KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2015) 19(4):935-942 Structural Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2015 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-015-0261-z pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Seismic Retrofit in Building Structures Using Shape Memory Alloys

Mohammad Hooshmand*, Behzad Rafezy**, and Jafar Khalil-Allafi***
Received May 26, 2012/Revised November 24, 2013/Accepted May 11, 2014/Published Online February 19, 2015

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

The shape memory alloys have limited applications in structural engineering. The high expensive value of building construction
with these alloys is the main obstacle in using this material for building. In this paper, the performance of bracing with the combined
shape memory alloys and steel have been studied. The seismic response of the five braced frames with bracing containing 20, 40, 60,
80 and 100% of shape memory alloy are determined and compared to the braced frame with steel brace. Nonlinear dynamic analysis
of the frames is made with help of ANSYS V11 software under Elcentro earthquake record with maximum scaled acceleration 0.6 g
and 0.9 g. The optimum value of alloy for the seismic performance improvement of braced frames has been calculated. So, the
improved seismic behavior of braced frame was obtained with low cost by using method.
Keywords: shape memory alloys, damper, nonlinear dynamic analysis, El Centro earthquake, ANSYS V11
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction Moradi, 2011; Auricchio et al., 2006; Liao and Mo, 2006;
McCormick et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2012; Walter Yang et
Shape memory alloys (SMA) have found various applications al., 2010), and for retrofitting masonry and historical
in structural engineering such as active, semi active and passive structures (Shrestha et al., 2011). SMAs have also been
control due to its characteristics such as high damping capacity, studied to be used as reinforcing bars in concrete structures
durability, resistance to fatigue and corrosion and its unique (Youssef and Elfeki, 2012; Muntasir Billah and Shahria,
characteristics such as shape memory and superelasticity 2012; Shahria Alam et al., 2012), in structural joints
(Mansouri, 2008), One of the most important and effective (Abolmaali et al., 2009; Speicher et al., 2011; Shahin et al.,
applications of SMA in civil engineering is using these materials as 2005), in smart structure (Tzou et al., 2004; Amezquita-
braces, because of the superelastic and shape memory properties of Sanchez et al., 2014), and in dams (Sun, 2011).
SMA. They have the ability to re-center the original state and
provide high energy dissipation. Although studies on the 2. Shape Memory Alloys (SMAs)
application of SMAs in civil engineering have been recently
increased, it has still a limited usage in structural systems. One Shape memory alloys have special properties which make
of the reasons is the high cost of these alloys. In the present them distinctive from other alloys and metals, properties like
study we used a hybrid brace of steel and SMA to show shape memory and super-elastic properties. Each of these
economically justifiable and also an acceptable behavior properties will be described in the following sections.
regarding seismic performance. The unique behavior of SMA
has been used for comparison of seismic behavior of bracing. 2.1 Shape Memory Properties
The remaining displacement of the structure and energy
absorption of the structure is the criterion of the comparison. 2.1.1 One Way Shape Memory Effect
In recent years, several studies have been conducted on Normally, the SMAs are in twinned martensite phase. Applying
the applications of SMAs in civil engineering; for example, stress turns twinned martensite to detwinned martensite. In this
in seismic isolation systems (Ozbulut and Hurlebaus, 2010; way the alloy does not turn to its primary form and residual strain
Ozbulut and Hurlebaus, 2011), in energy dissipation systems (Ma remains in the sample. Heating of the alloy to a temperature
and Yam, 2011; Motahari et al., 2007), in dampers for bridges (Ben above Af, the alloy phase changes into austenite phase, residual
Mekki and Auricchio, 2011; Padgett et al., 2009; Sharabash strain disappears and the alloy returns to its primary state. This
and Andrawes, 2009), in structural braces (Asgarian and mode is shown in “Fig. 1”.

*Young Researchers And Elite Club, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz 51749-67454, Iran (Corresponding Auther, E-mai: [email protected])
**Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, 51335-11996, Iran (E-mail: [email protected])
***Associate Professor, Dept. of Materials Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, 51335-11996, Iran (E-mail: [email protected])

− 935 −
 Mohammad Hooshmand, Behzad Rafezy, and Jafar Khalil-Allafi

With applying stress, austenite phase transform to stress induced

martensite phase. On unloading regime, the reverse transformation
occurs from martensite to austenite and as a result the material
returns to its primary state and will not leave any residual strain.
“Fig. 3” clearly shows the superelasticitc behavior of material:

3. Methodology

The purpose of the present paper is to propose a hybrid brace

composed of steel and SMA in such a way that the designed
brace is economically justifiable and also has a good seismic
performance. To evaluate the seismic behavior of bracing
Fig. 1. Stress–strain Diagram in a one Way Shape Memory Effect
system, the remaining structural displacement and the structure’s
energy absorption were used as the basis for the comparison of
different studied models.

3.1 Finite Element Modeling and Verification

The FEM-based software package ANSYS v11 was used for
modeling and analysis. The verification was performed using a
model of braced steel structure analyzed with AIMS software
(Ghassemiyeh, 2008). The case considered for the verification
was a three-story structure designed by Sabelli (Sabelli, 2001).
Assuming symmetry in the plan, a two-dimensional frame of the
structure was analyzed. The height of each floor was 3.96 m and
Fig. 2.Stress–strain Diagram of the SMA in Two Way Shape the construction plan was 9.14 × 9.14 m. Ceilings were built with
Memory Effect composite sections in which the height of steel part and concrete
cover was 76 mm and 50 mm, respectively. The geometry and
sections designed for this frame are described in “Table 1” and
“Fig. 4”. The SMA braces in each category were selected in such
a way that the axial stiffness and axial force, σA, became
identical to the Buckling-Resistance Braces (BRBs). σ and A
denote stress and section area, respectively). It is noteworthy that

Table 1. Geometrical Properties used in Sabelli’s Model (Ghas-

semiyeh, 2008)
Story Braces Beams Columns
Fig. 3. Stress–strain Diagram of the SMA in the Superelastic Mode 1 HSS 8×8×0.5 W 18×46 W 12×106
(Otsuka, 1998) 2 HSS 6×6×0.5 W 18×46 W 12×106
3 HSS 5×5×0.375 W 18×46 W 12×106

2.1.2 Two Way Shape Memory Effect:

In two way shape memory effect, similar to one way shape
memory effect, SMAs are in the martensite phase at room
temperature. In this case without applying any stress and only
through heating and cooling the samples, changes occur from
austenite to martensite phase and vice versa. The alloy can memorize
these two forms in high and low temperatures. In order to achieve the
two way shape memory effect, we should use the training method.
This property is used in the production of reversible bolts, stimulators
that are sensitive to temperature, and medical inter-plantings
(Auricchio et al., 2003). This mode is shown in “Fig. 2”.

2.2 Super-elastic Properties

In the super-elastic mode, the SMA is in the austenite phase. Fig. 4. Geometrical Model of the Structure (Ghassemiyeh, 2008)

− 936 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Seismic Retrofit in Building Structures Using Shape Memory Alloys

the axial deformation of the beam was ignored (Ghassemiyeh,

2008).
The elasticity modulus, the plastic modulus, and the yield
stress of steel members were considered 200000 MPa, 20000
MPa and 240 MPa, respectively; and the damping ratio was
considered as 0.05. Mechanical properties of superelastic SMA
cross braces are according to “Table 2” (Ghassemiyeh, 2008).
Only two models of Ghassemiyeh and Kari (Ghassemiyeh,
2008) were used for the verification. These models were
analyzed under the El-Centro earthquake with an acceleration of

Table 2. Parameters used in the Behavioral Model of the SMA Fig. 7. The Time History of the Horizontal Displacement of the
(Ghassemiyeh, 2008) Third Floor Level in the SMA Bracing System Obtained by
Yield stress Value Ghassemiyeh and Kari (Ghassemiyeh, 2008)
Martensite-to-Austenite start stress 420 MPa
Martensite-to-Austenite finish stress 500 MPa
Austenite-to-Martensite start reverse stress 300 MPa
Austenite-to-Martensite finish reverse stress 200 MPa
phase transformation strain 6.5%
Martensite-to-Austenite modulus of elasticity 40000 MPa

Fig. 8. The Time History of the Horizontal Displacement of the

Third Floor Level in the SMA Bracing System Obtained
from the Present Numerical Study with ANSYS

0.6 g. The first model had a steel Buckling-Resistance Brace

(BRB) and the second model had an SMA brace. Results of
Ghassemiyeh and Kari (Ghassemiyeh, 2008) are compared with
Fig. 5. The Time History of the Horizontal Displacement of the the results of present numerical study in “Figs. 5-8”.
Third Floor Level in the BRB System Obtained by Ghas-
As it can be observed in “Figs. 5-8”, the results show a
semiyeh and Kari (Ghassemiyeh, 2008)
reasonable agreement between the diagrams obtained from the
results of Ghassemiyeh and Kari (Ghassemiyeh, 2008) and the
present study’s ANSYS analysis. The main reason for the slight
difference is the type of brace’s connection to the beam-column.
In the ANSYS models, it was not possible to generate a perfect
hinge, whereas the connections in the models of Ghassemiyeh
and Kari (Ghassemiyeh, 2008) were considered as perfect
hinges. In Section (3.2), details of brace’s connection to beam-
column in present study’s ANSYS models are described.

3.2 Model Specifications

The studied structure is the same three-story structure proposed
by Sabelli which was explained in Section (3.1). The difference
is that the behavioral model of alloys is different. Six types of
Fig. 6. The Time History of the Horizontal Displacement of the hybrid bracing were used for this investigation in which longitudinal
Third Floor Level in the BRB System Obtained from the consumption percentage of SMA was 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and
Present Numerical Study with ANSYS 100%. In fact, the first model was only composed of steel and the

Vol. 19, No. 4 / May 2015 − 937 −

 Mohammad Hooshmand, Behzad Rafezy, and Jafar Khalil-Allafi

Table 3. The Percentage of Consumption for Steel and the SMA

used in Bracings
Model The percentage of the The percentage of steel
number SMA consumption consumption
1st model 0 100
2nd model 20 80
3rd model 40 60
4th model 60 40
5th model 80 20
6th model 100 0

Fig. 11. The Modeling of the Frame in ANSYS

Fig. 9. The Schematic Steel-SMA Hybrid Brace

Fig. 10. The Stress-strain Diagram of Steel and the SMA used in
Bracings

Fig. 12. The Modeling of the Connection between the Brace and
Table 4. Parameters used in the Behavioral Model of the SMA the Beam-column
(Kazemi-Choobi et al., 2012)
Parameter Definition Value
σ AS Stress related to the beginning of the
240 MPa Because of using solid elements, it was not possible to generate a
s
direct transformation phase perfect hinge at the connection between the brace and the beam-
Stress related to the end of the direct
σfAS 300 MPa column. This caused an additional force at the corners of
transformation phase
Stress related to the beginning of the
bracings. In “Figs. 11 and 12”, the models generated and meshed
σsSA 60 MPa in ANSYS are shown.
reverse transformation phase
Stress related to the end of the reverse
σfSA 30 MPa
transformation phase 4. Results and Discussion
Maximum strain caused by phase
εL 6%
transformation
There are two major differences between the behavior of steel
Ymrt Modulus of martensite 80000 MPa
and the SMA. One of these differences is that the SMA is able to
return to its initial state after bearing large strains and to
last one was only composed of the SMA. minimize the horizontal displacement of structure; and the other
The percentage of the amount of steel and the SMA used in one is that it increases the energy absorption of the structure.
braced frames and their schematics are shown in “Table 3” and This section attempts to provide the optimum design for the brace
“Fig. 9”, respectively. through comparing the time histories of horizontal displacement and
Behavioral model of steel and the SMA used in the studied the diagrams of structural energy absorption in all models, in
hybrid braces is illustrated in “Fig. 10” and “Table 4”. As it can terms of both the SMA consumption and the seismic performance.
be observed in “Fig. 10”, a hypothetical behavioral model was
used for steel in order to avoid the dependence of obtained 4.1 Comparison of the Residual Horizontal Displacement
results on the type of the stressstrain diagram of alloys (steel and and Energy Absorption in the Structure
SMA). The time histories of the horizontal displacement at the level of
Solid185 elements were used for the modeling of the frame. the third floor under the maximum acceleration of 0.6 g are

− 938 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Seismic Retrofit in Building Structures Using Shape Memory Alloys

Fig. 13. The Time History of the Horizontal Displacement at the Fig. 15. The Time History of the Horizontal Displacement at the
Level of the Third Floor in a Bracing System with a Combi- Level of the Third Floor in a Bracing System with a Com-
nation of SMA 0% and Steel 100% under the Maximum bination of SMA 80% and Steel 20% under the Maximum
Acceleration of 0.6 g Acceleration of 0.6 g

Fig. 16. The Time History of the Horizontal Displacement at the

Fig. 14. The Time History of the Horizontal Displacement at the Level of the Third Floor in a Bracing System with a Combi-
Level of the Third Floor in a Bracing System with a Combi- nation of SMA 100% and Steel 0% under the Maximum
nation of SMA 20% and Steel 80% Under the Maximum Acceleration of 0.6 g
Acceleration of 0.6 g

and results are presented in “Fig. 18”. DOD and DOE mentioned
shown in “Figs. 13-16”. in “Figs. 17 and 18” are calculated according to Eqs. (1) and (2).
For a better comparison, the value of the residual displacement
DOD = (DMDST) / (DSMADST) (1)
of structure under the maximum acceleration of 0.6 g is
illustrated in “Fig. 17”. The energy absorption was also studied where DM is the residual displacement in bracing system with the

Fig. 17. The Comparison of the SMA Consumption with the DOD under the Maximum Acceleration of 0.6 g

Fig. 18. The Comparison of the SMA Consumption with the DOE under the Maximum Acceleration of 0.6 g

Vol. 19, No. 4 / May 2015 − 939 −

 Mohammad Hooshmand, Behzad Rafezy, and Jafar Khalil-Allafi

considered composition, DST is the residual displacement in maximum accelerations of 0.6 g and 0.9 g. The results of models
bracing system with the composition of 0% SMA and 100% under the maximum acceleration of 0.9 g are presented in
steel, and DSMA is the residual displacement in bracing system “Tables 5 and 6” and “Figs. 21-23”.
with the composition of 100% SMA and 0% steel.
Table 5. The Comparison of Residual Structural Displacement in
DOE = (EMEST) / (ESMAEST) (2) the Studied Bracing Systems under the Maximum Accel-
eration of 0.9 g
where EM is the value of structural energy absorbtion in bracing
Residual
system with the considered composition, EST is the value of DOD
structural
Considered Model (by
structural energy absorbtion in bracing system with the displacement
percentage)
composition of 0% SMA and 100% steel, and ESMA is the value (mm)
of structural energy absorbtion in bracing system with the Bracing System SMA 0% and Steel 100% 17 0%
Bracing System SMA 20%and Steel 80% 1.98 94%
composition of 100% SMA and 0% steel.
Bracing System SMA 40% and Steel 60% 1.70 95.7%
Considering “Figs. 17 and 18”, it is observed that the increase
Bracing System SMA 60%and Steel 40% 1.33 98%
of the consumption percentage of the SMA leads to a better seismic
Bracing System SMA 80% and Steel 20% 1.08 99.6%
performance of the bracing system. However, the amount of
Bracing System SMA 100% and Steel 0% 1.01 100%
improvement is very small and there is little difference between
the results of studied models (especially in “Fig. 18”). It means
that under the earthquake acceleration of 0.6 g, steel and the SMA Table 6. The Comparison of the Value of Structural Energy Absorp-
tion in the Studied Bracing Systems under the Maximum
have almost identical seismic performances. Comparison of the
Acceleration of 0.9 g
hysteresis diagrams of steel and the SMA braces characterizes
Value of energy DOE
this functional similarity (“Figs. 19 and 20”). Model Type absorption (by per-
The use of SMA, resistant to earthquakes, which has a (N.mm) centage)
maximum acceleration of 0.6 g, has not a significant difference Bracing System SMA 0% and Steel 100% 573905926.3 0%
with steel and utilizing them is not economically justifiable since Bracing System SMA 20%and Steel 80% 764929914.5 55.7%
the entire capacity of the SMA is not properly used. To have a Bracing System SMA 40% and Steel 60% 783269861 61%
better understanding, hysteresis graph of steel and SMA bracing Bracing System SMA 60%and Steel 40% 833446794 75.7%
under maximum acceleration of 0.6 g is shown in “Figs. 19 and Bracing System SMA 80% and Steel 20% 888797923 92%
20” respectively. Bracing System SMA 100% and Steel 0% 916802374 100%
As mentioned earlier, models were investigated under the

Fig. 21. DOD Versus the SMA Consumption Percentage under the
Maximum Acceleration of 0.9 g
Fig. 19. Hysteresis Graph of Steel Bracing (1st Model) under the
Maximum Acceleration of 0.6 g

Fig. 22. The Comparison of the Graphs of Structural Energy

Fig. 20. Hysteresis Graph of the SMA Bracing (6th Model) under Absorption in the Studied Bracing Systems under the Max-
the Maximum Acceleration of 0.6 g imum Acceleration of 0.9 g

− 940 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Seismic Retrofit in Building Structures Using Shape Memory Alloys

primary state after unloading and resistance against fatigue both

cause the hysteresis loops of SMA to be bigger than that of steel
and it shows the higher ability of SMA in structure controlling
and better dampering.
To have a better comparison, “Figs. 24 and 25” show hysteresis
graphs of SMA braces and steel braces under maximum acceleration
of 0.9 g.

5. Conclusions
Fig. 23. DOE versus the SMA Consumption Percentage under The performances of bracing containing 20, 40, 60, 80 and
the Maximum Acceleration of 0.9 g
100% of shape memory alloy and steel bracing have been studied.
The seismic response of the braced frames are determined and
“Table 5” shows the results of residual structural displacement compared to the braced frame with steel brace. The results
under the maximum acceleration of 0.9g and “Fig. 21” shows the indicate that the most suitable location for putting shape memory
SMA consumption versus the value of residual structural alloy is the ends of bracing. Also, the secondary moment which
displacement in the considered models under the maximum produced in bracing at the connection with gusset plate has
acceleration of 0.9 g. “Fig 22” and “Table 6” compare the transmitted better by shape memory alloy than steel. The total
structural energy absorption in the studied bracing systems under capacity of these alloys is not used in records with maximum
the maximum acceleration of 0.9 g. “Fig. 23” compares the acceleration of 0.6 g and there is no difference between the
percentage of the SMA consumption with the DOE under the behavior of steel brace and alloyed brace. Therefore, it is not
maximum acceleration of 0.9 g. necessary to use alloyed braced in low intensity of earthquake
“Fig. 22” compares the graphs of structural energy absorption due to economic considerations. It is observed that using 20%
in the used bracing systems under maximum acceleration of SMA in the alloyed brace improve 54% in seismic performance
0.9 g. “Table 6” compares the value of structural energy absorption while by using 100% SMA has 94%. It is concluded that the
in the used bracing systems under maximum acceleration of 0.9 g. application of bracing contain 20% SMA, led to improvement in
According to “Tables 5 and 6” and “Figs. 17, 18 and 23” it is seismic performance without considerable increase in constructional
observable that in the presented models, an increase in SMA cost.
consumption increases the value of energy absorption and an
increase in intensity of earthquakes (from 0.6 g to 0.9 g) this References
becomes clearer. And the main reason is due to the special
properties of SMA. It means that the return of the structure to its Abolmaali, S. A., Kukreti, A., Motahari, S. A., and Ghassemieh, M.
(2009). “Energy dissipation characteristics of semi-rigid connections”,
J. Constr. Steel Res., Vol. 65, No. 5, pp. 1187-1197.
Amezquita-Sanchez, J. P., Dominguez-Gonzalez, A., Sedaghati, R.,
Romero-Troncoso, R. D. J., and Osornio-Rios, R. A. (2014). “Vibration
control on smart civil structures: A review.” Mechanics of Advanced
Materials and Structures, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 23-38.
Asgarian, B. and Moradi, S. (2011). “Seismic response of steel braced
frames with shape memory alloy braces.” J. Constr. Steel Res., Vol.
67, No. 1, pp. 65-74.
Auricchio, F., Fugazza, D., and Desroches, R. (2006). “Earthquake
performance of steel frames with Nitinol braces.” Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 45-66.
Fig. 24. The Hysteresis Diagram of Steel Bracing (1st Model) under
Auricchio, F., Marfia, S., and Sacco, E. (2003). “Modelling of SMA
the Maximum Acceleration of 0.9 g
materials: Training and two way memory effects.” Computers and
Structures, Vol. 81, No. 24, pp. 2301-17.
Ben Mekki, O. and Auricchio, F. (2011). “Performance evaluation of
shape-memory-alloy superelastic behavior to control a stay cable in
cable-stayed bridges.” Inter. J. Non-Linear Mech., Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.
470-77.
Ghassemiyeh, M. and Kari, A. (2008). “Comparison of the seismic
performance improvement in the structures with braces made of
SMA and Buckling-Restrained Braces (BRB).” Fourth National
Congress of Civil Engineering, Tehran University, Iran.
Fig. 25. The Hysteresis Diagram of the SMA Bracing (6th Model) Kazemi-Choobi, K., Khalil-Allafi, J., and Abbasi-Chianeh, V., (2012).
under the Maximum Acceleration of 0.9 g “Investigation of the recovery and recrystallization processes of

Vol. 19, No. 4 / May 2015 − 941 −

 Mohammad Hooshmand, Behzad Rafezy, and Jafar Khalil-Allafi

Ni50.9Ti49.1 shape memory wires using in situ electrical resistance modification of a four-span bridge retrofit with shape memory
measurement.” Mater. Sci. Eng., Vol. 551, No. 15, pp. 122-127. alloys.” Struct. Control Health Monit., Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 694-708.
Liao, W. and Mo, Y. L. (2006). Shake table tests of RC frame with shape Sabelli, R. (2001). Research on improving the design and analysis of
memory alloy bracing bars, 4th International conference on earthquake-resistant steel-braced frame, Professional Fellowship
Earthquake Engineering, Taipei. Report No. PF2000-9, NEHRP, USA.
Ma, H. and C. H. Yam, M. (2011). “Modelling of a self-centering Shahin, K., Zou, G. P., and Taheri, F. (2005). “Shape memory alloy wire
damper and its application in structural control.” J. Constr. Steel reinforced composites for structural damage repairs.” Mechanics of
Res., Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 656-66. Advanced Materials and Structures, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 425-435.
Mansouri, A. (2008). Coefficient behavior of concrete frame with Shape Shahria Alam, M., Moni, M., and Tesfamariam, S. (2012). “Seismic
Memory Alloys (SMAs) bracing, Thesis of MS level, department of overstrength and ductility of concrete buildings reinforced with
civil engineering, Tabriz University, Iran. superelastic shape memory alloy rebar.” Eng. Struct., Vol. 34, No. 1,
McCormick, J., DesRoches, R., Fugazza, D., and Auricchio, F. (2007). pp. 8-20.
“Seismic assessment of concentrically braced steel with shape Sharabash, A. M., and Andrawes, B. O. (2009). “Application of shape
memory alloy braces.” J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 6, pp. memory alloy dampers in the seismic control of cable-stayed
862-870. bridges.” J. Eng. Struct., Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 607-16.
Miller, D. J., Fahnestock, L. A., and Eatherton, M. R. (2012). “Development Shrestha, K. C., Araki, Y., Nagae, T., Omori, T., Sutou, Y., Kainuma, R.,
and experimental validation of a nickel–titanium shape memory and Ishida, K. (2011). “Applicability of Cu-Al-Mn shape memory
alloy self-centering buckling-restrained brace.” Eng. Struct., Vol. 40, alloy bars to retrofitting of historical masonry constructions.” Smart
No. 1, pp. 288-298. Struct. Syst., Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 233-256.
Motahari, S. A., Ghassemieh, M., and Abolmaali, S. A. (2007). Speicher, M. S., DesRoches, R., and Leon, R. T. (2011). “Experimental
“Implementation of shape memory alloy dampers for passive control results of a NiTi Shape Memory Alloy (SMA)-based recentering
of structures subjected to seismic excitations.” J. Constr. Steel Res., beam-column connection.” Eng. Struct., Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 2448-
Vol. 63, No. 12, pp. 1570-1579. 2457.
Muntasir Billah, A. H. M., and Shahria Alam, M. (2012). “Seismic Sun, W. (2011). “Seismic response control of high arch dams including
performance of concrete columns reinforced with hybrid Shape contraction joint using nonlinear super-elastic SMA damper.”
Memory Alloy (SMA) and Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) bars.” Constr. Building Mater., Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 3762-3767.
Constr. Building Mater., Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.730-742. Tzou, H. S., Lee, H.-J., and Arnold, S. M. (2004). “Smart materials,
Otsuka, K. and Wayman, C. M. (1998). Shape memory materials, precision sensors/actuators, smart structures, and structronic systems.”
Cambridge University Press. Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.
Ozbulut, O. E. and Hurlebaus, S. (2010). “Evaluation of the performance 367-393.
of a sliding-type base isolation system with a NiTi shape memory Walter Yang, C. S., Desroches, R., and Leon, R. T. (2010). “Design and
alloy device considering temperature effects.” Eng. Struct., Vol. 32, analysis of braced frames with shape memory alloy and energy-
No. 1, pp. 238-49. absorbing hybrid devices.” Eng. Struct., Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 498-507.
Ozbulut, O. E. and Hurlebaus, S. (2011). “Energy-balance assessment of Youssef, M. A. and Elfeki, M. A. (2012). “Seismic performance of
shape memory alloy-based seismic isolation devices.” Smart Struct. concrete frames reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloys.”
Syst., Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 399-412. Smart Struct. Syst., Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 313-333.
Padgett, J., Desroches, R., and Ehlinger, R. (2009). “Experimental response

− 942 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering