Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic response of RC structures rehabilitated with SMA under near-field earthquakes

  • Shiravand, M.R. (Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University) ;
  • Khorrami Nejad, A. (Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University) ;
  • Bayanifar, M.H. (Department of Civil Engineering, Qazvin Branch of Islamic Azad University)
  • Received : 2016.12.01
  • Accepted : 2017.05.30
  • Published : 2017.08.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

During recent earthquakes, a significant number of concrete structures suffered extensive damage. Conventional reinforced concrete structures are designed for life-time safety that may see permanent inelastic deformation after severe earthquakes. Hence, there is a need to utilize adequate materials that have the ability to tolerate large deformation and get back to their original shape. Super-elastic shape memory alloy (SMA) is a smart material with unique properties, such as the ability to regain undeformed shape by unloading or heating. In this research, four different stories (three, five, seven and nine) of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings have been studied and subjected to near-field ground motions. For each building, two different types of reinforcement detailing are considered, including (1) conventional steel reinforcement (RC frame) and (2) steel-SMA reinforcement (SMA RC frame), with SMA bars being used at plastic zones of beams and steel bars in other regions. Nonlinear time history analyses have been performed by "SeismoStruct" finite element software. The results indicate that the application of SMA materials in plastic hinge regions of the beams lead to reduction of the residual displacement and consequently post-earthquake repairs. In general, it can be said that shape memory alloy materials reduce structural damage and retrofit costs.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdulridha, A., Palermo, D., Foo, S. and Vechi, F.J. (2013), "Behavior and modeling of superelastic shapememory alloy reinforced concrete beams", Eng. Struct., 49, 893-904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.12.041
  2. ACI 318-08 (2008), Building Code Requirements forStructural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute.
  3. Alam, M., Nehdi, M. and Youssef, M. (2008), "Analytical prediction of the seismic behaviour of superelastic shape memory alloy reinforced concrete elements", Eng. Struct., 30, 3399-3411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.025
  4. Alam, M., Nehdi, M. and Youssef, M. (2009), "Seismic performance of concrete frame structures reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloys", Smart Struct. Syst., 5(5), 565-585. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2009.5.5.565
  5. Alam, M., Youssef M. and Nehdi M. (2010), "Exploratory investigation on mechanical anchors for connecting SMA bars to steel or FRP bars", Mater. Struct., 43(S1), 91-107. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9601-0
  6. American Society of Civil Engineers (2010), "Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures", ASCE/SEI 7-10.
  7. Auricchio F. and Sacco E. (1997), "A superelastic shape-memoryalloy beam model", J. Intel. Mater. Syst. Struct., 8(6), 489-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X9700800602
  8. Chopra, A.K. and Chintanapakdee, C. (2001), "Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 30(12), 1769-1789. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.92
  9. Comartin, C., Greene, M. and Tubbesing, S. (1995), "The Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake preliminary reconnaissance report", Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA
  10. Daghia, F., Giammarruto, A. and Pascale, G. (2010), "Combined use of FBG sensors and SMA actuators for concrete beams repair", Struct. Control Hlth. Monit., 18, 908-921.
  11. Decanini, L., Liberatore, L., Mollaioli, F. and De Sortis, A. (2005), "Estimation of near-source ground motion and seismic behaviour of RC framed structures damaged by the 1999 Athenes earthquake", J. Earthq. Eng., 9(5), 609-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460509350559
  12. Decanini, L., Mollaioli, F. and Saragoni, R. (2000), "Energy and displacement demands imposed by near-source ground motions", Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, January.
  13. DesRoches, R., McCormick, J. and Delemont, M. (2004), "Cyclic properties of superelastic shape memory alloy wires and bars", J. Struct. Eng., 130(1), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:1(38)
  14. Fugazza, D. (2003), "Shape-memory alloy devices for earthquake engineering: Mechanical properties, constitutive modeling and numerical simulations", Master's Thesis, University of Pavia, Italy.
  15. Ghobarah, A. (2004), "On drift limits associated with different damage levels. in International workshop on performance-based seismic design", Dept. of Civil Engineering, McMaster University
  16. MacGregor, J. and Wight. J. (2005), Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design, 4th. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, Prentice Hall
  17. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J. and Park, R. (1988), "Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete", J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804-1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
  18. Martinez-Rueda, J.E. and Elnashai, A. (1997), "Confined concrete model under cyclic load", Mater. Struct., 30(3), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02486385
  19. Nikbakht, E., Rashida, K., Hejazi, F. and Osmana, S.A. (2014), "Application of shape memory alloy bars in self-centring precast segmental columns as seismic resistance", J. Struct. Infrastr. Eng., 11(3), 297-309.
  20. Paulay, T. and Priestley M. (1992), "Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry structures", J. Wiley & Sons, INC, USA.
  21. Saiidi, M.S. and Wang, H. (2006), "Exploratory study of seismic response of concrete columns with shape memory alloys reinforcement", ACI Struct. J., 103(3), 436-443.
  22. SeismoSoft (2013). SeismoStruct. "A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures", www.seismosoft.com.
  23. Shahnewaz, M. and Alam, M.S. (2015), "Seismic performance of reinforced concrete wall with superelastic shape memory alloy rebar", Structures Congress 2015, 2230-2240.
  24. Shrestha, K.C., Araki, Y., Nagae, T., Koetaka, Y., Suzuki, Y., Omori, T., Sotou, Y., Kainuma, R. and Ishida, K. (2013), "Feasibility of Cu-Al-Mn superelastic alloy bars as reinforcement elements in concrete beams", Smart Mater. Struct., 22(2), 025025. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/22/2/025025
  25. Somerville, P.G. and Venture, S.J. (1997), "Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project", SAC Joint Venture.
  26. Youssef, M., Alam, M. and Nehdi, M. (2008), "Experimental investigation on the seismic behavior of beam-column joints reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloys", J. Earthq. Eng., 12(7), 1205-1222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460802003082
  27. Zafar, A. and Andrawes, B. (2015), "Seismic behavior of SMAFRP reinforced concrete frames under sequential seismic hazard", Eng. Struct., 98, 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.045

Cited by

  1. Retrofit of non-seismically designed beam-column joints by post-tensioned superelastic shape memory alloy bars vol.16, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0323-y
  2. Seismic Strengthening of Deficient Reinforced Concrete Frames Using Reinforced Concrete Haunch vol.116, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14359/51710874
  3. A Multi Record Based Artificial Near Fault Ground Motion Generation Method vol.7, pp.None, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.10.036
  4. Response Modification Factor of RC Frames Strengthened with RC Haunches vol.2020, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3835015
  5. Fragility-based performance evaluation of mid-rise reinforced concrete frames in near field and far field earthquakes vol.76, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2020.76.6.751