Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 258, 2019
International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction Materials (SCESCM 2018)
Article Number 04001
Number of page(s) 8
Section Hybrid and Composite Structures, Smart Materials and Structures, Special Structures
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201925804001
Published online 25 January 2019
  1. EC8-2, (2008). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 2. Seismic Design of Bridges, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium. [Google Scholar]
  2. JRA 2012-Japan Road Association. Specifications for highway bridges, Part V: seismic design, Japan, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Canadian Standards Association. (2014). CAN/CSA-S6-14-Canadian highway bridge design code. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada. 894 [Google Scholar]
  4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2011) AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd ed., AASHTO, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  5. Billah, A.H.M., & Alam, M.S. Seismic fragility assessment of concrete bridge pier reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloy. Earthquake Spectra, 31, 1515–1541 (2015) DOI: 10.1193/112512EQS337M. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Rossetto, T. and Elnashai, A.S. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European type RC structures based on observational data. Engineering Structures, 25(10):1241–1263 (2003). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Elnashai, A., Borzi, B., Vlachos, S. Deformation-based vulnerability functions for RC bridges, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 17(2): 215–244 (2004). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Shinozuka, M., Feng, M. Q., Kim, H., Uzawa, T. Ueda, T. Statistical analysis of fragility curves, Report No. MCEER-03-0002, MCEER, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY. (2001). [Google Scholar]
  9. Vosooghi, A. and Saiidi, M.S. Experimental fragility curves for seismic response of reinforced concrete bridge columns. ACI Structural Journal, 109 (6): 825–834 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  10. Banerjee, S. and Chi, C. State-dependent fragility curves of bridges based on vibration measurements, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 33:116–125 (2013). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Alam, M.S., Bhuiyan, A.R., and Billah, A.H.M.M. Seismic fragility assessment of SMA- bar restrained multi-span continuous highway bridge isolated with laminated rubber bearing in medium to strong seismic risk zones. Bull. Earthq. Engr., 10(6): 1885–1909 (2012). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Billah, A.H.M.M. and Alam, M.S. Seismic vulnerability assessment of a typical multi- span continuous concrete highway bridge in British Columbia. Accepted in Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Manuscript ID: CJCE-2013-0049R2. (2013). [Google Scholar]
  13. Billah, A.H.M.M. and Alam, M.S. Seismic performance of concrete columns reinforced with hybrid shape memory alloy (SMA) and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. Construction and Building Materials, 28 (1): 730–742 (2012). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Saiidi, M.S., O’Brien, M. and Zadeh, M.S. Cyclic response of concrete bridge columns using superelastic nitinol and bendable concrete. ACI Struct J. 106(1): 69–77 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  15. Roh, H., Lee, J.S. and Reinhorn, A.M. Hysteretic behavior of precast segmental bridge piers with superelastic shape memory alloy bars. Engineering Structures 32: 3394–3403 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Saiidi, M.S. and Wang, H. Exploratory study of seismic response of concrete columns with shape memory alloys reinforcement. ACI Struct. J. 103(3): 435–42 (2006). [Google Scholar]
  17. Tazarv, M., & Saiidi, M. S. Reinforcing NiTi Superelastic SMA for Concrete Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 141(8), 04014197. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001176(2014) [Google Scholar]
  18. Billah, A.H.M.M. and Alam, M.S. (2012). Seismic performance of concrete columns reinforced with hybrid shape memory alloy (SMA) and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. Construction and Building Materials, 28 (1): 730–742. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Billah, A.H.M.M. and Alam, M.S. (2012b). Seismic fragility assessment of concrete bridge pier reinforced with Shape Memory Alloy considering residual displacement, in SPIE Conference on Active and Passive Smart Structures and Integrated Systems VI, 11-15 March 2012, San Diego, California, USA. 83411F:1-13. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bhuiyan, A.R. and Alam, M.S. (2012). Seismic vulnerability assessment of a multi-span continuous highway bridge fitted with shape memory alloy bar and laminated rubber bearing. Earthquake Spectra, 28(4): 1379–1404. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Bipin Shrestha, Chao Li, Hong Hao and Hongnan Li. Performance based seismic assessment of superelastic shape memory alloy reinforced bridge piers considering residual deformations. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 21:7, 1050–1069, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1190798 (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Billah, A.H.M.M. and Alam, M.S. Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of concrete bridge piers reinforced with different types of shape memory alloys. Engineering Structure, 162 :97–108 (2018). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, A. C. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31, 491–514. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Billah, A.H.M.M. and Alam, M.S. Seismic fragility assessment of concrete bridge pier reinforced with Shape Memory Alloy considering residual displacement, in SPIE Conference on Active and Passive Smart Structures and Integrated Systems VI, 11-15 March 2012, San Diego, California, USA. 83411F :1–13 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  25. Cornell, A.C., Jalayer, F. and Hamburger, R.O. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng, 128, 526–532 (2002). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Baker, J.W., Cornell, C.A. Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research report 2006/08, PEER Center, University of California Berkeley. (2006). [Google Scholar]
  27. Nielson, B.G. and Pang, W. (2011) Effect of Ground Motion Suite Size on Uncertainty Estimation in Seismic Bridge Fragility Modeling. Structures Congress 2011: 23–34. [Google Scholar]
  28. Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.N.J. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc. (1992). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. SeismoSoft. SeismoStruct - A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures (Version 6) [Software]. Available from www.seismosoft. (2016). [Google Scholar]
  30. Mander, J. B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804–1826 (1998). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Menegotto, M & Pinto, P.E. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending. Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 15–22 (1973). [Google Scholar]
  32. Auricchio, F., & Sacco, E. A Superelastic shape-memory-alloy beam model. Journal Intelligent Material System Structure, 8(6), 489–501 (1997). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Otani, S. SAKE, A Computer Program for Inelastic Response of R/C Frames to earthquakes, Report UILU-Eng-74-2029, Civil Engineering Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. (1974). [Google Scholar]
  34. Alam, M.S., Youssef, M.A., and Nehdi, M. Exploratory investigation on mechanical anchors for connecting SMA bars to steel or FRP bars, Materials and Structures 43, 91–107 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. SeismoSoft. Seismomatch - A computer program for adjusting earthquake accelerograms to match a specific target response spectrum, using the wavelets algorithm (Version 8) [Software]. Available from www.seismosoft.com (2016). [Google Scholar]
  36. Padgett, J.E., Nielson, B.G., and DesRoches, R. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37, 711–725 (2008). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mackie, K. R., and Stojadinovic, B. Performance-based seismic bridge design for damage and loss limits states, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 36, 1953–1971. (2007). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). HAZUS-MH software, Washington, D.C.(2003). [Google Scholar]
  39. Hose, Y., Silva, P. and Seible, F. Development of a performance evaluation database for concrete bridge components and systems under simulated seismic loads. Earthquake Spectra; 16(2): 413–442. (2000). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G.M. (1996). Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New York. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.