Abstract
The emergence of the Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) rebar has paved the way towards resilient bridge design through improved post-earthquake functionality. The focus of this study is to numerically examine the effects of SMA rebar inclusion on the seismic performance of a reinforced concrete (RC) bridge bent under long-duration motions and perform a comparative analysis with the conventional steel-reinforced bridge bent. The duration effect is examined by assembling a pair of forty long-duration and spectrally equivalent short duration motions, without considering the pulse-nature of ground motions. Three different reinforcement configurations, with and without SMA rebar in the bridge bent bottom and top plastic hinge, are considered here. Using the selected ground motions, incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is conducted to examine the duration effect considering different performance indicators such as maximum drift and residual drift. For residual drift, the dominance of ground motion duration is observed which is found to have a lesser impact on the SMA reinforced bents. The detrimental effect of long-duration motion is more pronounced for the steel-reinforced bridge bent compared to the SMA reinforced bents.
Highlights
Recent devastating earthquakes around the world were of high magnitude as well as lasted for a longer period of time
Comparative seismic response of Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) reinforced and Steel-reinforced bridge bents under long-duration motions considering different reinforcement arrangements are presented in this paper
Spectrally equivalent short duration motions are considered for seismic response comparison of the SMA and Steel-reinforced bridge bents
Summary
Recent devastating earthquakes around the world were of high magnitude as well as lasted for a longer period of time. An increasing number of experimental and numerical studies conducted on structural response under long-duration motions reflects the increasing attention to this topic. These include experimental investigation of bridge piers (Ou et al, 2014; Mohammed, 2016; Lopez et al, 2020), numerical investigation on concrete frames (Ruiz-Garcia, 2010; Raghunandan and Liel, 2013; Belejo et al, 2017), steel frames (Chandramohan et al, 2016; Barbosa et al, 2017), concrete dams (Zhang et al, 2013; Wang et al, 2015), timber frames (Pan et al, 2018), seismically isolated bridges (Hassan and Billah, 2020), and masonry structures (Bommer et al, 2004). The mixed conclusions drawn from past studies can be attributed to the consideration of different types of structures, strategies for ground motion selection, adopted modeling techniques, and lack of adequate historical longduration motions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
