Smart Materials and Structures

PAPER Related content

- Feasibility of externally activated self-
Feasibility of Cu–Al–Mn superelastic alloy bars as repairing concrete with epoxy injection
network and Cu-Al-Mn superelastic alloy
reinforcement elements in concrete beams reinforcing bars
Sanjay Pareek, Kshitij C Shrestha, Yusuke
Suzuki et al.
To cite this article: Kshitij C Shrestha et al 2013 Smart Mater. Struct. 22 025025 - Incremental dynamic analysis of concrete
moment resisting frames reinforced with
shape memory composite bars
Adeel Zafar and Bassem Andrawes

- Energy-dissipating and self-repairing SMA-

View the article online for updates and enhancements. ECC composite material system
Xiaopeng Li, Mo Li and Gangbing Song

Recent citations
- Experimental Investigation on Buckling
and Post-buckling Behavior of
Superelastic Shape Memory Alloy Bars
Amedebrhan M. Asfaw et al

- Seismic Assessment of RC Bridge

Columns Retrofitted with Near-Surface
Mounted Shape Memory Alloy Technique
Ammar Abbass et al

- Performance-based seismic loss

assessment of isolated simply-supported
highway bridges retrofitted with different
shape memory alloy cable restrainers in a
life-cycle context
Shuai Li et al

This content was downloaded from IP address 129.186.252.202 on 16/05/2020 at 09:55

IOP PUBLISHING SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025 (12pp) doi:10.1088/0964-1726/22/2/025025

Feasibility of Cu–Al–Mn superelastic

alloy bars as reinforcement elements in
concrete beams
Kshitij C Shrestha1 , Yoshikazu Araki1 , Takuya Nagae2 , Yuji Koetaka1 ,
Yusuke Suzuki1 , Toshihiro Omori3 , Yuji Sutou3 , Ryosuke Kainuma3 and
Kiyohito Ishida3
1
Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto
University, Katsura, Nishikyo, Kyoto 615-8540, Japan
2
E-Defense, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Shinjimicho, Miki,
Hyogo 673-0515, Japan
3
Department of Materials Science, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Aoba-yama
6-6-02, Sendai 980-8579, Japan

E-mail: araki@archi.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Received 3 August 2012, in final form 1 November 2012

Published 25 January 2013
Online at stacks.iop.org/SMS/22/025025
Abstract
Experimental and numerical works are reported to assess the cyclic response of concrete
beams reinforced with superelastic alloy (SEA) bars. The feasibility of newly developed
Cu–Al–Mn SEA bars, characterized by large recovery strain, low material cost and high
machinability, is examined as partial replacements for conventional steel bars, in order to
reduce residual cracks in structures during and after intense earthquakes. Four-point reverse
cyclic bending tests were done on one-third scale concrete beams comprising three different
types of specimens—conventional steel reinforced concrete, SEA reinforced concrete and
SEA reinforced concrete (RC) with pre-tensioning. The results showed that SEA reinforced
concrete beams demonstrated strong recentering capability and significant enhancement in
crack recovery capacity, in comparison to steel reinforced beams. Furthermore, corresponding
finite element models were generated to simulate the experimental observations. Both the
experimental observations and finite element computations illustrated the superiority of SEA
bars to conventional steel bars in providing RC beam specimens with recentering and crack
recovery capabilities.
(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction structures is normally difficult and in some situations

Reinforced concrete (RC) structures sustain a considerable
amount of damage, showing large regions of residual cracks,
after a sufficiently large earthquake event. RC structures
work effectively in resisting the seismic event and ensuring
the survival of occupants, but after the event they show
large residual drifts, caused by plastic yielding of the steel
reinforcing bars used, affecting their stability. An immediate
reoccupation of the building is usually out of the question
in such a scenario. Furthermore, repair of these damaged
impractical, due to large residual drifts and excessive damage.
Either repairing or demolishing such structures incurs a
considerable cost.
Recent developments have been made on use of shape
memory alloys (SMAs) in structural engineering fields to
solve the above mentioned problems with the possibility of
effective immediate occupancy, with a considerably lower
repair cost involved. SMAs are identified by their two distinct
and unique features, first, shape recovery by application
of heat, and second, shape recovery upon unloading.

0964-1726/13/025025+12$33.00 1 c 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA


Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025
Figure 1. Expected features of RC beams based on hysteresis of reinforcement.
The latter feature is called superelasticity, and SMAs
having superelasticity at room temperature are also called
superelastic alloys (SEAs). The present study concentrates
on the application of SEA bars as partial replacements for
conventional steel reinforcing bars (rebars) in RC beams. The
scope of application of SEA bars in various civil engineering
structures has been extensively reported in Janke et al (2005),
Song et al (2006a) and Ozbulut et al (2011). A significant
amount of work has been done in the field of RC structures
as well. To list a few notable ones, the effectiveness of SEA
bars as energy dissipating recentering braces and passive
control base isolation devices was demonstrated by Dolce
et al (2005, 2007) on RC frames, and further, the seismic
response of RC bridge columns with SEA reinforcement was
studied by Saiidi and Wand (2006). Moser et al (2005),
Deng et al (2006), Song et al (2006b), Saiidi et al (2007),
Li et al (2007), Kuang and Ou (2008), Wierschem and
Andrawes (2010), Speicher et al (2011) and Choi et al
(2011) and Zafar and Andrawes (2012) have also reported
extensive experimental and analytical works on RC beams,
beam–column connections and concrete moment resisting
frames, with application of SEA bars in different forms. In
the works reported above and the majority of studies and
projects conducted so far, Ni–Ti SEAs were applied because
of their superior mechanical properties. However, Ni–Ti alloy
SEAs have high material cost and machining difficulties
that limit their extensive practical use. With the goal of
superior SEAs with lower cost and higher machinability,
development of Cu–Al–Mn SEAs is under way (Sutou et al
2003, 2005, Araki et al 2010). Cu–Al–Mn SEAs are reported
to have superelasticity comparable to that of Ni–Ti SEAs,
and they have essentially no risks to human health as seen
for beryllium alloy SEAs. The Cu–Al–Mn SEAs have a
superelastic temperature window of −40 to 60 ◦ C (Sutou et al
2009). If the increase in temperature is temporary, the upper
2
K C Shrestha et al
value of the superelastic temperature window reaches 100 ◦ C.
Additionally, these Cu–Al–Mn SEAs have also been reported
to work effectively in masonry retrofitting (Shrestha et al
2011, 2012a) and have comparatively lower strain rate effects
than Ni–Ti SEAs (Araki et al 2012).
The present study applies these newly developed
Cu–Al–Mn SEA bars to RC beams as partial replacements
for steel rebars. Here, control over the residual drifts and
large residual cracks is achieved with the superelastic property
offered by the SEA rebars. A typical schematic representation
of this mechanism, when subjected to reverse cyclic loading,
post-plastic yielding of rebars on steel reinforced concrete
(ST-RC) and SEA reinforced concrete (SEA-RC) beams can
be seen in figure 1. Note that part of the experimental work
presented in this paper was reported earlier in Shrestha et al
(2012b), with four-point reverse cyclic loading on beam
specimens, ST-RC, SEA-RC and SEA-PC, where PC stands
for a pre-tensioned reinforced concrete beam. Furthermore,
corresponding finite element (FE) models are developed
to simulate the experimental observations, with additional
sensitivity studies performed to examine the effect of varying
concrete strength on the overall response of the RC beam.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Specimen and materials
Concrete beam specimens of size 750 mm × 125 mm ×
100 mm, as shown in figure 2, were prepared of three
different types—ST-RC, SEA-RC and SEA-PC beams. The
pre-tensioning on the SEA-PC beam specimen was done
at about 80% of the yield stress of SEA bars. Due to
the limited availability of SEA bars for the experiment,
only a single specimen for each type of RC beam was
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025 K C Shrestha et al

Figure 2. Test beam and four-point loading condition with detail of steel/SEA reinforcement.

Figure 3. Results of preliminary cyclic loading tests for steel and SEA bars for steel reinforced concrete (ST-RC), SEA reinforced concrete
(SEA-RC) and SEA pre-tensioned reinforced concrete (SEA-PC) beam specimens.

prepared, and their responses were verified through numerical and figure 3. Furthermore, the effect of the variability
computations. Additionally, the preliminary tests, performed in concrete strength on the response was investigated by
on the eight different SEA bars used, showed similar performing sensitivity analysis through FE computations.
mechanical characteristics as reported later in section 2.1.2 The placing of the main reinforcements and shear rebars is

3
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025
shown in the figure 2. Reinforced beam specimens involved
placing of main rebars of length 150 mm around the center.
To provide continuation to these rebars, mechanical (steel)
couplers were used to connect them to the steel reinforcement.
The properties of materials used during the experimentation
are described below.
2.1.1. Concrete. For the concrete mix, the composition
of cement, sand, aggregate and water was kept at
1:1.42:1.62:0.35 with the maximum size of aggregate being
15 mm. Seven cylindrical test pieces of the mixed concrete,
with diameter 100 mm, and height 200 mm, were prepared for
compressive strength (four pieces) and split tensile strength
(three pieces) determination. The average value of 28-day
compressive strength was 66.2 MPa, with a standard deviation
of 0.54 MPa. Additionally, split tensile tests showed an
average split tensile strength value of 4.35 MPa, at a standard
deviation of 0.1 MPa.
2.1.2. Reinforcing bars. Two different types of main
reinforcing bars were adopted as described in section 2.1 for
comparison purposes. For the ST-RC specimen, steel rebars
of 4 mm diameter were used. These rebars had an average
maximum tensile strength of around 620 MPa from the three
samples of bars tested as shown in figure 3 (top).
The SEA-RC specimen involved 4 mm diameter
Cu–Al–Mn SEA rebars. Cu–16.7 at.% Al–11.6 at.% Mn alloy
was prepared by Furukawa Techno Material Co., Ltd, where
SEA bars were obtained by hot forging and cold drawing.
The solution treatment was conducted at 900 ◦ C, followed
by quenching in water, and they were subsequently aged at
200 ◦ C to stabilize the superelastic property. The martensite
start temperature Ms , the martensite finish temperature Mf ,
the austenite start temperature As , and the austenite finish
temperature Af of the above bars were Ms = −74 ◦ C, Mf =
−91 ◦ C, As = −54 ◦ C and Af = −39 ◦ C. The SEA bars
were trained beforehand up to a strain of 6% by applying
quasi-static cyclic loading, before placing them in the concrete
beams. The results for tensile tests on each SEA rebar are
shown in figure 3. The figure shows the stress–strain plots
for the corresponding SEA rebars used in the SEA-RC and
SEA-PC specimens. For eight different SEA bars used in
figure 3, their constitutive characteristics have reasonably
small variability. The yield or forward transformation stress
of the SEA bar was around 210 MPa on average. Young’s
modulus for the SEA bars was around 28 GPa. This value
of Young’s modulus was taken using the strain values when
stress is 100 and 150 MPa. The value for Young’s modulus
is relatively small because the strain was calculated using the
relative displacement between the grips. Proper threadings at
the end of the bars were made for both steel and SEA rebars as
shown in figure 2 (bottom) to have proper connections to the
steel coupler nuts (SS400 type). The designed larger diameter
threadings at the ends of bars ensure that the threaded portion
remains elastic during the loading process. It should be noted
that excellent machinability of Cu–Al–Mn SEA bars makes
the threading process as easy as with normal steel.
4
K C Shrestha et al
Figure 4. FE model discretization.
2.2. Test procedure
The test procedure involves four-point reverse cyclic loading
on the RC beam with the test set-up adopted as shown in
figure 2. After each half cycle of loading, the other reverse
half cycle was performed after the beam specimen was turned
over upside down. A displacement controlled load was given
so that the amplitude θ = u/(l/2) of the rotation angle of
the beam specimen was equal to 0.005, 0.0075, 0.010, 0.015
and 0.02 rad in both positive and negative half cycles, where
l is span of the beam specimen. Four laser displacement
transducers were used; a couple at the mid-span portion of
the beam specimen and the other two at the support locations.
3. FE modeling
3.1. Model generation
RC beams, subjected to bending, experience cracking and
crushing of concrete material with post-cracking behavior
dominated by the yielding of reinforcing bars. For FE
representation, RC members are discretized with a rectangular
grid of nodes connected with quadrilateral smeared-crack
elements with reinforcing bars as smeared overlay or with
discrete truss elements. In this paper, complete FE models
were generated and analyzed using a general purpose FE
program (DIANA 2008). The details of the elements used are
described below.
3.1.1. Concrete. In this study, an eight-node quadrilateral
isoparametric plane stress element was adopted for represent-
ing concrete elements. Meshing was performed as shown in
figure 4 with the mesh size ranging from 15 to 30 mm (mesh
type-I). To study the mesh size dependency, preliminary FE
analyses were done with finer mesh sizes ranging from 7 to
10 mm (mesh type-II). The computation time for complete
analysis increased from 15 min for mesh type-I up to 160 min
for mesh type-II. A minor difference was observed in terms of
computed restoring force and complete hysteresis. Based on
the above observations, further analysis for all the FE models
reported hereafter is performed with mesh type-I.
Concrete was modeled with constitutive models based on
total strain rotating crack models, which describe the tensile
and compressive behavior of a material with one stress–strain
relationship. The applicability of this model has already been
reported in previous literature for serviceability limit state
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025
Figure 5. Tensile and compression behavior of concrete with a
loading–unloading–reloading scheme.
and ultimate limit state analyses, predominantly governed by
cracking and crushing of the concrete material. Details of the
constitutive model are reported in He et al (2008) and DIANA
(2008).
The tensile behavior of concrete was modeled assuming
a linear tension softening curve as illustrated in figure 5. The
fracture energy, GF , of concrete is calculated according to
CEB-FIP Model Code (1991):
 0 0.7
f stress, fyst , of 550 MPa was adopted with Young’s modulus
GF = (0.0469da − 0.5da + 26) c
2
(1)
10
where da is the maximum aggregate size kept at 15 mm and fc0
is the mean value of standard 28-day cylinder compression
strength of 66 MPa. The crack bandwidth (hc ) is taken as
√
2A, where A is the total area of the element.
The compressive behavior of concrete was assumed
by a multi-linear diagram, as illustrated in figure 5, fully
describing the relationship between the compressive stress
and equivalent total strain based on the test results. Here, a
maximum compressive stress, fcmax , of 66 MPa is adopted at
an equivalent compressive strain, εcmax , of 0.0022.
The secant unloading–reloading scheme was adopted for
concrete, where unloading and reloading are modeled using a
damaged elasticity approach, which implies that unloading is
a function that is linear to the origin. It should be noted that
a more realistic hysteretic scheme (He et al 2008, Okamura
and Maekawa 1991) better predicts the cyclic behavior of
RC at a material level. However, at the structural level, there
is negligible difference when either the idealized secant or
more realistic hysteretic schemes of concrete is used for RC
structures with normal steel reinforcing ratios, as reported by
He et al (2008).
A sensitivity analysis on the tensile strength of concrete
was done to check the variability of FE results with concrete
material properties. Here, analyses were performed for three
different concrete tensile strength values of 0.8ft , ft and 1.2ft ,
where the mean value for ft is 4.35 MPa.
3.1.2. Reinforcing bar. Both the main and shear steel
reinforcement bars were represented by regular embedded
reinforcement elements smeared within concrete elements.
5
K C Shrestha et al
Figure 6. Constitutive model hysteresis for a steel rebar.
The Monti–Nuti model (Monti and Nuti 1992) was employed
in this study to represent the hysteretic stress–strain behavior
of reinforcing steel as shown in figure 6. The memory
hardening rule was chosen for each load reversal. A yield
Est = 210 GPa and other parameter values for the steel bars
were assumed based on test results and values proposed
by Monti and Nuti as follows: initial hardening ratio, b0 =
0.03; initial curvature parameter, R0 = 20; material constants,
A1 = 18.5 and A2 = 0.0001; weighing coefficient, P = 0.5.
The constitutive law and its details with the parameters
involved are reported in Monti and Nuti (1992) and DIANA
(2008).
SEA bars were represented by truss elements with their
superelastic property incorporated by assuming superposition
of a tri-linear elastic constitutive model element and an
energy dissipative element as shown in figure 7, with the
same behavior adopted for positive and negative loading
cycles. Here, two elements were connected in parallel between
the same two nodes, one incorporating the tri-linear elastic
model and the other the energy dissipating model. The
superposition of the two elements would represent a global
superelastic model with a flag-shaped damping characteristic
as illustrated in figure 7. The parameters involved for each
model can be seen in figure 7, with their values adopted for the
tri-linear elastic model, E1EL = 24 GPa, E2EL = 1 GPa, E3EL =
0.5 GPa, σ1EL = 170 MPa and for an energy dissipative plastic
element, E1PL = 5 GPa, E2PL = 0 GPa, E4PL = 5 GPa, σ1PL =
40 MPa. The resulting hysteresis (with E1 = 26.5 GPa, E2 =
1 GPa, E3 = 0.5 GPa, E4 = 5 GPa, σ1 = 210 MPa) obtained
after the superposition represents reasonably closely that
observed experimentally using SEA bars. This type of
superposition to characterize the flag-shaped restoring force
characteristics can be found in Dolce et al (2000). Perfect
bonding between the concrete and all the reinforcement
elements was assumed.
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025
Figure 7. Constitutive model hysteresis for a SEA rebar.
Figure 8. Experimental observation for a steel reinforced concrete (ST-RC) specimen: (a) resisting force versus rotation angle plots; (b)
maximum and residual crack widths during each loading cycle.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. ST-RC specimen
Figure 8(a) shows the plot for results of resisting force
versus rotation angle for cyclic loading performed on the
ST-RC beam specimen. The specimen showed an initial peak
response representing the tensile cracking of the concrete
beam. Afterwards, with progressive incremental loading,
post-reinforcement yielding, the ST-RC specimen started
to show excessive residual deformations and cracks upon
unloading, mainly as a result of plastic deformations of
the steel reinforcing bars. Comparisons of the experimental
response with theoretical assumptions are also made with
6
K C Shrestha et al
formulations based on computations of load carrying capacity,
taking into account the nominal yield stresses and the
maximum load carrying capacity stresses of the reinforcing
bars used as shown in equation (2). Here, yield and maximum
capacity stress values for the steel bars were taken to be
550 MPa (for FRY ) and 620 MPa (for FRC ), respectively. The
theoretically computed resisting force is obtained as
!
n
1 X
FR = (Tj × xj ) + MP . (2)
lR j=1
Here, lR is the distance of the resisting force from the support
reaction, j is the number of rebars in tension, Tj is the tensile
strength of the jth rebar, xj is the lever arm distance of the
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025
Figure 9. Steel reinforced concrete (ST-RC) beam cracking patterns at peak (left) and release (right) of load (cycle −0.02 rad).
Figure 10. Experimental observations for the SEA reinforced concrete (SEA-RC) specimen: (a) resisting force versus rotation angle plots,
(b) maximum and residual crack widths during each loading cycle.
jth rebar in tension from the top and MP is the moment
contribution due to pre-tensioning performed.
Furthermore, figure 8(a) also shows the cyclic restoring
force versus rotation angle plot for the FE-ST-RC model.
Here, plots are made for the tensile strength of concrete,
ft , at 4.35 MPa. The FE computations simulated the
hysteretic response of experimental observations reasonably
well. A detailed report on the hysteresis with corresponding
sensitivity study is given in section 4.4. Hysteresis plots and
results, here onwards, with a rotation angle of 0.02 rad are
omitted for brevity. Details on experimental hysteresis at
larger rotation angles were reported previously by Shrestha
et al (2012b).
Figure 8(b) shows the experimentally obtained maximum
and residual crack width comparisons during the loading
history for the ST-RC specimen. Here, measurements of
the crack widths at each cycle were made using a crack
scale. Negligible recovery of cracks can be seen with a very
slight difference between the maximum and residual crack
7
K C Shrestha et al
widths observed. An average recovery of cracks of 21%
was observed. Here, the recovery of cracks represents the
ratio of recovered to maximum crack width observed for the
particular cycle. Experimentally observed cracking patterns
for ST-RC are shown in figure 9, with comparisons made
between the observations made at the maximum rotation angle
deformation level of −0.02 rad and its subsequent release
of load. As shown in the figure, the maximum crack width
observed of around 6 mm recovered up to 5.5 mm at the
release of load, with only 0.5 mm of crack recovered.
4.2. SEA-RC specimen
Figure 10(a) shows a plot of the results for resisting
force versus rotation angle for cyclic loading performed on
a SEA-RC beam specimen. With progressive incremental
loading, in contrary to the ST-RC specimen, the SEA-RC
specimen showed a typical superelastic response, with
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025
Figure 11. SEA reinforced concrete (SEA-RC) beam cracking patterns at peak (left) and release (right) of load (cycle −0.02 rad).
Figure 12. Experimental observation for the SEA pre-tensioned concrete (SEA-PC) specimen: (a) resisting force versus rotation angle
plots, (b) maximum and residual crack widths during each loading cycle.
recentering capability and significant enhancement in crack
recovery capacity. For comparisons of the experimental
response, theoretical computation, as given in equation (2),
is used with the yield value for the SEA bars to be 210 MPa
based on the results reported in section 2 and their maximum
capacity stress assumed to be 400 MPa (Araki et al 2010).
The restoring force hysteresis for FE-SEA-RC, in figure 10(a),
closely represented the experimental observation as well
as theoretical assumptions. The resisting force values are
computed as reasonably close to experimental observations.
The hysteretic damping for the SEA-RC specimen was
also closely assumed by the superposed superelastic model,
incorporated for the SEA bar in the FE-SEA-RC model.
Further comparisons on other parameters of hysteresis are
reported in sections 4.4 and 4.5.
Figure 10(b) shows the maximum and residual crack
width comparisons during the experimental loading history
for the SEA-RC specimen. Recovery of cracks and the
8
K C Shrestha et al
recentering mechanism of the SEA-RC specimen can be
clearly seen, with an average crack recovery of 84%.
Experimentally observed cracking patterns for SEA-RC are
shown in figure 11, with comparisons made between the
observations at the maximum rotation angle deformation level
of −0.02 rad and its subsequent release of load. From the
figure, the maximum crack width observed of around 5 mm
was recovered up to 0.3 mm at the release of the load, which
is highly superior to that observed for the ST-RC specimen.
4.3. SEA-PC specimen
The plot of the results for resisting force versus rotation
angle for cyclic loading performed on the SEA-PC beam
specimen is shown in figure 12(a). The response is very
similar to SEA-RC specimen with large recovery of cracks
and recentering capabilities. In comparison to the SEA-RC
specimen, a slightly higher resisting force was achieved with
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025
Figure 13. SEA pre-tensioned concrete (SEA-PC) beam cracking patterns at peak (left) and release (right) of load (cycle −0.02 rad).
the applied pre-tensioning to the SEA bars. The theoretically
computed resisting force is obtained using equation (2) with
yield and maximum capacity stress values for the SEA bars
adopted as 210 MPa and 400 MPa, respectively, and a proper
value for the moment contribution due to pre-tensioning of
the SEA bars. FE-SEA-PC also showed hysteresis, closely
representing the experimental observations and theoretical
assumptions, with reasonably close estimation of the energy
dissipation.
Comparison of the experimentally observed maximum
and residual crack widths for the SEA-PC specimen is
shown in figure 12(b). An average recovery of cracks of
86% was attained during the cyclic loading. Crack patterns
observed experimentally for SEA-PC are shown in figure 13,
with comparisons made between the observations made at a
maximum rotation angle deformation level of −0.02 rad and
its subsequent release of load. Here, the maximum crack width
observed of around 6 mm was recovered up to 0.6 mm at the
release of the load.
4.4. Sensitivity analysis
This section reports on the sensitivity study performed with
variation in concrete tensile strength in the FE models. Here, a
detailed illustration of the hysteresis, with comparison of three
primary parameters, the resisting force, the residual rotation
angle and the stiffness, is given. Variations in the FE results
during sensitivity analysis are represented by error bars in the
corresponding figures.
Plots are illustrated in figure 14. The top three figures
depict parameter comparison for ST-RC, the middle three
for SEA-RC and the bottom ones for the SEA-PC specimen.
Peak resisting force and residual rotation angle were obtained
from the corresponding hysteresis with values taken for each
positive and negative cycle. Stiffness was computed taking
9
K C Shrestha et al
secant stiffness at each load cycle. From figure 14, the
following observations can be made:
(1) The initial (first cycle) peak resisting forces observed
represented the tensile cracking of the concrete beam.
Post-yielding of the rebar (from the second cycle), the
resisting force was almost constant for all the specimens
governed by the yield strength of the corresponding rebar
used.
(2) All corresponding FE models predicted the resisting force
recorded reasonably well, and more closely post-yielding
of the rebar. For FE-SEA-RC and FE-SEA-PC models,
no substantial sensitivity was seen on the resisting force
computed after yielding of the rebar. The response of
the FE-ST-RC model to the change in concrete tensile
strength was relatively large, possibly due to residual
strains at the end of each cycle limiting the crack closing,
and subsequent opening of new cracks at each reloading.
(3) Residual rotation increased with the increment in rotation
angle for the ST-RC specimen. For both SEA-RC and
SEA-PC specimens, slight increments in residual rotation
were recorded. This was understandably due to plastic
deformation in the steel rebars and the superelastic
property of SEA rebars.
(4) FE computations predicted the residual rotation to
be reasonably close to experimental observations.
There was a negligible effect of concrete tensile
strength on the computed residual rotation through
sensitivity studies for all the models. The FE-ST-
RC model showed close representation of ST-RC.
However, there are some discrepancies for both FE-
SEA-RC and FE-SEA-PC, where the computed residual
rotations were slightly underestimated in comparison
to experimental observations. As reported previously in
section 3.1.1, the reason for this disagreement is the secant
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025
Figure 14. Comparison between experimental observations and FE computations under three parameters, the peak resisting force, the
residual rotation and the stiffness, for ST-RC (top), SEA-RC (middle) and SEA-PC (bottom) specimens.
unloading–reloading scheme adopted for concrete in this
study, rather than a more realistic hysteretic scheme.
Additionally, the perfect bond assumed between the
concrete elements and rebars also restricts the residual slip
that can possibly occur in experimentation. Nevertheless,
the FE hysteresis characterizes the recentering capability
and flag-shaped hysteresis, observed experimentally,
reasonably well.
(5) Secant stiffness decreased as the rotation angle increased.
ST-RC showed greater stiffness than SEA-RC and
SEA-PC, due to higher yield stress for the steel rebars.
The secant stiffnesses for all the specimens were
approximately 30% of the initial stiffnesses at a rotation
angle of 0.015 rad.
(6) Each FE model represented the experimentally observed
stiffness closely, with negligible sensitivity towards
change in concrete tensile strength.
10
K C Shrestha et al
4.5. Equivalent damping ratio
Furthermore, comparisons of the equivalent damping ratio
of the ST-RC and SEA-RC specimens were done to
check the damping characteristics. Here, the damping
ratio for each loading cycle has been computed with
summation of the energy dissipated in subsequent positive
and negative half cycles. The computation done, as given
in equation (3), for the SEA-RC specimen showed a fairly
effective energy dissipation capacity characteristic, with
around 10% equivalent damping ratio for the cycles involved.
The damping ratio is lower than that observed for ST-RC,
as shown in figure 15, which is mainly due to plastic
deformation of the steel rebars; however, a 10% equivalent
damping ratio in the SEA-RC specimen is relatively large
for seismic application purposes. The SEA-PC specimen
showed further enhancement in energy dissipation with
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025
Figure 15. Equivalent damping ratio: (a) variable definition for computation of damping ratio and (b) comparison of the equivalent
damping ratio for experimental and FE computations.
an equivalent damping ratio around 14%. The damping
ratio computed for FE assumptions also represented the
experimental observations reasonably well. Here, the FE
results have been plotted for a mean value of concrete tensile
strength, ft , of 4.35 MPa.
Here, the equivalent damping ratio Hi is obtained as
1Wi 1 observations reasonably well, with sensitivity studies showing
Hi = , Wi = Fi ui
4πWi 2
where 1Wi is the dissipated energy, Fi is the applied force at a
specified displacement level ui and i represents the particular
cycle.
5. Conclusions
Experimental and numerical studies were done to examine
the applicability of Cu–Al–Mn SEA bars as reinforcement
elements instead of conventional steel rebars in RC beams.
Reverse cyclic four-point loading was performed on three
different sets of specimens, ST-RC, SEA-RC and SEA-PC.
Comparison of the responses of the specimens showed
SEA-RC and SEA-PC beams with highly superior perfor-
mance, in terms of their recentering capability as well as
crack recovery. For the ST-RC specimen, at the maximum
rotation angle of −0.02 rad, the crack width observed of
around 6 mm recovered up to 5.5 mm at the release of
load with only 0.5 mm of crack recovery. There were large
residual deformations and the specimen was visibly unstable.
This unstable state increases the collapse potential of such
structures. Furthermore, repair with visibly large residual
deformations is extremely difficult. In case of the SEA-RC
specimen, at same rotation angle, a maximum crack width of
5 mm was recovered up to 0.3 mm at the release of the load.
Furthermore, the SEA-PC specimen showed behavior where
around 6 mm of crack width was recovered up to 0.6 mm at the
release of the load. Both the SEA-RC and SEA-PC specimens
showed a far superior response with substantial recovery of
cracks. These small-width cracks can be effectively healed,
incorporating self-healing mechanisms with possible release
K C Shrestha et al
of adhesives from hollow fibers (Kuang and Ou 2008) or
epoxy injection through networks. Additionally, SEA-RC
and SEA-PC specimens showed energy dissipation with the
computed value of equivalent damping ratio being around
10% and 14%, respectively.
The developed FE models simulated the experimental
(3) negligible effect of concrete tensile strength on global re-
sponse of the RC beam, post-yielding of rebars. Experimental
observations and numerical computations show effectiveness
of SEA bars as reinforcing elements in RC beams, with
the possibility of further applications of these newly
developed Cu–Al–Mn SEA bars in other seismic performance
enhancements. However, it should be noted that further
applications would require larger scale experimentation on
real scale and practical RC structural components. Although
real scale models can be developed using the FE models
proposed in this study, further study is required on the size
dependence of the constitutive relations in Cu–Al–Mn SEA
bars. Furthermore, commercialization of Cu–Al–Mn SEA
bars with small to medium scale diameters (4–16 mm) is
under way, with the authors’ possible future work involving
full-scale experimentations.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by A-STEP program (no.
AS2315014C) of the Japan Science and Technology Agency
(JST). This research was also partially supported by
the Obayashi Foundation. The experimental works were
supported by Mr Nobutoshi Yoshida, Mr Hayato Yano and Ms
Nao Maekawa. The authors acknowledge this support.
References
Araki Y, Endo T, Omori T, Sutou Y, Koetaka Y, Kainuma R and
Ishida K 2010 Potential of superelastic Cu–Al–Mn alloy bars
for seismic applications Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 40 107–15
11
Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 025025
Araki Y, Maekawa N, Omori T, Sutou Y, Kainuma R and
Ishida K 2012 Rate-dependent response of superelastic
Cu–Al–Mn alloy rods to tensile cyclic loads Smart Mater.
Struct. 21 032002
Choi E, Chung Y and Kim Y 2011 Monotonic and cyclic bond
behavior of confined concrete using NiTiNb SMA wires Smart
Mater. Struct. 20 075016
Comite Euro-International du Beton 1991 CEB-FIP Model Code
1990 (London: Thomas Telford)
Deng Z, Li Q and Sun H 2006 Behavior of concrete beams with
embedded shape memory alloy wires Eng. Struct. 28 1691–7
DIANA 2008 DIANA User’s Manual Release 9.3 (Delft: TNO
DIANA BV)
Dolce M, Cardone D and Marnetto R 2000 Implementation and
testing of passive control devices based on shape memory
alloys Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 29 945–68
Dolce M, Cardone D and Ponzo F C 2007 Shaking-table tests on
reinforced concrete frames with different isolation systems
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36 573–96
Dolce M, Cardone D, Ponzo F C and Valente C 2005 Shaking table
tests on reinforced concrete frames without and with passive
control systems Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34 1687–717
He W, Wu Y F and Liew K M 2008 A fracture energy based
constitutive model for the analysis of reinforced concrete
structures under cyclic loading Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng. 197 4745–62
Janke L, Czaderski C, Motavalli M and Ruth J 2005 Applications of
shape memory alloys in civil engineering
structures—overview, limits and new ideas Mater. Struct.
38 578–92
Kuang Y and Ou J 2008 Self-repairing performance of concrete
beams strengthened using superelastic SMA wires in
combination with adhesives released from hollow fibers Smart
Mater. Struct. 17 025020
Li H, Liu Z and Ou J 2007 Study on reinforced concrete beams
strengthened using shape memory alloy wires in combinations
with carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer plates Smart Mater.
Struct. 16 2550–9
Monti G and Nuti C 1992 Nonlinear cyclic behavior of reinforcing
bar including buckling J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 118 3268–84
Moser K, Bergamini A, Christen R and Czaderski C 2005
Feasibility of concrete prestressed by shape memory alloy
short fibers Mater. Struct. 38 593–600
Okamura H and Maekawa K 1991 Nonlinear Analysis and
Constitutive Models of Reinforced Concrete (Tokyo:
Gihodo-Shuppan Press)
12
K C Shrestha et al
Ozbulut O E, Hurlebaus S and Desroches R 2011 Seismic response
control using shape memory alloys: a review J. Intell. Mater.
Syst. Struct. 22 1531–49
Saiidi M S, Sadrossadat-Zadeh M, Ayoub C and Itani A 2007 Pilot
study of behavior of concrete beams reinforced with shape
memory alloys J. Mater. Civil Eng. 19 454–61
Saiidi S and Wand H 2006 Exploratory study of seismic response of
concrete columns with shape memory alloys reinforcement
ACI Struct. J. 103 436–43
Shrestha K C, Araki Y, Nagae T, Omori T, Sutou Y,
Kainuma R and Ishida K 2011 Applicability of Cu–Al–Mn
shape memory alloy rods to retrofitting of historical masonry
constructions Earthq. Struct. 2 233–56
Shrestha K C, Araki Y, Nagae T, Omori T, Sutou Y,
Kainuma R and Ishida K 2012a Effectiveness of superelastic
bars for seismic rehabilitation of clay-unit masonry walls
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. at press, doi:10.1002/eqe.2241
Shrestha K C, Araki Y, Nagae T, Yano H, Koetaka Y, Omori T,
Sutou Y, Kainuma R and Ishida K 2012b Application of
Cu–Al–Mn superelastic alloy bars as reinforcement elements
in concrete beams Proc. SPIE 8345 83452K1
Song G, Ma N and Li H N 2006a Applications of shape memory
alloys in civil structures Eng. Struct. 28 1266–74
Song G, Mo Y L, Otero K and Gu H 2006b Health monitoring and
rehabilitation of a concrete structure using intelligent materials
Smart Mater. Struct. 15 309–14
Speicher M S, DesRoches R and Leon R T 2011 Experimental
results of a NiTi shape memory alloy (SMA)-based recentering
beam–column connection Eng. Struct. 33 2448–57
Sutou Y, Koeda N, Omori T, Kainuma R and Ishida K 2009 Effects
of aging on stress-induced martensitic transformation in ductile
Cu–Al–Mn-based shape memory alloys Acta Mater.
57 5759–70
Sutou Y, Omori T, Kainuma R and Ishida K 2003 Effect of grain
size and texture on superelasticity of Cu–Al–Mn-based shape
memory alloys J. Physique IV 112 511–4
Sutou Y, Omori T, Yamauchi K, Ono N, Kainuma R and
Ishida K 2005 Effect of grain size and texture on
pseudoelasticity in Cu–Al–Mn-based shape memory wire Acta
Mater. 53 4121–33
Wierschem N and Andrawes B 2010 Superelastic SMA-FRP
composite reinforcement for concrete structures Smart Mater.
Struct. 19 025011
Zafar A and Andrawes B 2012 Incremental dynamic analysis of
concrete moment resisting frames reinforced with shape
memory composite bars Smart Mater. Struct. 21 025013