all stories. As shown in the figure, during the unloading path,
the FeSMA BRBs have larger elastic recovery and are more easily to
yield. Hence, the cyclic behavior of the braces confirms the observation
made from the global performance. It is also interesting to note that the
large peak deformation does not necessarily induce a large residual
deformation. For example, the steel BRB endures the largest peak
deformation in the 2nd story, whereas the largest residual deformation
occurs in the 3rd story. This implies the strong uncertainty of residual
deformation. Fig. 9(d) compares the roof acceleration time history,
which indicates that they are nearly identical during the entire time
7
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392
history. This indicates that although the FeSMA BRBs have a large post-
yield stiffness, they might cap the floor acceleration demand at a similar
level as the steel BRBs.
Fig. 9(f–g) compares the height-wise seismic response indexes,
including the θpeak,t, θr and Apeak,t. In this specific case, the values of
θpeak,t of both systems are very close over all stories, in contrast to the
performance of θr. For the steel BRBF, the values of θr are 0.51%, 0.74%
and 0.85% from the 1st to the 3rd story. In contrast, the FeSMA BRBF has
much smaller demands, which are 0.24%, 0.20% and 0.27% from bot­
tom to up. This echoes with the global performance shown in Fig. 9(c).
Fig. 9(g) presents the values of Apeak,t of both systems, which shows that
they are nearly identical over building height. Fig. 9(h) further extracts
the maximum base shear, which also indicates that their foundations
sustain similar base shear demand. Combining the above observations, it
is found that the steel and FeSMA BRBFs sustain quite similar seismic
demand, but the FeSMA BRBF has much smaller θr.
9. Maximum/peak transient interstory drift ratios
The θmax,t responses under the ground motions associated with three
hazard levels are assembled in Fig. 10. For a given seismic hazard level,
the θmax,t shows significant record-dependent performance. Hence, the
central tendency and randomness are analyzed by computing the me­
dians and standard deviations. As shown in Fig. 10(a), the medians of
the 3-story steel BRBFs are 1.20%, 1.19% and 1.21%, respectively, and
those of the FeSMA BRBFs are 1.20%, 1.14% and 1.18%, respectively. As
shown in Fig. 10(b), the medians of the 6-story steel BRBFs are 1.29%,
1.31% and 1.29%, respectively, and those of the FeSMA BRBFs are
1.26%, 1.26% and 1.25%, respectively. The DBE based observations
suggest that these two systems have comparable θmax,t responses. At the
other two hazard levels (i.e., FOE and MCE), the median values observed
C. Qiu et al.
Fig. 11. Height-wise θpeak,t: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story.
from the two systems are also similar. Besides with the central tendency,
the response deviations, i.e., standard deviations, are also found similar
between the different frames. Hence, it reveals that the FeSMA BRBFs
and the steel BRBFs could exhibit similar θmax,t, including both central
tendency and response deviation. However, for structures with short
fundamental period and/or low damping capability, the post-yield
stiffness ratio may significantly affect deformation demands [15,45].
Fig. 11 plots the θpeak,t responses for each story under three hazard
levels. Globally, the steel and FeSMA BRBFs are quite similar in nearly
all stories for both 3- and 6- story frames under the considered earth­
quake suites. Further, to quantitatively assess the uniformity of the θpeak,
t, the drift concentration factor (DCF) [46] is calculated for each frame:
θmax,t
DCF = ≥1 (1)
θmax.roof,t
where θmax,roof,t represents the maximum transient roof drift ratio. Ac­
cording to the definition, a DCF = 1.0 suggests an ideal uniformity of
θpeak,t, i.e., all stories have an identical θpeak,t response. Moreover, a
large DCF value means a less uniform distribution of the θpeak,t.
Fig. 12 compares the DCF values of the steel and FeSMA BRBFs,
which are denoted as DCFSteel and DCFFeSMA, respectively. Please note
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392
that each dot represents the median value over three frames. Hence,
there are only twenty dots in each subfigure and the difference is
entirely attributed to the usage of different core materials in BRBs. The
diagonal curve represents the DCF values are identical, and the dots
under the diagonal curve represent the case where the DCFSteel is larger
than DCFFeSMA, and vice versa. The average values of DCFs are computed
and presented in each subfigure. As can be seen in the 3-story frames, the
average values of DCFFeSMA are slightly smaller than that of DCFSteel
under three hazard levels. A more uniform story-to-story demand is
primarily attributed to the higher post-yield stiffness of the FeSMA BRBs.
Regarding the 6-story frames, it is not surprising to see the 6-story
frames have large DCF values than the 3-story frames, since more stor­
ies tend to cause more severe story-to-story deviation. Similarly, the 6-
story frame FeSMA BRBFs also exhibit a more uniform height-wise
deformation demand than the steel BRBFs.
10. Residual interstory drift ratios
As reflected in the case study, in which the responses of the 3-story
frames under ground motion record LA16 are presented, an important
benefit of using the FeSMA BRBs is that they can better mitigate the
C. Qiu et al.
Fig. 12. DCF values: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story.
residual interstory drifts caused by strong earthquake excitations. The
residual interstory drift response is discussed in this section. Fig. 13 plots
the median values of θr over building height. For both types of frames,
the θr of each story is amplified by increasing earthquake intensity. The
distribution is relatively uniform, which implies that the damage degree
associated with residual deformation is comparable among all stories.
However, the FeSMA BRBFs consistently have smaller θr than the steel
BRBFs in all stories under three hazard levels. Taking the performance of
3-story frames under MCE level as example, the θr of the FeSMA BRBFs is
approximately 0.5%, but that of the steel BRBFs is up to 1%. In sum­
mary, in comparison to using the steel BRBs, using the FeSMA BRBs
reduces the median θr by 0.06%, 0.17% and 0.5% under the FOE, DBE,
and MCE hazard levels, respectively.
Figs. 14 and 15 further assembles the θmax,r caused by every single
ground motion record together with the medians of θmax,r obtained from
each ground motion suite. The median values of three structures are
calculated and presented. As compared, the medians θmax,r of the 3-story
steel BRBFs are 0.06%, 0.26% and 0.62% under the FOE, DBE and MCE
excitations, respectively, while those of the FeSMA BRBFs are 0.04%,
0.13% and 0.36%, respectively. In the 6-story frames, the θmax,r values
are found comparable to the 3-story frames. By denoting the number of
records with θmax,r lower than a specific limit, θmax,r-L, as N(θmax,r < θmax,
r-L), Figs. 14 and 15 also shows the trend of N(θmax,r < θmax,r-L) as θmax,r-L
gradually increases. As can be seen, N(θmax,r < θmax,r-L) of the steel
BRBFs is consistently smaller than that of the FeSMA BRBFs, which
confirms the advantages of using the FeSMA BBRs in mitigating the
residual deformations. Therefore, the examination on residual interstory
drift ratios well indicates that FeSMA BRBFs have better seismic
resilience.
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392
11. Peak floor accelerations
Besides with the interstory drift responses, another response index of
interest is the peak floor acceleration. Usually, the peak floor accelera­
tions affect seismic demands on the nonstructural components attached
to the main structures. Fig. 16 compares the median values of the height-
wise Apeak,t of the systems under the considered ground motion suites. As
shown, in comparison with the steel BRBFs, the FeSMA BRBFs exhibit
quite similar floor acceleration responses over building height.
Combining the performance from all structures, the acceleration de­
mands do not show a clear trend. For example, at the DBE level, the 3-
story FeSMA BRBF of F1 has the smallest floor accelerations, whereas
the structure of F3 has the largest demands, although both utilized the
FeSMA BRBs. The randomness is also observed in the other hazard
levels. Hence, the comparisons of the Apeak,t suggest that seismic de­
mands of the nonstructural components in the FeSMA BRBFs are com­
parable to that in the steel BRBFs.
12. Dissipated energy and accumulated ductility
While maximum and residual interstory drifts are important
response indexes for gauging structural performance, they do not reflect
the cumulative damage experienced by the BRBs nor do they quantify
whether the BRBs need to be replaced or strengthened following strong
earthquakes. Accordingly, the total hysteretic energy dissipated by the
BRBs of each frame was calculated by summing the energy dissipated by
all braces. Fig. 17 assembles the energy dissipated by BRBs under three
levels of earthquakes. The median value over three structures is calcu­
lated and presented. It is not surprising to see that the energy dissipated
by steel and FeSMA BRBs is nearly identical under each individual
ground motion record. This is primarily attributed to the fact that most
C. Qiu et al.
Fig. 13. Height-wise θr: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story.
energy is absorbed by the large hysteretic cycles, and the corresponding
strength and deformation are quite close between different types of
BRBs.
In addition to the dissipated energy, the accumulated ductility is
another important index for quantifying the damage degree of the
braces. Fig. 18 assembles the corresponding results. Under the DBE
level, the ductility demand is comparable between the steel and FeSMA
BRBs in both 3- and 6- story frames. Under the FOE level, the FeSMA
BRBs tend to sustain lower ductility demand, because they have higher
strength capacity, which could better limit vibration cycles. Under the
MCE level, the FeSMA BRBs endure higher ductility demand, which is
mainly attributed to the stronger recentering tendency, which is echoed
by Fig. 9(c). It is clear to see the FeSMA BRBs sustain more reversal
nonlinear excursions during the opposite ground motion pulses. As re­
ported by the experimental test [30], the low-cycle fatigue life of FeSMA
is approximately ten times that of the common steel. Hence, it implied
10
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392
that the fracture probability of the FeSMA BRBs would be lower than
that of the steel BRBs.
13. Probability of damage
In this section, the performance of both frames is further understood
in a probability fashion, through conducting fragility analysis. First, the
incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is conducted for both frames, and
then the IDA data are used to generate the corresponding fragility
curves. The ground motions that belong to the DBE hazard level are used
to generate the IDA database. This paper considers using the spectral
magnitude of the 5% damped SDOF systems as the intensity measure
(IM), although there are many other options. The median values over
three frames are calculated and defined as the engineering demand
parameter (EDP). The IDA curves are capped at 2.0 g and 1.5 g for the 3-
and 6- story frames, respectively, because they approach to the Sa
C. Qiu et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392

Fig. 14. Record-to-record θmax,r of the 3-story frames: (a) DBE; (b) FOE; (c) MCE.

magnitude associated with the MCE hazard level. IDA curve are presented for θmax,t and θmax,r, as shown in Figs. 19 and 20,
According to the assumption that the logarithm of a seismic response respectively. The values of R2 are nearly unit, which indicates the fitting
index and the logarithm of the IM have a positive linear relationship functions have a high accuracy.
[47], the following equations are established: Using the PSDMs, the probability of exceedance is calculated as
below:
θmax,t = a(Sa)b (2) ( )⎞
⎛ ( ) ⌢
ln θ max,t− L − ln θ max,t
θmax,r = c(Sa)d (3) [ ⃒ ] ⎜
Pmax,t = P θmax,t > θmax,t− L ⃒Sa = 1 − Φ⎜
⎟
⎟ (4)
⎝ βθmax,t |Sa ⎠
where a, b, c, and d are the regression parameters that can be determined
from the least square analyses. The fitting functions of the 50% fractile

11
C. Qiu et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392

Fig. 15. Record-to-record θmax,r of the 6-story frames: (a) DBE; (b) FOE; (c) MCE.

⎛ ( )
(
⌢
)⎞ calculated as:
⃒ ] ln θ max,r− L − ln θ max,r √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
[ ⎜ ⎟
(5) 1 ∑ n ⃒ ) ⃒ )]2
Pmax,r = P θmax,r > θmax,r− ⃒ ⎜
L Sa = 1 − Φ⎝
⎟ [ ( (
β
θmax,r |Sa
⎠ βθmax,t |Sa = ln θmax,t,i ⃒Sa − ln θmax,t ⃒Sa (6)
n − 1 i=1

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
where φ() represents the cumulative distribution function of the stan­ 1 ∑ n
[ ( ⃒ ) ( ⃒ )]2
⌢ ⌢ βθmax,r |Sa = ln θmax,r,i ⃒Sa − ln θmax,r ⃒Sa (7)
dard normal distribution; θ max,t and θ max,r are the medians of θmax,t and n − 1 i=1
θmax,r that can be approximated using Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively. The
parameters of βθmax,t |Sa and βθmax,r |Sa represent the standard deviations of where n represents the number of earthquake records considered, θmax,t, i
the natural logarithm of θmax,t and θmax,r at the specific Sa, which is and θmax,r,i represent the maximum transient and residual interstory drift

12
C. Qiu et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392

Fig. 16. Height-wise Apeak,t: (a) 3-Story; (b) 6-story.

ratio under the ith record, respectively.

It should be recognized that Eqs. (4) and (5) consider only one Pmax,(t,r) = 1
⎛ ( ( )⎞ ⎛ ( )⎞
seismic index, i.e., either θmax,t or θmax,r. In fact, a system would fail ) ⌢ ( ) ⌢
ln θmax,t− L − ln θ max,t ln θmax,r− L − ln θ max,r
when either θmax,t or θmax,r exceeds the corresponding limits. Following ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
− Φ⎜ ⎟⋅Φ⎜ ⎟ (8)
an earlier work [46], the θmax,t and θmax,r are assumed independent. ⎝ βθmax,t |Sa ⎠ ⎝ βθmax,r |Sa ⎠
Hence, the joint probability of exceedance considering both θmax,t and
θmax,r is calculated by the following equation: Three levels of θmax,t-L and two levels of θmax,r-L are defined as the
limitations, as listed in Table 2. Notably, the limitation levels associated
with different damage states vary significantly among different studies

13
C. Qiu et al.
Fig. 17. Energy dissipated by the BRBs: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story.
Fig. 18. Accumulated ductility of the BRBs: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story.
and seismic provisions. Currently, the three limitations of θmax,t-L, which
are selected to be 0.5%, 1.0% and 2.0%, are assumed to correspond to
three damage states: immediate occupancy, impaired occupancy, and
structural damage. The two limitations of θmax,r, which are selected to be
0.2% and 0.5%, correspond to two post-event conditions: serviceability
requirement [48], and uneconomic to repair [10]. Hence, there are a
total of six performance levels P(i,j) conditioned on the combinations of
θmax,t and θmax,r. For example, the probability of exceedance of P(1,2) is
the probability of θmax,t > 1.0% and θmax,r > 0.2%.
Based on Eq. (4), the probabilities of failure caused by exceeding
θmax,t can be calculated for different magnitudes of Sa, as compared in
Fig. 21. Overall, the probability corresponding to the steel BRBFs is
nearly identical to that of the FeSMA BRBFs, which suggests that the
FeSMA BRBs are as effective as the steel BRBs for controlling θmax,t under
the considered earthquakes. Similarly, based on Eq. (5), the probabilities
of failure caused by exceeding θmax,r are calculated, as compared in
Fig. 22. The steel BRBFs constantly exhibits noticeably higher proba­
bilities of exceedance than the FeSMA BRBFs over the entire IM range,
validating the advantage of the FeSMA BRBs for permitting more
convenient post-event recovery. A specific discussion is made for the 3-
story frames. When the Sa reaches to 0.70 g (FOE level), the FeSMA
14
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392
BRBF can remain almost perfectly plumb, as evidenced by the proba­
bility of 0.07; whereas the steel BRBF has a probability of up to 0.20,
which exceeds the serviceability requirement. As the Sa increases to
1.18 g (DBE level), the probabilities of exceeding serviceability
requirement and uneconomic to repair limitations are 0.04 and 0.30 for
the FeSMA BRBF, respectively, while they are up to 0.24 and 0.60 for the
steel BRBF, respectively. With the Sa further increases to 1.77 g (MCE
level), the probabilities of exceedance of the FeSMA BRBF are still much
lower than that of the steel BRBFs. Similar trend is observed in the 6-
story frames.
As aforementioned, the system can fail due to excessive θmax,t and/or
θmax,r. Based on Eq. (8), Figs. 23 and 24 further compare the probabil­
ities of failure of the systems. As shown, in comparison to the probability
of exceedance that only considers θmax,t, it increases by taking into ac­
count θmax,r. However, the increasing extent varies between these two
systems and it depends on the magnitudes of θmax,t and θmax,r. For the 3-
story frames, the probability of exceedance at the performance levels of
P(1,1), P(1,2), P(2,1) and P(2,2) are nearly identical between the steel
and FeSMA BRBFs, suggesting the θmax,t governs the results. As the θmax,
t-L is raised, the impact of the θmax,r on the joined probability of ex­
ceedance increases. For example, corresponding to Sa = 1.18 g (DBE
C. Qiu et al.
Fig. 19. IDA curves of θmax,t: (a) 3-story steel BRBF; (b) 3-story FeSMA BRBF; (c) 6-story steel BRBF; (d) 6-story FeSMA BRBF.
level), the values of P(1,3) are 63.9% and 35.0% and the values of P(2,3)
are 30.8% and 11.7% for the steel and FeSMA BRBFs, respectively. This
can be understood from the perspective of damage state. If a very
rigorous requirement is defined based on the θmax,t, i.e., the θmax,t-L is
very small, there is a significant chance for the systems being damaged
by solely θmax,t, irrespective of the damage extent caused by θmax,r. The
same trend can be also observed in the 6-story systems. Hence, the ex­
amination on the joined fragility curves suggests again the advantage of
FeSMA BRBs over steel BRBs when the capacity of controlling residual
interstory drift is accounted for.
14. Conclusions
Through numerical simulations of the steel and FeSMA BRBFs, this
paper revealed the advantages of the FeSMA BRBs over the steel BRBs in
enhancing seismic resilience of the steel frames. The cyclic behavior of
the steel and FeSMA BRBs was first simulated, and then two example
BRBFs with 3 and 6 stories were selected for system-level analysis. Based
on the analysis results, the following conclusions are obtained:
1) The established numerical models could well simulate the cyclic
behavior of the FeSMA BRBs. The calibrated parameters of the
SteelBRB material could be utilized in future analysis.
2) FeSMA BRBs exhibited comparable control efficacy as the steel BRBs
in terms of the peak interstory drift ratios and peak floor accelera­
tions. However, the FeSMA BRBs can better control residual
15
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392
interstory drift ratios than the steel BRBs. In comparison to using
steel BRBs, using FeSMA BRBs reduced the median residual inter­
story drift ratios by 0.06%, 0.17% and 0.5% under the FOE, DBE, and
MCE hazard levels, respectively.
3) The PSDMs could well predict the 50% fragile results of the
maximum and residual interstory drift ratios. The fragility analysis
also confirmed that the major advantage of FeSMA BRBs is miti­
gating residual interstory drift ratios. The bivariate fragility curves
indicated that the impact of the residual interstory drift ratios on the
joined probability of exceedance becomes high when the damage
limit of maximum interstory drift ratios is defined large.
Besides with above conclusions, additional discussions are made at
the end of this paper. The residual interstory drift ratios of the FeSMA
BRBFs require further investigations by including frames with more
story numbers. The earthquake engineering community has foreseen the
advantages of using FeSMA devices to endure long-duration earth­
quakes, but it is out of scope of current study and requires more effort in
future. In addition, considering the experimental data of FeSMA BRBs
are still very limited, the authors have fabricated the FeSMA BRB
specimens for enriching testing results.
Author statement
Canxing Qiu: Concept, Methodology, Investigation, Visualization,
Writing, Funding acquisition. Aifang Zhang: Formal analysis, Software,
C. Qiu et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392

Fig. 20. IDA curves of θmax,r: (a) 3-story steel BRBF; (b) 3-story FeSMA BRBF; (c) 6-story steel BRBF; (d) 6-story FeSMA BRBF.

Validation, Writing, FE analysis. Tianyuan Jiang: Software, Validation.

Table 2 Xiuli Du: Investigation, Discussion, Funding acquisition.
Damage limit states and performance levels.
θmax,r-L (%) (i) θmax,t-L (%) (j)
Declaration of competing interest
0.5 1.0 2.0

0.2 P(1,1) P(1,2) P(1,3) The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
0.5 P(2,1) P(2,2) P(2,3) interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Fig. 21. Probability of damage of the frames using θmax,t: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story.

16
C. Qiu et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392

Fig. 22. Probability of damage of the frames using θmax,r: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story.

Fig. 23. Probability of damage of the 3-story frames considering θmax,t and θmax,r: (a) θmax,r-L = 0.2%; (b) θmax,r-L = 0.5%.

Fig. 24. Probability of damage of the 6-story frames considering θmax,t and θmax,r: (a) θmax,r-L = 0.2%; (b) θmax,r-L = 0.5%.

17
C. Qiu et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107392

Acknowledgments [21] Alam MS, Youssef MA, Nehdi M. Utilizing shape memory alloys to enhance the
performance and safety of civil infrastructure: a review. Can J Civ Eng 2007;34(9):
1075–86.
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foun­ [22] Gu XL, Chen ZY, Yu QQ, Ghafoori E. Stress recovery behavior of an Fe-Mn-Si shape
dation of China under Awards No. 52178267. However, any opinions, memory alloy. Eng Struct 2021;243:112710.
findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this paper are [23] Ruiz-Pinilla JG, Montoya-Coronado LA, Ribas C, Cladera A. Finite element
modeling of RC beams externally strengthened with iron-based shape memory
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the alloy (Fe-SMA) strips, including analytical stress-strain curves for Fe-SMA. Eng
sponsors. Finally yet importantly, the authors wish to thank the anon­ Struct 2020;223:111152.
ymous reviewers for their careful evaluations and insightful comments [24] Izadi MR, Ghafoori E, Shahverdi M, Motavalli M, Maalek S. Development of an
iron-based shape memory alloy (Fe-SMA) strengthening system for steel plates. Eng
that helped improve the paper. Struct 2018;174:433–46.
[25] Vůjtěch J, Ryjáček P, Matos JC, Ghafoori E. Iron-Based shape memory alloy for
References strengthening of 113-Year bridge. Eng Struct 2021;248:113231.
[26] Izadi M, Motavalli M, Ghafoori E. Thermally-activated shape memory alloys for
retrofitting bridge double-angle connections. Eng Struct 2021;245:112827.
[1] Zhao J, Wu B, Ou J. A novel type of angle steel buckling-restrained brace: cyclic
[27] Sawaguchi T, Maruyama T, Otsuka H, et al. Design concept and applications of
behavior and failure mechanism. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2011;40(10):
Fe–Mn–Si-based alloys—from shape-memory to seismic response control. Mater
1083–102.
Trans 2016;57(3):283–93.
[2] Hu S, Wang W. Comparative seismic fragility assessment of mid-rise steel buildings
[28] Inoue Y, Kushibe A, Umemura K, Mizushima Y, Sawaguchi T, Nakamura T,
with non-buckling (BRB and SMA) braced frames and self-centering energy-
Chiba Y. Fatigue-resistant Fe-Mn-Si-based alloy seismic dampers to counteract
absorbing dual rocking core system. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2021;142:106546.
long-period ground motion. Japan. Architect. Rev. 2021;4(1):76–87.
[3] Merritt S, Uang CM, Benzoni G. Subassemblage testing of core brace buckling
[29] Rosa DIH, Hartloper A, e Sousa ADC, Lignos DG, Motavalli M, Ghafoori E.
restrained braces. San Diego, La Jolla, CA: University of California; 2003. Report
Experimental behavior of iron-based shape memory alloys under cyclic loading
No. TR-2003/01.
histories. Construct Build Mater 2021;272:121712.
[4] Tremblay R, Poncet L, Bolduc P, Neville R, DeVall R. Testing and design of buckling
[30] Fang C, Wang W, Ji Y, Yam MC. Superior low-cycle fatigue performance of iron-
restrained braces for Canadian applications. In: Proceeding of the 13th world
based SMA for seismic damping application. J Constr Steel Res 2021;184:106817.
conference on earthquake engineering; 2004. Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 2893.
[31] MacRae GA, Kawashima K. Post-earthquake residual displacements of bilinear
[5] Clark P, Aiken I, Kasai K, Ko E, Kimura I. Design procedures for buildings
oscillators. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 1997;26(7):701–16.
incorporating hysteretic damping devices. In: Proceedings of the 69th annual
[32] Zona A, Dall’Asta A. Elastoplastic model for steel buckling-restrained braces.
convention of SEAOC; 1999. p. 355–72. Sacramento, CA.
J Constr Steel Res 2012;68(1):118–25.
[6] Castaldo P, Tubaldi E, Selvi F, Gioiella L. Seismic performance of an existing RC
[33] Chen H, Bai J. Seismic performance evaluation of buckling-restrained braced RC
structure retrofitted with buckling restrained braces. J Build Eng 2021;33:101688.
frames considering stiffness and strength requirements and low-cycle fatigue
[7] Tremblay R, Lacerte M, Christopoulos C. Seismic response of multistory buildings
behaviors. Eng Struct 2021;239:112359.
with self-centering energy dissipative steel braces. J Struct Eng 2008;134(1):
[34] OpenSees. In: Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). 1
108–20.
ed., 2.4. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2013.
[8] Erochko J, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Choi H. Residual drift response of SMRFs
[35] Ghowsi AF, Sahoo DR, Kumar PA. Cyclic tests on hybrid buckling-restrained braces
and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05. J Struct Eng
with Fe-based SMA core elements. J Constr Steel Res 2020;175:106323.
2011;137(5):589–99.
[36] Sabelli R, Mahin S, Chang C. Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with
[9] Ghowsi FA, Sahoo DR. Seismic response of SMA-based self-centering buckling-
buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2003;25:655–66.
restrained braced frames under near-fault ground motions. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
[37] Qu B, Sanchez-Zamora F, Pollino M. Mitigation of inter-story drift concentration in
2020;139:106397.
multi-story steel concentrically braced frames through implementation of rocking
[10] McCormick JAH, Ikenaga M, Nakashima M. Permissible residual deformation
cores. Eng Struct 2014;70:208–17.
levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements. In:
[38] Qiu C, Zhu S. Performance-based seismic design of self-centering steel frames with
Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering; 2008.
SMA-based damping braces. Eng Struct 2017;130:67–82.
Beijing. China, Paper No. 05-6-0071.
[39] ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ANSI/SEI7-10.
[11] Sawaguchi T, Maruyama T, Otsuka H, et al. Design concept and applications of
Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2010.
Fe–Mn–Si-based alloys—from shape-memory to seismic response control. Mater
[40] Castaldo P, Gino D, Bertagnoli G, Mancini G. Partial safety factor for resistance
Trans 2016;57(3):283–93.
model uncertainties in 2D non-linear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete
[12] Nishimura T. Nano structure of the rust formed on an Iron-based shape memory
structures. Engineering Structures; 2018.
alloy (Fe–Mn–Si–Cr) in a high chloride environment. ISIJ Int 2014;54(8):1913–9.
[41] Castaldo P, Gino D, Mancini G. Safety formats for non-linear finite element analysis
[13] Qiu C, Zhu S. Shake table test and numerical study of self-centering steel frame
of reinforced concrete structures: discussion, comparison and proposals.
with SMA braces. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2017;46(1):117–37.
Engineering Structures; 2019.
[14] Zhou X, Ke K, Yam MC, Zhao Q, Huang Y, Di J. Shape memory alloy plates: cyclic
[42] Sommerville P, Smith NF, Punyamurthula S, Sun J. Development of ground motion
tension-release performance, seismic applications in beam-to-column connections
time histories for Phase 2 of the FEAM/SAC steel project. SAC Background
and a structural seismic demand perspective. Thin-Walled Struct 2021;167:
Document SAC/BD-91/04. Sacramento, Calif: SAC Joint Venture; 1997.
108158.
[43] Castaldo P, Amendola G. Optimal DCFP bearing properties and seismic
[15] Qiu C, Du X, Teng J, Li Z, Chen C. Seismic design method for multi-story SMA
performance assessment in nondimensional form for isolated bridges. Earthq Eng
braced frames based on inelastic displacement ratio. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2021;
Struct Dynam 2021;50(9):2442–61.
147:106794.
[44] Castaldo P, Amendola G. Optimal sliding friction coefficients for isolated viaducts
[16] Qiu C, Fang C, Liang D, Du X, Yam MC. Behavior and application of self-centering
and bridges: a comparison study. Struct Control Health Monit 2021:e2838. https://
dampers equipped with buckling-restrained SMA bars. Smart Mater Struct 2020;29
doi.org/10.1002/stc.2838.
(3):035009.
[45] Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C. Inelastic deformation ratios for design and
[17] Qiu C, Liu J, Du X. Cyclic behavior of SMA slip friction damper. Eng Struct 2022;
evaluation of structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems. J Struct Eng
250:113407.
2004;130(9):1309–19.
[18] Wang W, Fang C, Feng W, Ricles J, Sause R, Chen Y. SMA-based low-damage
[46] Qiu C, Zhang Y, Li H, Qu B, Hou H, Tian L. Seismic performance of concentrically
solution for self-centering steel and composite beam-to-column connections.
braced frames with non-buckling braces: a comparative study. Eng Struct 2018;
J Struct Eng 2020;146(6):04020092.
154:93–102.
[19] Fang C, Yam MC, Lam AC, Zhang Y. Feasibility study of shape memory alloy ring
[47] Cornell AC, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal
spring systems for self-centring seismic resisting devices. Smart Mater Struct 2015;
emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 2002;
24(7):075024.
128:526–32.
[20] Ozbulut OE, Hurlebaus S, DesRoches R. Seismic response control using shape
[48] Uma S, Pampanin S, Christopoulos C. Development of probabilistic framework for
memory alloys: a review. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 2011;22(14):1531–49.
performance-based seismic assessment of structures considering residual
deformations. J Earthq Eng 2010;14(7):1092–111.

18