Article 1

Numerical Investigation on the Performance of Reinforced 2

Concrete Beam-Column Joints Upgraded with Shape Memory 3

Alloys 4

Mahmoud Higazey 1, Mohammad Alshannag 1,* and Ali Alqarni 1 5

1 Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia 6
* Correspondence: mjshanag@ksu.edu.sa 7

Abstract: Upgraded design standards coupled with the damage caused by natural disasters, have 8
led to the development of smart materials with the potential to modernize current construction 9
practices. This investigation proposes a nonlinear finite element (FE) model for evaluating the per- 10
formance of beam-column joints (RC-BCJ) reinforced with shape memory alloys (SMA) and steel 11
rebars. The model was validated based on accredited experimental data, followed by parametric 12
analysis in ABAQUS to optimize the use of SMA bars for enhancing the seismic resistance of RC- 13
BCJ without compromising their energy dissipation capacity. Parameters investigated include: (a) 14
SMA-steel reinforcement ratio (b) lengths of SMA bar (c) elastic modulus of SMA (d) compressive 15
strength of concrete and (e) axial load applied on the column. The finite element simulations results 16
indicated that the model was capable of predicting the optimum length of SMA bar sufficient for 17
relocating the plastic hinge away from the face of the column along the beam. Besides, simulation 18
results proved that the use of SMA bars in conjunction with steel reinforcement can be considered 19
as an effective tool for enhancing the seismic performance of RC-BCJ joints. Among the parameters 20
investigated, high strength concrete was the most effective in improving the joint resistance. 21

Keywords: Reinforced concrete joint; shape memory alloy; energy dissipation; ABAQUS. 22
23

1. Introduction 24
In active seismic regions, moderate to severe earthquakes induce permanent inelastic 25
deformation at the beam-column joint interface due to yielding of steel reinforcement at 26
the maximum moment sections. This residual deformation cannot be recovered partially, 27
Citation: To be added by editorial
and or fully using the conventional techniques, and design codes recommended practices 28
staff during production.
respectively. This may lead to poor performance of the structure in terms of ductility and 29
Academic Editor: Firstname Last- post-yield behavior, losses in serviceability and increased maintenance requirements. 30
name After the occurrence of Kobe earthquake in Japan in 1995, there has been an increasing 31

Received: date
interest in the behavior of beam-column joints subjected to lateral loads. During that 32

Revised: date
earthquake over 100 reinforced concrete columns with a residual drift ratio of over 1.75% 33
Accepted: date were demolished even though they did not collapse [1]. Residual displacements have 34
Published: date been shown to be an important measure of post-earthquake functionality in bridges and 35
buildings and can determine whether the structure remains usable or not [2,3]. Most of 36
the traditional and advanced repair/retrofit techniques used for enhancing the seismic 37

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

performance of RC-BCJ subjected to cyclic lateral loads were not able to recover partially 38

Submitted for possible open access

or fully the residual displacements after unloading. Thus, developing seismic repair and 39
publication under the terms and retrofit methods capable of self-centering and displacement recovery is essential for ex- 40
conditions of the Creative Commons tending the life span and reducing post maintenance requirements of concrete structures 41
Attribution (CC BY) license built in active seismic zones. Recently, with the increased awareness of the importance of 42
(https://creativecommons.org/license residual displacements, several novel systems have been investigated to mitigate their 43
s/by/4.0/).

Buildings 2023, 13, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 24

effects and improve the displacement recovery. A promising new way of resolving this 44
problem is to use smart materials such as SMA in reinforced concrete joints [4-16]. 45
Many theoretical studies have investigated the performance of RC-BCJ using differ- 46
ent nonlinear finite element programs. Li and Leong [17] carried out a parametric study 47
through finite element analysis using DIANA [18] for investigating the performance of 48
high-strength interior RC-BCJ. Their test results indicated that the story shears were in- 49
creased by 12% as the strength of concrete increased from 30 to 40 MPa, and by 15% as the 50
axial load was increased from 0 to 30% of the column axial load capacity. Youssef et al. 51
[19] tested two large-scale RC-BCJ specimens to investigate experimentally the feasibility 52
of using super elastic SMA as a reinforcement for reducing the residual displacements of 53
the joint under cyclic loading. The results demonstrated that SMA RC-BCJ recovered most 54
of its post-yield residual deformation whereas conventional RC-BCJ experienced large re- 55
sidual deformations. The findings of Youssef’s study were used by Halahla et al. [20], to 56
determine numerically using ABAQUS, the influence of axial load level on the perfor- 57
mance of the joint under monotonic load [21]. Their results demonstrated that the pres- 58
ence of axial column load reduces the damage and the cracks in the joints, and allows 59
higher load levels to be applied on the beams prior to failure. Basim et al. [22] carried out 60
a numerical analysis using ABAQUS, on reinforced concrete frames with embedded car- 61
bon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars in the joints. Their results exhibited a significant 62
increase in lateral load, stiffness and ductility of the joints with embedded CFRP bars. 63
Shannag et al. [23] used nonlinear static (pushover) procedure (NSP) to model and inves- 64
tigate the effect of the fiber content on the performance of interior RC-BCJ using high 65
strength fiber reinforced concrete in the critical region. They proved that NSP was capable 66
of predicting the load-deflection and moment-curvature of RC-BCJ. Moreover, they dis- 67
covered that the dissipated energy of RC joints increased significantly with the increase 68
in fiber content. Oudah and El-Hacha [24] developed single and double slotted beam tech- 69
niques for self-centering RC concrete connection reinforced with SMA bars. The tech- 70
niques were experimentally tested under cyclic load and numerically simulated using 71
ABAQUS under monotonic load. Their test results demonstrated that the effectiveness of 72
the system in improving the self-centering capability; reduced the deformations of the 73
joint, and relocated the plastic hinge away from the column face compared to conventional 74
RC-BCJ. Moreover, their results revealed a linear increase of the ultimate load with the 75
increase in concrete strength. In addition, increasing the yield strength of steel from 300 76
to 500 MPa, resulted in 27.4 % in ultimate displacement. 77
Despite the substantial self-centering and displacement recovery capabilities of SMA 78
materials, their lower energy dissipation capacity compared to that of steel is still a con- 79
troversial issue that limits their use in concrete structures [19, 25-29]. This is due to the 80
larger hysteretic loop of steel and the severe cracks concentrated at the plastic hinge area 81
as a result of the inelastic response of structure. Limited or scarce information exist in the 82
literature that addressed the combined effect of SMA bars and steel reinforcement on the 83
structural performance of RC beam-column subassemblages. Therefore, this study aims 84
at proposing an innovative technique that uses SMA bars in conjunction with steel rein- 85
forcement in the plastic hinge zone to overcome this problem. This technique is intended 86
to take full advantage of the excellent deformation recovery provided by SMA and the 87
higher energy dissipation capability provided by steel for improving the seismic re- 88
sistance of the structure. Moreover, a numerical study using finite element analysis was 89
performed for optimizing the use of SMA bars for enhancing the seismic resistance of RC- 90
BCJ without compromising their energy dissipation capacity. The parameters investi- 91
gated include: (a) SMA-steel reinforcement ratio (b) lengths of SMA bar (c) elastic modu- 92
lus of SMA (d) compressive strength of concrete and (e) axial load applied on the column. 93
The results of this study are expected to shed light on the most suitable length of SMA 94
bars required for mitigating the residual displacements of normal and high strength rein- 95
forced concrete frames, built in active seismic zones. 96
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 24

2. Experimental Reference 97
The laboratory experiments performed by Youssef et al. [19] were used as an accred- 98
ited reference for the present numerical investigation. Youssef’s study considered the ef- 99
fect of using SMA on the seismic behavior of external RC beam column joints using two 100
¾ scale specimens. The first specimen (steel-BCJ) was well seismically designed and rein- 101
forced with steel reinforcement, whereas the second specimen (SMA-BCJ) was partially 102
reinforced by SMA bars in the plastic hinge of the beam as shown in Figure 1. Their test 103
results exhibited very small residual displacements for reinforced (SMA-BCJ) joints com- 104
pared to the corresponding displacements of the conventional steel-RC beam-column 105
joint (steel-BCJ), as shown in Figure 2. Moreover, the use of SE-SMA bars in the joint re- 106
gion successfully relocated the plastic hinge region away from the face of the column to a 107
distance of approximately half the beam-depth. It is observed from Figure 2 that the SMA- 108
BCJ dissipated less energy compared to steel-BCJ. However, the energy dissipated by 109
the SMA-BCJ could be equivalent to that of steel-BCJ, and enhanced further by optimizing 110
the use of steel bars in conjunction with SMA bars as shown in the following sections. 111

112
Figure 1. Reinforcement details of specimens, steel-BCJ and SMA-BCJ (all dimensions in mm) [19]. 113

Figure 2. Beam tip load-story drift relationship of specimens: (a) Steel-BCJ; and (b) SMA-BCJ. [19] 114

115
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 24

3. Finite Element Modelling 116

Three dimensional (3-D) nonlinear finite element models were developed in 117
ABAQUS and validated by experimental data for the RC-BCJ investigated. The elements, 118
interactions, boundary conditions, and materials are explained in the subsequent sections. 119

3.1. Elements, Interactions, and Boundary Conditions 120

The modeling of the RC-BCJ includes modeling the concrete, steel and SMA rein- 121
forcements. An 8-node solid (C3D8R), and two-nodded truss elements (T3D2) were re- 122
spectively employed for modeling concrete and rebars of RC joints. The steel and SMA 123
reinforcement were modeled assuming a perfect bond between steel and concrete, and 124
thus embedded region interaction was employed, as shown in Figures 3(a) and 3(b). Tie 125
contact was used to simulate the coupler contact between steel and SMA bars. The discre- 126
tized mesh of the RC-BCJ is shown in Figure 3(c). The pin and roller supports at both ends 127
of columns were modelled in ABAQUS to simulate the boundary conditions of the exper- 128
imental study. Besides, the reference points were assigned to calculate the reaction forces 129
easily from the supports during the test as shown in Figure 4. As reported by many re- 130
searchers [20, 24, 30-33], the pinching effect is a limitation for embedded constraint in 131
ABAQUS software and could not be addressed in simulating the cyclic performance of 132
RC structures. Therefore, in this investigation, a monotonic load was applied at the tip of 133
the beam, in addition to a constant axial load applied at the end of the column, equals to 134
15% of the column capacity. 135

Figure 3. (a) Reinforcement of RC beam column joint (b) Embedded region contact between concrete 136
and reinforcement (c) Typical finite element mesh of RC-BCJ. 137

138
Figure 4. Boundary conditions of RC-BCJ (a) Experimental [19] (b) Numerical. 139
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24

3.2. Materials Models 140

In the numerical study, the concrete plasticity model available in ABAQUS was em- 141
ployed to model the inelastic behavior of concrete. The plasticity parameters of concrete 142
are presented in Table 1. The compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete 143
were 53 MPa and 31179 MPa, respectively. The yield and ultimate strengths of longitudi- 144
nal steel rebars were 450 and 650 MPa respectively, and 422 MPa and 682 MPa for trans- 145
verse steel reinforcement, respectively. The modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of 146
steel rebars were 193 GPa and 0.3, respectively. The density of concrete and steel were 147
taken as 2.4×10-9 and 7.85×10-9 ton/mm3, respectively. The SMA bars were defined using 148
the newly built-in material definition of superelastic behavior in ABAQUS version 2019 149
and newer [21], as shown in Figure 5. The definition of superelasticity in ABAQUS is 150
based on the constitutive relationship proposed by Auricchio and Taylor work [34,35]. 151
Their model was capable of describing the force–deformation relationship of SMA as 152
demonstrated in the numerical studies performed by Shrestha and Hao [28], and Fugazza 153
[36]. The parameters used to define the SMA bars in this investigation were obtained from 154
the experimental cyclic load test carried out by Youssef et al. [19], as shown in Table 2. 155

Table 1. Parameters of damage-plasticity model. 156

Dilation angle Eccentricity fb0/fc0 k Viscosity parameter

40 0.1 1.16 0.667 0

Table 2. Mechanical properties of SMA bars used in ABAQUS. 157

Start of End of Start of End of

Young’s Transformation
transformation transformation transformation transformation
Modulus Strain
(Loading) (Loading) (Unloading) (Unloading)
𝝈𝒔𝒕𝑳 𝝈𝑬𝒕𝑳 𝝈𝒔𝒕𝑼 𝝈𝑬𝒕𝑼 EA 𝜺𝑳
450 MPa 500 MPa 350 MPa 180 MPa 32000 MPa 0.055
158

159
Figure 5. Performance of superelastic material under uniaxial tension (ABAQUS Manual) [21]. 160

4. Model Validation 161

The first stage in this study was the validation of the numerical models developed in 162
ABAQUS using the experimental test results obtained by Youssef et al. [19]. Figure 6 pro- 163
vides comparisons between the numerical and experimental results for the joints rein- 164
forced by steel rebars (steel-BCJ) or SMA bars (SMA-BCJ). The numerical results seem to 165
be closely matching the experimental test results. Following the validation of the model 166
developed, a parametric investigation was carried out to determine the most influential 167
parameters on the seismic response of the joint. 168
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24

169
Figure 6. Experimental and Numerical Beam tip-load versus story drift envelope for the specimens 170
steel-BCJ and SMA-BCJ. 171

5. Numerical Study 172

To investigate the effect of different ratios of SMA to steel rebars on the behavior of 173
RC beam column-joint, the joint reinforcement designed by Youssef et al. [19] was 174
changed from 2∅20 mm (As= 628 mm2) to 3∅16 mm (As= 603 mm2). A typical layout of the 175
various reinforcement details proposed in this study are presented in Figure 7. The nu- 176
merical results obtained from the finite element analysis using ABAQUS are shown in 177
Figures 8 through 12. They included 3-dimensional views of the reinforcement and their 178
stress distribution, comparison of the load displacement curves, stress at the middle of the 179
bottom rebars versus the span of the beam, comparison between the stresses in steel and 180
SMA bars along the span of the beam, and a comparison between the load applied at the 181
tip of the beam versus the story drift. It is observed from the figures that the numerical 182
load-deflection relationships were similar to the experimental test results obtained by 183
Youssef et al. [19]. The stress distributions in the reinforcement along the span of the beam 184
proved that the use of SMA bars in the plastic hinge region prevented the yielding of steel 185
rebars and thus eliminated the risk of permanent deformations. Moreover, the numerical 186
results indicated that the minimum length of SMA bars required to avoid high stresses in 187
the couplers between the SMA bars and steel bars is about 360 mm. Beyond that length, 188
yielding of steel bars can be avoided, and failure of the joint and post maintenance re- 189
quirements can be alleviated. It should be noted that the length of SMA bars used by 190
Youssef et al. [19] was conservative and long enough to contain the plastic hinge region. 191
Therefore, the structural designers should choose carefully couplers with a strength ca- 192
pacity higher than that steel and SMA bars to avoid any unexpected failure mode in the 193
coupler. 194
The details and designations of the parameters influencing the response of the RC- 195
BCJ investigated numerically are listed in Tables 3 and 4. The definition of concrete dam- 196
age-plasticity model parameters for 25 MPa, 40 MPa and 70 MPa concretes are presented 197
in Figure 13. All the specimens were tested under monotonic load applied at the tip of the 198
beam up to a drift ratio of 8%. The applied load versus deflection were recorded for push 199
and pull directions to compare the response of the joints in terms of load capacity, stiff- 200
ness, and energy dissipation. As a measure of the energy dissipation of the specimens, the 201
area under the load–displacement envelopes were computed and defined as the energy 202
that could be dissipated by the specimens before the system loses its stability [37,38]. The 203
secant stiffness was calculated from the slope of the line drawn between the origin and a 204
point on the envelope corresponding to 40% of the ultimate load. 205
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24

206
Figure 7. (a) Typical reinforcement details of the specimens (b) Reinforcement details at the plastic 207
hinge of RC-BCJ specimens (all dimensions in mm). 208

209
Figure 8. Reinforcement RC-BCJ as obtained from FE. 210

211
Figure 9. Stress in the reinforcement RC-BCJ as obtained from FE. 212
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24

213
Figure 10. Numerical Beam tip-load versus story drift envelope of the specimens C25-A0-S3N0 and 214
C25-A0-S0N3. 215

216

217
Figure 11. Stress of the beam reinforcement rebar under monotonic pull loading versus the span 218
length of the beam at 8% drift. 219

220

221
Figure 12. Comparisons of the numerical beam tip load and stresses in rebars versus story drift of 222
the specimens (a) C25-A0-S3N0 and (b) C25-A0-S0N3. 223

224

225
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24

226

Table 3. The parameters used in the numerical investigation. 227

Parameter Values
SMA-Steel reinforcement ratio S2N1 S1N2 S0N3
Length of SMA (mm) 180 360 540
Elasticity of SMA (GPa) 32 57 82
Concrete Strength (MPa) 25 40 70
Axial Load Level (%) 15% 30% 60%
228
229

Table 4. Details of the specimens used in the numerical investigation. 230

Elastic Length
Concrete Axial Nitinol
Steel Modulus of
# Parameters Specimen ID* Strength Load SMA
rebars of SMA SMA
(MPa) Level rebars
(GPa) (mm)
1 C25-A0-S3N0 25 0% 3∅16 - - -
Control
2 C25-A0-S0N3 25 0% - 3∅16 32 360
3 SMA-steel C25-A0-S1N2 25 0% 1∅16 2∅16 32 360
4 reinforcement C25-A0-S2N1 25 0% 2∅16 1∅16 32 360
5 C25-A0-S0N3-L180 25 0% - 3∅16 32 180
Length of SMA
6 C25-A0-S0N3-L540 25 0% - 3∅16 32 540
7 Elastic Modulus of C25-A0-S0N3-E57 25 0% - 3∅16 57 360
8 SMA C25-A0-S0N3-E82 25 0% - 3∅16 82 360
9 C40-A0-S3N0 40 0% 3∅16 - - -
10 Concrete Compressive C70-A0-S3N0 70 0% 3∅16 - - -
11 Strength C40-A0-S0N3 40 0% - 3∅16 32 360
12 C70-A0-S0N3 70 0% - 3∅16 32 360
13 C25-A15-S3N0 25 15% 3∅16 - - -
14 C25-A30-S3N0 25 30% 3∅16 - - -
15 C25-A60-S3N0 25 60% 3∅16 - - -
Axial Load Level
16 C25-A15-S0N3 25 15% - 3∅16 32 360
17 C25-A30-S0N3 25 30% - 3∅16 32 360
18 C25-A60-S0N3 25 60% - 3∅16 32 360
* C: Concrete Strength, A: Axial Load Level, S: Number of steel rebars, N: Number of nitinol SMA 231
rebars, E: Elastic modulus of SMA, L: Length of SMA. 232
233
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

234
Figure 13. Definition of concrete damage-plasticity model parameters in ABAQUS (a) Compressive 235
stress vs. Inelastic strain (b) Compressive damage vs. Inelastic strain (c) Tensile stress vs. Cracking 236
strain (d) Tensile damage vs. Cracking strain. 237

6. Parametric Study 238

Parameters investigated included the effect of SMA-steel reinforcement ratio, lengths 239
of SMA bars, elastic modulus of SMA bars, compressive strength of concrete, and the col- 240
umn axial load, on the structural response of the RC-BCJ. The structural response was 241
investigated in terms of load carrying capacity, stiffness, and energy dissipation. Based on 242
the findings of the previous research studies, the details of the numerical parameters in- 243
vestigated are presented in Table 3. For instance, the level of the partial replacement of 244
steel reinforcement with SMA bars was chosen by referring to the results reported in the 245
literature in this field [4-6,19,20]. This level is important for mitigating the residual dis- 246
placement of the joint without sacrificing the energy dissipation of the structure. Similarly, 247
the range of the elastic modulus for SMA bars was selected based on the test results re- 248
ported by some researchers [8,19,29]. This range had an important effect on the stiffness 249
of the RC joint itself. Moreover, the length of the SMA bars necessary for enhancing the 250
super-elastic response of the joint without reducing its energy dissipation characteristics 251
was also decided upon in a similar way. The range of concrete compressive strength 252
shown in Table 4 was chosen in order to cover the behavior of most commonly used con- 253
crete in practice. This range had a significant impact on the performance of the structure 254
as reported by many researchers [19,20, 23, 29]. Finally, the axial load levels reported in 255
Table 4 were chosen in order to simulate the actual load levels expected to act in real 256
structures. These load levels were comparable to those reported by some other researchers 257
[40-42]. 258

6.1. Effect of SMA to Steel Reinforcement Ratio 259

SMA bars were used in conjunction with steel rebars at two different reinforcement 260
ratios in order to take full advantage of the self-centering (displacement recovery) and 261
ductility provided by the SMA and the high energy dissipation provided by the steel. Two 262
joint specimens were investigated, the first one (S2N1) was reinforced by two steel rebars 263
and one SMA bar, whereas the second one (S1N2) was reinforced by one steel rebar and 264
two SMA bars. The numerical results of these specimens were compared with control 265
specimens reinforced with 3 steel rebars only (S3N0), and 3 SMA bars only (S0N3). The 266
concrete strength of all the specimens was taken as 25 MPa; monotonic load was applied 267
at the tip of the beam, and no axial column load was used. 268
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 24

The load-drift curves of specimens C25-A0-S3N0, C25-A0-S1N2, C25-A0-S2N1, C25- 269

A0-S0N3 are shown in Figure 14. It is observed that the SMA-steel reinforcement system 270
improved the stiffness and energy dissipation of RC-BCJ compared to control specimens. 271
All specimens achieved the same peak load capacity, regardless of the type of reinforce- 272
ment used in the joint. Moreover, the use of SMA-steel reinforcement system enhanced 273
the stiffness of S1N2, and S2N1 compared to S0N3 by 92% and 108%, respectively. A sim- 274
ilar trend was also observed for the energy dissipation variation between the specimens, 275
as shown in Figure 15 (c). 276
The energy dissipation of specimen S1N2 and S2N1 were increased by 10% and 19% 277
respectively compared to control specimen S0N3. For the drift ratios assumed (2.8% and 278
8%), higher stresses over a long distance from the face of the column were observed in the 279
steel rebars compared to the SMA bars as shown in Figure 16 and 17. This is due to the 280
higher axial stiffness of the steel 200 GPa vs 32 GPa for the SMA. The joint is likely to 281
experience yielding and inelastic deformations at the plastic hinge regions if the joints are 282
fully reinforced with steel rebars. This situation is improved when SMA bars are used in 283
conjunction with steel reinforcement. As mentioned earlier, SMA-steel reinforcement sys- 284
tem enhanced the stiffness, energy dissipation, and drift recovery by taking full advantage 285
of self-centering and higher stiffness of SMA and steel respectively. 286

287
Figure 14. Numerical beam tip-load versus story drift envelopes of the C25-A0-S3N0, C25-A0-S1N2, 288
C25-A0-S2N1, C25-A0-S0N3 specimens. 289

290
Figure 15. Effect of SMA to steel reinforcement ratios of the BCJ on (a) load capacity (b) stiffness (c) 291
energy dissipation. 292
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 24

293
Figure 16. Stresses of steel and SMA rebars of S2N1 specimen during push loading at (a) 2.8% story 294
drift (b) 8% story drift. 295

296
Figure 17. Stresses of steel and SMA rebars in S1N2 specimen during push loading at (a) 2.8% story 297
drift (b) 8% story drift. 298

6.2. Effect of SMA bar Length 299

The required length of SMA bars in the plastic hinge region is one of the challenges 300
in designing RC-BCJ. This study investigated the effect of changing SMA bar lengths on 301
the performance of joint specimens designated as C25-A0-S0N3. Lengths used are 180, 302
360, and 540 mm, which correspond to 10%, 20% and 30%, of the span of the beam respec- 303
tively. The effect of SMA bar length on the stress in the reinforcements versus the span of 304
the beam for specimens C25-A0-S0N3-L180, C25-A0-S0N3 and C25-A0-S0N3-L540 are 305
presented in Figure 18. It can be observed that the stresses in the steel reinforcement 306
reached yielding within a distance of up to 300 mm away from the face of the column. The 307
results indicated also that the use of SMA bars with length less than 300 mm may not 308
guarantee the prevention of steel yielding. It is worth mentioning herein that the couplers 309
region in the three cases had high stresses compared to the connected SMA and steel bars. 310
This should be an important aspect during the design stage of the joints reinforced by 311
SMA bars to eliminate the risk of sudden failure in the couplers. The load-displacement 312
curves shown in Figure 19 indicated that the increase in SMA bar length, had insignificant 313
effect on the load capacity and a slight effect on the energy dissipation. However, the use 314
of shorter length of SMA bars increased the joint stiffness, as shown in Figure 20 (b). The 315
longer length of steel bars would have higher stiffness than SMA bars. 316
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24

317
Figure 18. Stress of the beam reinforcement rebar using different lengths of SMA under monotonic 318
pull loading versus the beam length at 8% drift. 319

320
Figure 19. Numerical beam tip-load versus story drift envelopes of the specimens C25-A0-S0N3, 321
C25-A0-S0N3-L180 and C25-A0-S0N3-L540. 322

323
Figure 20. Effect of SMA bar length of the BCJ on (a) load capacity (b) stiffness (c) energy dissipation. 324

325
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24

6.3. Effect of SMA Elastic Modulus 326

Elastic modulus of SMA is the young’s modulus in the austenite phase. It is one of 327
the most important parameters that affects the self-centering capability of SMA in the elas- 328
tic stage. There are different types of SMA with different values of elastic modulus. The 329
Nitinol SMA could have elastic modulus varying between 30 up to 90 GPa [43-45] based 330
on the chemical combinations. The elastic modulus of SMA type used by Youssef et al. 331
[19] and this study was 32 GPa. Two additional values of the elastic modulus of SMA, 57 332
and 82 GPa were investigated by keeping all other parameters constant. The numerical 333
results of C25-A0-S0N3, C25-A0-S0N3-E57 and C25-A0-S0N3-E82 specimens are illus- 334
trated in Figure 21. The numerical results shown in Figure 22(a) indicated that the increase 335
in the elastic modulus of SMA had no effect on the peak load of RC-BCJ. However, in- 336
creasing the elastic modulus from 32 to 57 GPa, resulted in enhancing the stiffness and 337
energy dissipation of the joint by 48% and 12%, respectively. Further increase in the mod- 338
ulus of elasticity from 57 to 82 GPa had a slight effect on the stiffness and almost no effect 339
on energy dissipation, as seen from Figures 22(b) and 22(c). 340

341
Figure 21. Numerical beam tip-load versus story drift envelope of the specimens C25-A0-S0N3, C25- 342
A0-S0N3-E57 and C25-A0-S0N3-E82. 343

344
Figure 22. Effect of SMA elastic modulus of the BCJ on (a) load capacity (b) stiffness (c) energy 345
dissipation. 346
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 24

6.4. Effect of Concrete Strength 347

The effect of the compressive strength of concrete on the behavior of RC-BCJ was 348
investigated considering three compressive strength grades of 25, 40, and 70 MPa, by 349
keeping all other parameters constant. The C25-A0-S3N0, C40-A0-S3N0 and C70-A0-S3N0 350
specimens studied the effect of concrete strength on the behavior of BCJ reinforced with 351
steel rebars, while the C25-A0-S0N3, C40-A0-S0N3 and C70-A0-S0N3 specimens consid- 352
ered the BCJ reinforced with SMA bars. The effect of compressive strength of concrete on 353
the response of BCJ specimens reinforced with steel and SMA bars are illustrated in Fig- 354
ures 23(a) and 23(b), respectively. In general, the increase in concrete compressive strength 355
resulted in an increase in the load capacity, stiffness, and energy dissipation of the joint as 356
shown in Figure 23 and 24. Increasing the concrete compressive strength from 25 to 40 357
MPa and from 25 to 70 MPa enhanced the load capacity by 20% and 36% for BCJ reinforced 358
with steel rebars respectively. A similar trend for the peak load was also observed for the 359
BCJ reinforced with SMA, as observed from Figure 25(a). As expected, the BCJ reinforced 360
with SMA bars exhibited lower stiffness and energy dissipation compared to the BCJ re- 361
inforced with steel bars. Meanwhile, increasing the concrete strength from 25 to 40 MPa 362
and from 25 to 70 MPa resulted in a significant improvement in the stiffness by 123% and 363
162% for steel joints respectively, and by 52% and 136% for SMA joints respectively, as 364
shown in Figure 25(b). Moreover, the energy dissipated by the joint reinforced with steel 365
increased by 35% and 48% when the concrete strength was increased from 25 MPa to 40 366
and 70 MPa, and by 22% and 34% for the joints reinforced with SMA when the concrete 367
strength was increased from 25 to 40 and 70 MPa as shown in Figure 25(c). 368

369
Figure 23. Numerical beam tip-load versus story drift envelopes of the specimens (a) C25-A0-S3N0, 370
C40-A0-S3N0 and C70-A0-S3N0 (b) C25-A0-S0N3, C40-A0-S0N3 and C70-A0-S0N3. 371

372
Figure 24. Comparison of effect of concrete strength on the behavior of BCJ between reinforced with 373
steel and SMA. 374
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 24

(a) (b)

(c) 375
Figure 25. Effect of compressive strength of concrete of the BCJ on (a) load capacity (b) stiffness (c) 376
energy dissipation. 377

6.5. Effect of Axial Load 378

The effect of axial load applied at column end, on the behavior of RC joint, was in- 379
vestigated by considering three different levels of axial load, 15%, 30%, and 60% of column 380
load capacity. The specimens investigated include BCJ reinforced with steel rebars: C25- 381
A15-S3N0, C25-A30-S3N0 and C25-A60-S3N0 and BCJ reinforced with SMA bars: C25- 382
A15-S0N3, C25-A30-S0N3 and C25-A60-S0N3. Keeping all other parameters constant, the 383
compressive strength of concrete used for studying the effect of axial load was 25 MPa. 384
The load-story drift ratio curves of BCJ reinforced with steel and SMA bars are shown in 385
Figures 26 and 27. It is observed that raising the axial load from 0% to 60% of column load 386
capacity enhanced the capacity of BCJ reinforced with steel and SMA bars by 24% or 14%, 387
respectively, as seen in Figure 28(a). The effect of axial load was more pronounced on the 388
behavior of BCJ reinforced with steel rebars than that reinforced with SMA bars. The stiff- 389
ness of BCJ reinforced with steel and SMA increased up to 40% and 32% respectively, 390
when the axial column load increased up to 60% of column capacity, as shown in Figure 391
28(b). Moreover, the increase in the stiffness of the BCJ reinforced with steel was signifi- 392
cant up to an axial load level of 15%, beyond which a steady state stiffness was observed. 393
Whereas, the stiffness of the BCJ reinforced with SMA increased steadily as the axial load 394
was increased. The effect of axial load level on the dissipated energy was higher than its 395
effect on the load capacity or the stiffness of the BCJ. The energy dissipated increased by 396
26%, 28% and 43% for the BCJ reinforced with steel bars when the axial load level was 397
increased from 0% to 15%, and 30% to 60%, respectively, as shown in Figure 28(c). Almost, 398
similar behavior was noticed for the BCJ reinforced with SMA bars. 399
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24

400
Figure 26. Numerical beam tip-load versus story drift envelopes of the BCJ (a) C25-A0-S3N0, C25- 401
A15-S3N0, C25-A30-S3N0 and C25-A60-S3N0 specimens (b) C25-A0-S0N3, C25-A15-S0N3, C25- 402
A30-S0N3 and C25-A60-S0N3 specimens. 403

404
Figure 27. Effect of axial load level on the load capacity of the BCJ. 405

406
Figure 28. Effect of axial load level of the BCJ on (a) load capacity (b) stiffness (c) energy dissipation. 407

408
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 24

7. Discussion of Beam-Column Joints Response 409

The numerical results obtained from the current parametric study are summarized 410
in Table 5. The effects of the key parameters investigated on the response of RC-BCJ can 411
best be explained and understood by normalizing the load capacity, stiffness, and energy 412
dissipation of control specimens C25-A0-S3N0 and C25-A0-S0N3 and making it equal to 413
1, as shown in the subsequent sections. 414

Table 4. Numerical test results of the BCJ investigated. 415

Peak Load Stiffness Energy Dissipated

# Parameter Specimen ID
(kN) (kN/mm) (kN.mm)
1 C25-A0-S3N0 59 5.3 3247
Control
2 C25-A0-S0N3 57 2.5 2677
3 SMA-steel C25-A0-S1N2 57 4.8 2956
4 reinforcement C25-A0-S2N1 58 5.2 3194
5 C25-A0-S0N3-L180 58 4.6 2699
Length of SMA
6 C25-A0-S0N3-L540 57 2.5 2673
7 Elastic modulus of C25-A0-S0N3-E57 55 3.7 3011
8 SMA C25-A0-S0N3-E82 56 4.0 3043
9 C40-A0-S3N0 71 11.8 4375
Concrete
10 C70-A0-S3N0 80 13.9 4818
Compressive
11 C40-A0-S0N3 73 3.8 3269
Strength
12 C70-A0-S0N3 78 5.9 3585
13 C25-A15-S3N0 63 7.2 4103
14 C25-A30-S3N0 66 7.2 4167
15 C25-A60-S3N0 73 7.4 4641
Axial Load Level
16 C25-A15-S0N3 59 2.6 3014
17 C25-A30-S0N3 61 2.9 3394
18 C25-A60-S0N3 65 3.3 3522

7.1. Load Capacity of Beam-Column Joints 416

The normalized peak load of the RC-BCJ reinforced with SMA is presented in Figure 417
29. The BCJ specimen with: no axial column load (A0), concrete strength of 25 MPa (C25), 418
three SMA bars (S0N3) with elastic modulus of 32 GPa (E32), length of SMA 360 mm 419
(L360), was considered as the control specimen by normalizing the peak load and making 420
it equal to 1. The effects of the various parameters investigated on the peak load are also 421
presented in Figure 34. It can be observed that increasing concrete strength from 25 to 40 422
MPa (60% increase) resulted in improving the peak load by 28%, whereas the increase 423
in axial load from 0% to 60% increased the peak load by 14%. The combined effect of high 424
concrete strength and SMA bars could boost the role of SMA in enhancing the BCJ re- 425
sponse. However, the elastic modulus and/or the length of SMA had no effect on the load 426
capacity of the BCJ. 427
Figure 30 shows the normalized peak load of BCJ reinforced with steel rebars. The 428
BCJ specimen (C25-A0-S3N0) with no axial load, and concrete strength of 25 MPa was 429
considered as the control specimen by normalizing the peak load normalized and making 430
it equal to 1. It can be concluded that: increasing the concrete strength from 25 to 40 MPa 431
(60% increase) improved the peak load value by 20%, whereas the increase in axial load 432
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 24

from 0% to 60%, increased the peak load by 24%. In general, the numerical analysis re- 433
vealed that the use of the high strength concrete could lead to further enhancement in the 434
behavior of RC-BCJ compared to normal concrete joints. This is consistent with the results 435
available in the literature [45-49]. Moreover, it is observed that changing the reinforcement 436
type from steel to SMA caused no change in the peak load of the BCJ. 437

438
Figure 29. Comparisons of the effect of SMA on load capacity of the BCJ for: (a) SMA-steel reinforce- 439
ment ratio (b) lengths of SMA bars (c) elastic modulus of SMA (d) compressive strength of concrete 440
(e) axial load level. 441

442
Figure 30. Comparisons of the effect of steel rebars on load capacity of BCJ for: (a) concrete strength 443
(b) axial load level. 444

7.2. Stiffness of Beam-Column Joints 445

The normalized stiffness of the BCJ reinforced with SMA is presented in Figure 31. 446
The BCJ specimen with: concrete strength of 25 MPa (C25), 0% axial load level (A0), three 447
SMA bars (S0N3), with elastic modulus of SMA of 32 GPa (E32), and length of SMA 360 448
mm (L360), was considered as the control specimen by normalizing the stiffness and mak- 449
ing it equal to 1. The effects of the various parameters investigated on the stiffness are also 450
presented in Figure 36. It can be observed that increasing concrete strength from 25 to 40 451
MPa (60% increase) or increasing axial load from 0% to 60% resulted in improving the 452
stiffness by 52% or 32%, respectively. Further increase in elastic modulus of SMA from 32 453
to 57 GPa (78% increase) increased the stiffness of the BCJ by 48%. It can also be observed 454
the increase in stiffness due to combining SMA and steel reinforcement is more pro- 455
nounced than the increase in stiffness due to increasing the elastic modulus of SMA only. 456
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 24

Moreover, it was noticed that reducing the length of SMA from 360 to 180 mm increased 457
the stiffness by 84%, while increasing the length from 360 to 540 mm had no effect on the 458
stiffness value. It should be pointed out that adequate design length of SMA prevents the 459
yielding of steel reinforcement and thus reduces the cracking and permanent defor- 460
mations. 461
The normalized stiffness of the joint specimen reinforced with steel only is shown in 462
Figure 32. The BCJ specimen (C25-A0-S3N0) designed with: a concrete strength of 25 MPa, 463
and 0% axial load, was considered as the control specimen by normalizing the stiffness 464
and making it equal to 1. It can be observed that increasing the concrete strength from 25 465
to 40 MPa (60% increase) increased the stiffness by 123%, while increasing column axial 466
load from 0% to 60% of the column capacity increased the stiffness by 40%. Further in- 467
crease in concrete strength from 25 to 70 MPa increased the stiffness by 162%, while in- 468
creasing the axial column load level up to 60% caused no more increase compared to 30% 469
and 15% axial load levels. 470

471
Figure 31. Comparisons of the effect of SMA on stiffness of the BCJ for: (a) SMA-steel reinforcement 472
ratio (b) lengths of SMA (c) elastic modulus of elasticity of SMA (d) compressive strength of concrete 473
(e) axial load level. 474

475
Figure 32. Comparisons of the effect of steel rebars on stiffness of BCJ for: a) concrete strength (b) 476
axial load level. 477

7.3. Energy Dissipation of Beam Column Joints 478

The normalized energy dissipation of the BCJ reinforced with SMA is shown in Fig- 479
ure 33. The BCJ specimen with: concrete strength of 25 MPa (C25), 0% axial load level (A0), 480
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 24

three SMA bars (S0N3), with elastic modulus of SMA of 32 GPa (E32), and length of SMA 481
360 mm (L360), was considered as the control specimen by normalizing the energy dissi- 482
pated and making it equal to 1. The effects of the various parameters investigated on the 483
energy dissipated are also presented in Figure 38. It can be observed that increasing the 484
concrete strength from 25 to 40 MPa (60% increase) increased the energy dissipated by 485
22%, while the increase in axial load level from 0% to 60% increased the energy dissipated 486
by 32%. Further increase in elastic modulus of SMA from 32 to 57 GPa (78% increase) 487
increased the energy dissipated of the BCJ by 12%. It can also be observed that the in- 488
crease in stiffness due to combining SMA and steel reinforcement had no effect on the 489
energy dissipation of the joint. Moreover, the increase in the energy dissipated due to 490
combining SMA and steel reinforcement is more pronounced than the increase in the en- 491
ergy dissipated due to increasing the elastic modulus of SMA only. It was also observed 492
that varying the length of SMA from 360 to 180 or 540 mm had no effect on the energy 493
dissipated. The normalized energy dissipated by BCJ reinforced with steel is shown in 494
Figure 34. It can be noticed that increasing the concrete strength by 60% or increasing the 495
level of axial load by 60% resulted in enhancing the energy dissipated by 35%, and 43%, 496
respectively. 497

498
Figure 33. Comparisons of the effect of SMA on energy dissipation of the BCJ for: (a) SMA-steel 499
reinforcement ratio (b) lengths of SMA (c) elastic modulus of SMA (d) compressive strength of con- 500
crete (e) axial load level. 501

502
Figure 34. Comparisons of the effect of steel rebars on the energy dissipation of BCJ for: (a) concrete 503
strength (b) axial load level. 504

505
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 24

506

6. Conclusions 507
A numerical investigation through finite element analysis was carried out for evalu- 508
ating the performance of RC-BCJ reinforced with SMA in conjunction with steel rebars. 509
Based on the FE simulations presented, the following conclusions can be drawn: 510
• A none-linear finite element model was proposed using ABAQUS for evaluating the 511
seismic performance RC-BCJ. The validated model can be considered as an effective 512
design tool for predicting the performance of RC-BCJ under monotonic lateral load- 513
ing. 514
• The model was capable of predicting the optimum length of SMA bar sufficient for 515
relocating the plastic hinge away from the face of the column along the beam. This 516
will prevent yielding of steel rebars and thus eliminate the risk of permanent defor- 517
mations in the joint region. 518
• Among the parameters investigated, the simulation results indicated that using high 519
strength concrete in the joint region was more effective in enhancing the efficiency of 520
the joints. 521
• Moreover, for specimens reinforced with SMA and steel rebars, the simulation results 522
revealed the followings: 1) increasing the elastic modulus of SMA bars from 32 GPa 523
to 82 GPa increased the stiffness of RC-BCJ up to 60%, 2) increasing the concrete 524
strength from 25 up to 70 MPa, caused up to 37% increase in load capacity, 136% 525
increase in stiffness, and 34% increase in energy dissipation. 526
• Applying a constant axial load at the column end, up to 60% of the column capacity, 527
increased lateral load capacity by 24%, stiffness by 40% and energy dissipation by 528
43%. 529
530
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.H., M.A. and A.A.; methodology, M.H., M.A. and 531
A.A.; software, M.H.; validation, M.H.; formal analysis, M.H., M.A. and A.A; investigation, M.H., 532
M.A. and A.A; resources, A.A.; data curation, M.H., M.A. and A.A; writing—original draft prepa- 533
ration, M.H. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, M.A. and A.A.; visualization, M.H.; supervi- 534
sion, M.A. and A.A.; project administration, M.A. and A.A.; funding acquisition, A.A. All authors 535
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. 536

Funding: Please add: This research was funded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY, Researchers Sup- 537
porting Project number (RSP-2023/284). 538

Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are 539
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. 540

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by Researchers 541
Supporting Project number (RSP-2023/284), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 542

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. 543

544

References 545
1. Kawashima, K., MacRae, G., Hoshikuma, J. and Nagaya, K. 1998. Residual Displacement Response Spectrum, Journal of 546
Structural Engineering, 124(5): 523-530. 547
2. Bazzurro, P., Cornell, C. A., Menun, C. A., and Motahari, M. 2004. Guidelines for seismic assessment of damaged build- 548
ings. In The 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver B.C., Canada 549
3. Luco, N., Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, C. A. 2004. Dynamic versus static computation of the residual capacity of a mainshock 550
damaged building to withstand an aftershock. 551
4. Molod, M. A., Spyridis, P., & Barthold, F.-J. 2022. Applications of shape memory alloys in structural engineering with 552
a focus on concrete construction – a comprehensive review. Construction and Building Materials, 337, 127565. 553
5. Tabrizikahou, A., Kuczma, M., Łasecka-Plura, M., Noroozinejad Farsangi, E., Noori, M., Gardoni, P., & Li, S. 2022. 554
Application and modelling of shape-memory alloys for structural vibration control: State-of-the-art review. Construction 555
and Building Materials, 342, 127975. 556
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 24

6. Fang, C. 2022. SMAS for infrastructures in Seismic Zones: A critical review of latest trends and future needs. Journal of 557
Building Engineering, 57, 104918. 558
7. Mirzaey, E., Shaikh, M. R., Rasheed, M., Ughade, A., Khan, H. A., & Shaw, S. K. 2023. Shape memory alloy reinforce- 559
ment for strengthening of RCC structures—a critical review. Materials Today: Proceedings. 560
8. Qiang, X., Wu, Y., Wang, Y., & Jiang, X. 2023. Research progress and applications of Fe-Mn-Si-based shape memory 561
alloys on reinforcing steel and concrete brdiges. Applied Sciences, 13(6), 3404. 562
9. Suhail, R., Amato, G., Alam, M. S., Broderick, B., Grimes, M., & McCrum, D. 2023. Seismic retrofitting of nonseismi- 563
cally detailed exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joint by active confinement using shape memory alloy wires. Jour- 564
nal of Structural Engineering, 149(3). 565
10. Qian, H., Wu, P., Ren, Z., Chen, G., & Shi, Y. 2023. Pseudo-static tests of reinforced concrete pier columns confined 566
with pre-tensioned superelastic shape memory alloy wires. Engineering Structures, 280, 115680. 567
11. Zareie, S., Issa, A. S., Seethaler, R. J., and Zabihollah, A. (2020). Recent advances in the applications of shape memory alloys 568
in civil infrastructures: A Review. Structures, 27, 1535–1550. 569
12. Ozbulut, O. E., Hurlebaus, S., and Desroches, R. (2011). Seismic response control using Shape memory alloys: A review. 570
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 22(14), 1531–1549. 571
13. Saadat S, Salichs J, Noori M, Hou Z, Davoodi H, Rebar-On I, Suzuki Y, Masuda A. 2002. An overview of vibration and 572
seismic applications of NiTi shape memory alloy. Smart Mater Struct;11(2):218. 573
14. DesRoches R, Smith B. 2004. Shape memory alloys in seismic resistant design and retrofit: a critical review of their potential 574
and limitations. J Earthquake Eng;8(3):415–29. 575
15. Wilson JC, Wesolowsky MJ. 2005. Shape memory alloys for seismic response modification: a state-of-the-art review. Earth- 576
quake Spectra;21(2):569–601. 577
16. Song G, Ma N, Li H-N. 2006. Applications of shape memory alloys in civil structures. Eng Struct;28(9):1266–74. 578
17. Li, B. and Leong, C., 2015. Experimental and Numerical Investigations of the Seismic Behavior of High-Strength Concrete 579
Beam-Column Joints with Column Axial Load. Journal of Structural Engineering, 141(9). 580
18. DIANA version 7 (Computer software). Delft, Netherlands, TNO Building and Construction Research. 581
19. Youssef, M., Alam, M., & Nehdi, M. 2008. Experimental Investigation on the Seismic Behavior of Beam-Column Joints 582
Reinforced with Superelastic Shape Memory Alloys. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(7), 1205-1222. 583
20. Halahla, A., Abu Tahnat, Y., Almasri, A. and Voyiadjis, G., 2019. The effect of shape memory alloys on the ductility of 584
exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joints using the damage plasticity model. Engineering Structures, 200, p.109676. 585
21. ABAQUS analysis user’s manual version 2020. Providence, RI, USA: Dassault Systems Simulation Corp. 586
22. Basim, S., Hejazi, F. and Rashid, R., 2019. Embedded carbon fiber-reinforced polymer rod in reinforced concrete frame and 587
ultra-high-performance concrete frame joints. International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, 11(S1), pp.35-51. 588
23. Shannag, M., Abu-Farsakh, G. and Abu-Dyya, N., 2007. Modeling the cyclic response of fiber reinforced concrete joints. 589
Engineering Structures, 29(11), pp.2960-2967. 590
24. Oudah, F., & El-Hacha, R. (2018). Innovative Self-Centering Concrete Beam-Column Connection Reinforced Using Shape 591
Memory Alloy. ACI Structural Journal, 115(3). 592
25. Yurdakul, Ö., Tunaboyu, O. and Avşar, Ö., 2018. Retrofit of non-seismically designed beam-column joints by post-ten- 593
sioned superelastic shape memory alloy rebars. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(11), pp.5279-5307. 594
26. Abraik, E. (2020). Seismic performance of shape memory alloy reinforced concrete moment frames under sequential seismic 595
hazard. Structures, 26, 311–326. 596
27. Alam, M. S., Youssef, M. A., & Nehdi, M. (2008). Analytical prediction of the seismic behaviour of superelastic shape 597
memory alloy reinforced concrete elements. Engineering Structures, 30(12), 3399–3411. 598
28. Shrestha, B., & Hao, H. (2015). Parametric study of seismic performance of super-elastic shape memory alloy-rein- 599
forced bridge piers. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 12(9), 1076–1089. 600
29. Xiang, N., Chen, X., & Alam, M. S. (2020). Probabilistic seismic fragility and loss analysis of concrete bridge piers with 601
superelastic shape memory alloy-steel coupled reinforcing bars. Engineering Structures, 207, 110229. 602
30. Miralami, M., Esfahani, M. R., & Tavakkolizadeh, M. 2019. Strengthening of circular RC column-Foundation connec- 603
tions with GFRP/SMA bars and CFRP wraps. Composites Part B: Engineering, 172, 161–172. 604
31. Ali A, Kim D, Cho SG. 2013. Modeling of nonlinear cyclic load behavior of I-shaped composite steel-concrete shear walls 605
of nuclear power plants. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 45(1), 89–98. 606
32. Grassl, P., & Jirásek, M. 2006. Damage-plastic model for concrete failure. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 607
43(22-23), 7166–7196. 608
33. Wan, S., Loh, C.-H., & Peng, S.-Y. (2001). Experimental and theoretical study on softening and pinching effects of 609
Bridge Column. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21(1), 75–81. 610
34. Auricchio, F., and R.L. Taylor, Shape-Memory Alloys: Modeling and Numerical Simulations of the Finite-Strain Super- 611
elastic Behavior, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 143, pp. 175–194, 1996. 612
35. Auricchio, F., and J. Lubliner, Shape-Memory Alloys: Macromodelling and Numerical Simulations of the Superelastic 613
Behavior, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 146, pp. 281–312, 1997. 614
36. Fugazza, D. 2003. Shape memory alloy devices for earthquake engineering: Mechanical properties, constitutive modelling 615
and numerical simulations. (Master’s thesis. University of Pavia, Italy). 616
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 24

37. Park, H. and Eom, T., 2006. A Simplified Method for Estimating the Amount of Energy Dissipated by Flexure-Dominated 617
Reinforced Concrete Members for Moderate Cyclic Deformations. Earthquake Spectra, 22(2), pp.459-490. 618
38. Eom, T. and Park, H., 2010. Evaluation of energy dissipation of slender reinforced concrete members and its applications. 619
Engineering Structures, 32(9), pp.2884-2893. 620
39. ACI 374.1-05, Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and Commentary, American Concrete 621
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005. 622
40. S. Hakuto, R. Park, H. Tanaka. 2000. Seismic load tests on interior and exterior BCJs with substandard reinforcing details, 623
ACI Struct. J. 97, 11–25. 624
41. M. Shin, J.M. Lafave. 2004. Reinforced concrete beam-column-slab connections subjected to earthquake loading, Mag. Con- 625
crete Res. 55. 273–291. 626
42. Shaw, S. K., & Sil, A. 2020. Experimental study on cyclic loading characteristics of fly ash as partial replacement of 627
cement in beam-column joint. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 13. 628
43. Strnadel B, Ohashi S, Ohtsuka H, Ishihara T, Miyazaki S. Cyclic stress-strain characteristics of Ti-Ni and Ti-Ni-Cu shape 629
memory alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 1995;202(1):148–56. 630
44. Raza, S., Shafei, B., Saiid Saiidi, M., Motavalli, M., & Shahverdi, M. (2022). Shape memory alloy reinforcement for 631
strengthening and self-centering of concrete structures-state of the art. Construction and Building Materials, 324, 126628. 632
45. Janke, L. (2005). Applications of shape memory alloys in civil engineering structures - overview, limits and new ideas. 633
Materials and Structures, 38(279), 578–592. 634
46. Shannag, M., Abu-Dyya, N., & Abu-Farsakh, G. (2005). Lateral load response of high performance fiber reinforced concrete 635
beam–column joints. Construction And Building Materials, 19(7), 500-508. 636
47. Shannag, M.J., Alhassan, M. A., (2005) Seismic upgrade of interior beam-column subassemblages with high-performance 637
fiber-reinforced concrete jackets, ACI Structural Journal, 102, 1, pp. 131-138. 638
48. Shannag, M.J., Higazey, M. 2020. Strengthening and Repair of a Precast Reinforced Concrete Residential Building. Civil 639
Engineering Journal, 6, 2457–2473. 640
49. Alshannag, M. and Higazey, M., 2022. Condition assessment and renovation of an aged precast reinforced concrete multi- 641
storey building. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1026(1), p.012016. 642

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au- 643
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to 644
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. 645