materials

Article
Application of Shape Memory Alloys in Retrofitting of Masonry
and Heritage Structures Based on Their Vulnerability Revealed
in the Bam 2003 Earthquake
Alireza Tabrizikahou 1,∗ , Marijana Hadzima-Nyarko 2 , Mieczysław Kuczma 1 and Silva Lozančić 2,∗

1 Institute of Building Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, Piotrowo 5, 60-965 Poznan, Poland;
[email protected]
2 Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek,
Vladimira Preloga, 31000 Osijek, Croatia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.T.); [email protected] (S.L.)

Abstract: For decades, one of the most critical considerations of civil engineers has been the con-
struction of structures that can sufficiently resist earthquakes. However, in many parts of the globe,
ancient and contemporary buildings were constructed without regard for engineering; thus, there
is a rising necessity to adapt existing structures to avoid accidents and preserve historical artefacts.
There are various techniques for retrofitting a masonry structure, including foundation isolations, the



use of Fibre-Reinforced Plastics (FRPs), shotcrete, etc. One innovative technique is the use of Shape


Memory Alloys (SMAs), which improve structures by exhibiting high strength, good re-centring
Citation: Tabrizikahou, A.; capabilities, self-repair, etc. One recent disastrous earthquake that happened in the city of Bam,
Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Kuczma, M.; Iran, (with a large proportion of masonry buildings) in 2003, with over 45,000 casualties, is analysed
Lozančić, S. Application
to discover the primary causes of the structural failure of buildings and its ancient citadel. It is
of Shape Memory Alloys
followed by introducing the basic properties of SMAs and their applications in retrofitting masonry
in Retrofitting of Masonry
buildings. The outcomes of preceding implementations of SMAs in retrofitting of masonry buildings
and Heritage Structures Based
are then employed to present two comprehensive schemes as well as an implementation algorithm
on Their Vulnerability Revealed
in the Bam 2003 Earthquake. Materials
for strengthening masonry structures using SMA-based devices.
2021, 14, 4480. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ma14164480 Keywords: masonry structures; heritage; buildings; earthquake; vulnerability; shape memory alloys;
seismic; retrofitting
Academic Editor: Alessandro P.
Fantilli

Received: 5 July 2021 1. Introduction

Accepted: 8 August 2021
Each year, earthquakes cause thousands of causalities and billions of dollars of loss in
Published: 10 August 2021
global property damage [1]. They are caused by the relative displacement of two tectonic
plates, which causes deformation of the tectonic plates on both sides of the fault. These
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
deformations persist for several years, accumulating deformation energy in the tectonic
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
plates. Slippage will occur as a result of a malfunction when the plate returns to its original
published maps and institutional affil-
undeformed shape and suddenly releases a large amount of energy. Regardless of the
iations.
cause of the earthquake, the consequences can be disastrous for human life. Table 1 lists
some of the victims of major earthquakes in the past.
The evaluation of the seismic risk of building stock is a challenge for governments
and academia in earthquake-prone areas with a high concentration of people and urbaniza-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. tion [2,3]. The natural hazards approach is critical for the establishment of disaster response
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
systems, as well as ensuring disaster preparedness and risk mitigation in accordance with
This article is an open access article
sustainable development [4,5].
distributed under the terms and
Older structures were constructed before earthquake protections were in place [6,7].
conditions of the Creative Commons
Throughout the course of time, many historical structures have undergone various im-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
provements and may have been subjected to calamities such as fires, earthquakes, and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
explosions [8]. Existing masonry structures can bear both vertical forces (self-weight and

Materials 2021, 14, 4480. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164480 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2021, 14, 4480 2 of 24

applied loads) and horizontal wind forces. However, because most of these structures were
not constructed for seismic stresses, they must be reinforced [9,10].

Table 1. Earthquakes with the highest number of casualties in the last century.

Year Location Fatalities

1908 Messina, Italy 70,000–100,000
1920 Gansu, China 200,000
1923 Kanto, Japan 143,000
1927 Qinghai, China 200,000
1932 Gansu, China 70,000
1948 Ashgabat, Turkmenistan 110,000
1970 Peru 66,000
1976 Tangshan, China 255,000
1978 Tabas, Iran 15,000–25,000
1990 Manjil-Rudbar, Iran 35,000–50,000
2001 Gujarat, India 20,000
2003 Bam, Iran 30,000–40,000
2004 Sumatra, Indonesia 220,000
2005 Kashmir, Pakistan 73,000
2008 Sichuan, China 70,000
2010 Haiti 230,000

Earthquakes can cause structural and non-structural failures during and/or after
earthquakes [11]. Disturbances induced in structural elements of lateral and gravity-load-
resisting systems, such as spandrels and piers, and horizontal diaphragms, such as slabs
and roofs, are examples of structural failures. Seismic failures in structures are typically
caused by either insufficient strength due to inadequate member dimensions, material
strength, and seismic resistance or a lack of inelastic deformability. The ability to produce
inelastic deformations without significantly reducing strength is known as “ductility”.
Brittle construction materials, such as unreinforced masonry (URM), suffer from lack of
ductility when exposed to seismic excitations [12,13].
A typical adobe house is a single-story structure with foundations made of medium to
large stones and adobe mortar in the middle. The roof is usually made of wooden beams or
bamboo, and it is covered with corrugated metal plates, clay bricks, or thatch. In general,
the materials used are determined by the region’s economy. As shown in Table 2, adobe
structures are prone to collapse during an earthquake, resulting in significant damage and
casualties. Furthermore, it is estimated that masonry buildings account for more than 70%
of the world’s building inventory [14] and that building collapses were caused by more
than 75% of earthquakes in the last century [15].

Table 2. Effects of previous earthquakes on adobe buildings [16–18].

Damaged Masonry
Earthquake Casualties
Buildings
23.33% of buildings heavily
Van, Turkey, 2011 604
damaged and collapsed
85% of the infrastructure
Bam, Iran, 2003 30,000–40,000
demolished
3214 buildings heavily
Bingöl, Turkey 2003 177
damaged
El Salvador, 2001 1100 150,000
Southern Peru, 2001 81 25,000

Figure 1 depicts and contrasts the global distribution of earthen buildings with the
global distribution of seismic hazards. As can be observed, the vast majority of these
earthen constructions, as well as world-historical sites, are situated in seismically ac-
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 3 of 24

tive locations. Historical heritage sites, which have a variety of characteristics, such as
historic, cultural, and psychological, are essential for achieving sustainability in urban con-
ditions [19,20]. As a result, improving the earthquake resistance of these types of structures
has been one of the engineers’ top priorities [21].

(a) (b)

Figure 1. (a) Earthquake epicentres in world from 1963 to 1998 (NASA, DTAM project team); (b) distribution of earthen
constructions (Auroville Earth Institute, UNESCO Chair Earthen Architecture. Buildings with Earth Technique overview,
2012) [22].

The emergence of wooden elements in the structure of masonry walls in ancient

Greece following severe seismic occurrences is the earliest point in history that an attempt
was made to establish a systematic technique for seismic resistance to structures [23].
Traditional reinforcing procedures occasionally fail to provide the structure with sufficient
resistance to the maximum predicted seismic activity and result in modifications to the
original constructive shape that are unacceptable from a cultural viewpoint. Strengthening
using these approaches is frequently complicated, leading to disruption of usage, increased
financial expenses, and, in some circumstances, unmanageability [24]. Figure 2 also depicts
traditional reinforcing procedures for cultural heritage masonry constructions.

Figure 2. Traditional strengthening techniques of masonry structures [25].

One previous destructive earthquake was the Bam earthquake of 2003 that devastated
the southern city of Bam, Iran. The epicentre of the earthquake was located at 29.01 ◦ N—
29.01 ◦ E, 10 Km, southwest of the city of Bam. Its magnitude was measured with Mb of 6.3
and Ms of 6.5 estimated by the U. S. Geological Survey. This earthquake took the lives of
approximately 45,000 people as it occurred at 5:26 a.m. local time when the majority of the
population was sleeping. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) at Bam station was 0.8 g and
0.7 g for the east–west horizontal and north–south horizontal components, respectively,
and 0.98 g (relatively high acceleration) for the vertical component.
Figure 3 shows the share of the buildings’ usage in Bam, the number of floors, the
types, and the structural system before the 2003 earthquake. Almost 75% of the buildings
inspected were single-story structures with a short lifespan. Masonry buildings with solid
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 4 of 24

brick walls were also by far the most common building type in Bam. Finally, almost half
of the buildings used unreinforced load-bearing walls in some form or another, with the
satchel type of simple framing being the second most popular system.

Figure 3. The details of Bam’s buildings prior to earthquake of 2003 [26]; (a) types of the buildings’ usage; (b) number of
stories for buildings; (c) distribution of building types; (d) structural system types.

In this study, an attempt was made to identify the major causes of the Bam earthquake,
taking into account the important influence on the sustainability of masonry constructions
that endure seismic pressures during their lifetime. As a result, based on prior research on
the use of SMAs in these types of structures, as well as the primary structural failures in the
Bam earthquake, two basic retrofitting methods and an algorithm are suggested that may
decrease the seismic impacts on URM structures. Such SMA-based retrofitting methods
may perform well in general since they may be applied to specific application conditions
and regional design codes (as in this paper, the Iranian design code for masonry buildings
and earthquake design Standard-2800 are considered).

2. Seismic Behaviour of the Structures in Bam Earthquake

The vast majority of buildings in Bam at the time of the earthquake were URM
structures with load-bearing walls or low-rise steel-framed structures [27]. The former had
either classic masonry domes or vaults or a non-engineered, unanchored jack arch flooring
system, whilst the latter had primarily anchored jack arch slabs. Floors in some of the newer
structures were composed of concrete beam-hollow block slabs. Weak, fragile materials
and element connections, as well as excessive weight, characterize these constructions. The
materials and procedures employed in this form of building have remained constant for
thousands of years [28].
Existing structures in Bam were made up of 90% adobe and masonry, 8% steel, and 2%
reinforced concrete residential buildings. According to research, 62% of the 550 assessed
partially damaged buildings could not be utilized for habitation, 34.8% could be retrofitted,
and 3.2% were safe to use [29]. The major reasons for the failure of adobe and masonry
buildings, particularly recently erected ones, were heavy roofs and walls, as well as a lack
of structural strength. The robust performance of the arch roofs of the old masonry domes
demonstrated the need for structural integrity (see Figure 4a). As a result, masonry domes
should always be investigated numerically and experimentally in order to obtain enhanced
performance maintenance [30].
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 5 of 24

(a) (b)

Figure 4. (a) Partially damaged old masonry buildings’ arch roofs in Bam after the earthquake [31]; (b) the inconsistency of
the multi-arched roof with the supports due to the lack of horizontal coils, as well as the high thickness and weight of the
roof [31].

Most of the steel-framed buildings were damaged due to lack of code implementation,
poor workmanship, poor connections, specially satchel connection (Figure 4a), buckling
(overall, out of the plane and lateral-torsional as seen in Figure 5a), weld rupture (Figure 5b),
local buckling and rupture of X-bracing (Figure 5c), rupture and plastic shear of the battens
(Figure 6a), and lack of frame in one direction of the buildings (Figure 6b).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5. Failure of the lateral bracing system [32]; (a) out of plane buckling of bracing system; (b) fracture of connection in
concentrically X-bracing system due to the poor welding quality; (c) bracing failure at splice joint.

The battens are used to distribute shear between the chords of a column. As a result,
failure of battens results in chord separation and a significant reduction in the axial capacity
of a batten column. The magnitude of the modified slenderness ratio of the column about
a hollow axis grows as the distance between the battens grows, and therefore the axial
capacity of the column may decrease or change the direction of buckling.
Overall buckling, local buckling of one chord, lateral-torsional buckling, and batten
failure are all dominant failure mechanisms of batten columns. Some of these types are
caused by a significant decrease in the axial capacity of the batten column and, as a result,
must be avoided [33].
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 6 of 24

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Other types of failures in structural systems [34]; (a) buckling of a column in ground floor connected to the balcony
beam; (b) inappropriate lateral bracing system and longer length of first floor column led to a soft story building.

The Bam Citadel was an outstanding example of earthen construction that was severely
destroyed in the 2003 Bam earthquake as displayed in Figure 7. Up to 95% of the structures
and walls of the 2500-year-old historic fortress, the world’s biggest adobe edifice, were
destroyed. The failure was mostly caused by inadequate seismic safety considerations in
the repair work.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Bam citadel; (a) before the 2003 Earthquake; (b) after the earthquake (UNESCO).

According to research [35], it is assumed that the collapse of the Citadel’s walls was
caused mostly by a combination of the following effects:
• The additional alterations to the walls, especially in recent restorations, that resulted
in differences in the density and reactivity to vibrations of different layers of unloaded
earth construction in the walls;
• Extensive termite infestation, as well as loss of clay cohesion due to deterioration and
excessive drying out, all combined with the extremely high-frequency earthquake
vibrations in such a way that many walls virtually broke due to the loss of cohesion
and sinking of their clay interior cores.
From another perspective, the authenticity and truth of historical structures and
heritage sites [36] can be easily compromised and that is why they have to be thoroughly
studied from different aspects for proper management and maintenance [37].
The original impression was that the twentieth-century restoration work functioned
significantly worse than the ancient work; nevertheless, the newer work frequently col-
lapsed as a result of the internal collapse of the older work on which it was based. Internal
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 7 of 24

wall degradation-dryness and lack of cohesiveness of the earthen cores, decay and con-
sumption of reinforcing timbers and fibre reinforcements, and the presence of tiny and large
holes between vertical layers in the walls all could have played a role in the collapses [35].
After reviewing the previous studies that investigated the main causes of the collapse
and deflection of the buildings as well as the Bam citadel, a study [38] introduced the main
major deficiencies of the Bam earthquake, outlined as:
• Inadequate connections between walls and roofing in masonry and steel-framed
buildings;
• The vaulted ceiling lacks consistency;
• Weak portions around the dome’s junction line and the residual flat part of the roof;
• High weight of the roof;
• Inadequate retrofitting of the historical heritage;
• Poor quality in manpower and construction work;
• Inadequate design parameters;
• Lack of using flexible and high-strength reinforcing materials.
In general, one of the most important lessons that structural engineers should learn
from the Bam 2003 earthquake is considering the significance of retrofitting the buildings
and historical heritages. The collapse of the Bam citadel and its consequences proved that
retrofitting a historical structure may profit from the use of novel materials with great
strength, self-healing capacity, strong re-centring capabilities, etc. Materials with such
characteristics can effectively moderate the input seismic energies and prevent the structure
from being damaged or collapsing. Shape memory alloys (SMAs) are an appealing class of
metallic alloys that have attracted scientists for decades. They can be utilized as reinforcing
materials in retrofitting existing buildings to strengthen the structures against earthquakes.
The next sections describe the fundamental properties and behaviour of these groups of
alloys, as well as their uses in masonry structure retrofitting.

3. Basics of Shape Memory Alloys

Metals have long been regarded as pillar building materials for civil constructions.
Shape memory alloys (SMAs) are a class of metallic materials that have the potential
to revert to their original shape after being subjected to large deformations (strains of
8–10%). This shape recovery is a result of the martensitic phase transformation induced
by either heating (known as shape memory effect) or removal of the applied stress known
as pseudoelasticity (or superelasticity). The first discovery of the shape memory effect
(SME) was recorded in 1932 by Ölander [39], although the term "shape-memory" was
first introduced by Vernon in 1941 [40]. Since the 1960s, after the discovery of Nitinol
by Buehler [41], SMAs have drawn considerable attention from investigators in different
research fields including metallurgy, crystallography, mechanics, and mathematics [42–46].
Applications of SMAs in civil and structural engineering have been developed for about
three decades now [47,48].
SMAs with the same atomic composition can exist in several crystal structures as
shown in Figure 8. The austenite stronger structure is stable at higher temperatures and
lower stresses, and it is also known as the cubic crystal parent phase. Martensite is more
stable at lower temperatures and higher stresses due to its crystal structure with a lower
level of order. The unique properties of SMAs, which result from the reversible martensitic
phase transformations, are illustrated in Figure 9. Modelling and numerical simulations of
boundary value problems for SMA structural elements represent a real challenge due to
the dissipative nature of the deformation process of reversible phase transformations that
constitute a non-convex problem with hysteresis loops [49–53].
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 8 of 24

Figure 8. Different crystal structures (phase structures) of SMAs.

The transformation from martensite to austenite can develop in the absence of ap-
plied stresses just by heating an SMA. The austenite commencing temperature (As ) is the
temperature at which the material changes from twinned martensite to austenite. The
temperature at which this change is complete and the material totally converts into austen-
ite is referred to as the austenite finish temperature (A f ). In other words, as the SMA’s
temperature rises above a certain threshold, its initial shape converts into the austenite
structure. This transformation phase can occur even with large applied forces, resulting in
high actuation energy densities. Austenite turns into twinned martensite throughout the
cooling process at the martensite start temperature (Ms ), and the transition completes at
the martensite completion temperature (M f ). Variations in the relative quantities of the
component metals, the manufacturing process, and applied stress to an SMA can all affect
the transformation temperatures. The greatest temperature at which martensite can no
longer be stress-induced and beyond which the SMA is permanently distorted like any
other regular metallic material is referred to as Md (Md  A f ).

Figure 9. Stress–strain diagram of SMAs and the schematic crystal structures at different temperatures [54].

Thanks to the excellent properties of SMAs including good hysteretic behaviour, great
re-centring capability, high strength, high fatigue and corrosion resistance, and substantial
damping capacity, SMA-based structural components may be used in a wide range of
applications in civil constructions. Seismic-resistant design and retrofitting of existing
buildings and infrastructures are some of the areas where SMAs have feasible potential.
Up to this point, among the many SMAs, Ni-Ti alloy (also known as Nitinol) has
demonstrated exceptional shape memory behaviour, with large magnitudes of shape
recovery, recovery stress, and super elastic strain. As a result, Ni-Ti offers a wide range of
applications, including structural reinforcement, vibration building control, and structural
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 9 of 24

self-repair. For the last decades, binary Ni-Ti alloys, as well as ternary Ni-Ti–X alloys (X
stands for potential supplementary alloying components), have been the most appealing
types of SMAs.
However, for many years, the exorbitant costs of manufacturing and deploying Ni-Ti
SMAs in buildings have been a deterrent to their widespread use. As a result, there is a
rising attempt to employ more cost-effective SMAs, such as Cu- and Fe-based ones, in
order to achieve a wider spectrum of utilization.
Because of their outstanding mechanical capabilities, Fe-SMAs are suitable for usage
as reinforcing materials, such as in reinforcing existing civil structures and prestressing new
civil structures. Most iron-based SMA compositions in bulk are Fe, which is an inexpensive
and easily accessible material. As a result, they are a low-cost category of SMAs that exhibit
SME and high ductility [55].
To demonstrate the importance of utilising SMAs in masonry building retrofitting,
the characteristics of Ni-Ti and Fe-based SMAs are compared to stainless steel in Table 3.
Other new retrofitting approaches, such as utilising FRP materials and steel jackets, have
the following drawbacks:
• The steel jacketing approach has certain drawbacks, including the ability to rust
and the difficulty of installing by machinery. The grouted area, which is the gap
between the concrete void and the steel jacket, clogs up, resulting in a column incon-
sistency [56].
• FRP materials have a low elastic modulus (10 times that of steel), lack of ductility, and
inferior shear strength [57].
Compared to other aforementioned novel retrofitting approaches, thanks to their
superior properties, SMAs are quite desirable in masonry retrofitting applications. It
becomes apparent that, in general, the use of SMAs would enhance the construction owing
to their excellent properties when compared to traditional reinforcing materials such as
steel.

Table 3. Comparison of physical and mechanical characteristics of Ni-Ti and Fe-based SMAs and
stainless steel.

Property Unit a Ni-Ti b Fe-Based Steel

Density kg/m3 6450–6500 7200–7500 7850
Corrosion resistance - Excellent Good Fair
Melting point ◦C 1260–1310 1320–1350 1510
Poisson’s ratio - 0.33 0.359 0.265
Young’s modulus GPa 28–83 160–200 190–193
Specific heat capacity J/kg ◦ C 450–620 540 420–510
Thermal conductivity w/m ◦ C 8.6–18 8.4 8.9–16.2
Ultimate tensile
MPa 895–1900 680–1200 505
strength
Yield Stress MPa 70–690 475 215
Recoverable elongation % 5–10 2.5–13 0.8
Elongation failure % 5–50 12.4–20 20
a To provide a wide range of information, the values for the given properties are based on the results of different
studies as mentioned in the references; b for Ni-Ti, the range of the given values depends on the crystal phase
(martensite or austenite) and other conditions (hardened or fully annealed).

4. Shape Memory Alloys Application in Masonry Structures and Historical Buildings

The degradation of historical building materials, extended exposure to climatic factors,
and uneven settlements require the restoration of historic structures. Furthermore, many
ancient buildings were designed to withstand gravity loads primarily or at a significantly
lower seismic intensity than comparable modern ones. Seismic retrofit procedures must
then be integrated into the structure without affecting its appearance. However, necessary
structural elements for absorbing the out-of-plane horizontal thrusts generated by arches,
vaults, and wooden roof trusses are often lacking, insufficient, or degraded [58].
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 10 of 24

In general, the seismic retrofitting techniques for masonry structures can be classified
as follows:
• Reducing the earthquake forces that could be exerted on the structure;
• Improving the existing building to resist earthquake load through the change in the
structural system or enhancing the elements’ strength.
To retrofit existing structures, it is necessary to first assess the building’s seismic
performance and, as a result, to determine the causes of inadequate seismic capacity. Based
on this assessment, an appropriate retrofitting technique might then be designed [59]. A
successful retrofitting solution must take into account the sustainability factors (technical,
economic, and social). In addition to these considerations, the environmental effects of
an earthquake should be considered since they have a substantial impact on the global
ecosystem, and structural optimization might efficiently decrease carbon emissions by con-
structions [60]. Each retrofitting methodology has advantages and downsides; a technique
that is good for one structure may not be appropriate for another. The chosen method must
be compatible with aesthetics, function, strength, ductility, and stiffness, as well as cost
constraints.
In addition to their unique re-centring ability and significant energy-dissipating capac-
ity, superelastic SMAs also have favourable properties such as the ability to endure large
deformations, good fatigue, and corrosion resistance. In this section, we first attempted
to trace the historical background and introduce the most important developments and
innovative structural response control systems in the seismic applications of SMAs. This
is followed by the seismic retrofitting of masonry buildings by the implementation of
SMA-based devices.
Up to now, many researchers have investigated the application of SMAs in seismic
control systems. The application of SMAs in the seismic control of structures can be
categorized into different groups such as base isolation devices, passive and active vibration
controls, etc., as listed below:
• Vibration control systems;
• Base isolation devices;
• Energy dissipation devices;
• Active vibration control;
• Semi-active vibration control.
In this study, some masonry building cases, with deficiencies similar to those in the
Bam earthquake, that have been retrofitted by using SMAs are reviewed. The authors
are aware that in every retrofitting process, comprehensive studies and designs have to
be done related to the local codes and the seismicity of the region to achieve high-post-
retrofit structural performance while undergoing seismic forces. However, according to
the authors’ awareness, the expanding research and use of SMAs for civil constructions
might anticipate that, in the near future, these materials will be able to play a large part in
retrofitting masonry buildings worldwide, alongside other technologies such as the use of
FRPs. That is why this evaluation focuses on prior successful applications in order to help
and enhance future research.

4.1. Experimental Investigations

4.1.1. Experimental Investigation of Retrofitted Half-Brick Walls with Cu-Al-Mn SMA Bars
Shrestha et al. [61], by performing quasi-static tests on half-scale brick walls sub-
jected to cyclic out-of-plane flexure, evaluate the suitability of Cu-Al-Mn SMA bars to the
retrofitting of ancient masonry projects. The experimental and computational findings
revealed that both the steel-reinforced and SMA reinforced examples had a significant
increase in strength and durability when compared to the unreinforced sample. The steel
reinforcement in the strengthened sample experienced compression and significant residual
deformation, while the superelastic characteristic of SMA bars resulted in a rather steady
reaction with no compression phenomena. Both experimental and computational results
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 11 of 24

show that Cu-Al-Mn SMA bars outperform conventional steel reinforcement in retrofitting
old masonry buildings.
This study demonstrated the advantages of SMA bar retrofitting of URM walls in a
more realistic context, and its results could be summarized as the following:
• When compared to the URM specimen, both the steel-based and SMA-based speci-
mens demonstrated considerable increases in strength and ductility. The steel-based
specimen experienced pinching in the moderate displacement range, but the SMA-
based specimen exhibited nothing. These findings illustrate the suitability and effec-
tiveness of the current Cu-Al-Mn SMA bars as a partial substitution for steel bars in
retrofitting URM walls.
• To reproduce the experimental data, finite element (FE) models were created and eval-
uated. The created FE models identified the whole history of all the specimens quite
accurately. The inelastic elongation of the steel bars was found to be the major cause
of pinching in the FE study of the steel-based specimen. It was also demonstrated that
the superelastic feature of the SMA bars was beneficial in preventing pinching.
• When reinforcing bars were installed at the underside of the wall specimen, the steel-
based model displayed pinching even in the minor deformation range, while the
SMA-based model did not exhibit such deformation.

4.1.2. Experimental Investigations on Pre-Tensioned SMA Wires on URM Walls

Casciati and Hamdaoui [62] investigated the use of pre-tensioned SMA wires to retrofit
historic masonry structures. They evaluated the structural aspects associated with the use
of an SMA-based connection ties system as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. The schematic of the proposed system with SMA wire for connection ties [62].

The findings of laboratory studies were used to construct a numerical model that
includes the impacts of the SMA devices. The structure was first examined in its original
condition, without any retrofitting attempts, and then the impacts of various retrofitting
approaches were empirically tested and integrated into the numerical model by modifying
the equivalent Young’s modulus correspondingly.
They compared different engineering factors between the usage of SMA and steel
wires with the different number of used wires in the retrofitting of masonry wall under 20%
of the El-Centro earthquake, which is demonstrated in Figure 11. These factors include
frequencies and maximum displacement in systems without and with a different number
of reinforcement (SMA or steel-based) wires. Furthermore, the equivalent modulus of
elasticity (since Young’s moduli of the system’s elements are different, an equivalent value
is elaborated) of the system without any wire was equal to 5875 MPa, whereas this value
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 12 of 24

was recorded as 20,665, 19,180, and 22,100 MPa for the systems with 2, 4, and 6 SMA wires,
respectively.

5
20

Maximum displacement (mm)

4
Frequency (Hz)

15
3

10
2

5 1

0 0
SMA Steel SMA Steel SMA Steel SMA Steel
Without reinforcement 2 wires 4 wires 6 wires

Frequency (Hz) Maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 11. The effect of using SMA or steel with different number of wires on frequencies and maximum displacement of
the wall [62].

The authors of this study introduced three main advantages of using ties of SMAs in
the austenitic phase in the retrofitting of masonry buildings:
• By requiring the prescribed pre-tension to reach the super-elastic constitutive law
plateau, no extra stress is transmitted to the masonry at higher strain levels. As a
result, no springs are required to be included in the computational model, with the
potential of mutual deformations between the clay bricks, i.e., energy absorption.
• The hysteresis loop of the hyper-elastic stress–strain relation dissipates more energy.
• The ties may re-centre themselves in their original location with no residual displace-
ment.

4.2. Numerical Modelling of Retrofitted Structures with SMA Devices

4.2.1. Post-Tensioned Iron-Based SMA Strips in Retrofitting of URM Walls
Rezapour et al. [63] analysed the performance of URM reinforced with iron-based
SMA strips. As seen in Figure 12, the SMA-based strips were mounted in the shape of
crossings and verticals in walls and subjected to post-tension force with mortar as the
connector between the wall and strips.
The results of this study demonstrated that in the vertical-strip walls, the stiffness
increased by 98.1%, and in the cross-strip model’s position, the stiffness increased by
127.9%. Furthermore, in the vertical-strip model, the maximum resistance was equal to
108 kN, while in the end cycle, it reduced by almost half and reached 40 kN. In large
deformations, the greater the scattering of the iron-based strips, the more resistant the
masonry wall is. Thus, in the model in Figure 12f, the maximum resistance is equal to 104
kN, and in the final cycle, this number decreases by only 13.5% and reaches 90 kN.
As seen in Table 4, the walls with SMA cross-strips dissipate more energy than the
other models. The strength in cross-strip models is larger than in other types, particularly
in the final cycles, which enhances the energy dissipation efficiency. Since the model in
Figure 12c had the greatest energy dissipation between other vertical-strip systems, the
authors concluded that the greater the dispersion of SMA strips on the brick wall, the
greater the energy dissipation.
The quantity of energy dissipated during the cyclic loading is shown in Table 4. As
that brick wall’s behaviour was almost linear in the initial cycles, the energy loss values
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 13 of 24

were negligible (about zero) up to six cycles. The proportion of dissipation of energy rises
when a plastic deformation is applied to the system.

Figure 12. Numerically studied SMA-reinforced walls [63]; (a) 2 vertical stripes; (b) 4 vertical stripes; (c) 8 vertical stripes;
(d) 2 cross-strips; (e) 6 cross-strips; (f) 14 cross-strips.

Table 4. Energy dissipation of the wall specimens [63].

Energy Dissipation (KJ)

Number of Without
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Cycles SMA
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
5 0 2 1 1 4 4 3
6 0 3 1 1 4 4 3
7 11 30 26 26 41 39 36
8 14 28 25 21 39 38 36
9 17 49 35 24 57 54 50
10 62 95 102 122 105 109 114
11 85 114 121 139 132 137 143
12 77 108 111 125 137 137 136
13 137 179 199 206 218 240 271
14 121 158 181 188 210 227 251
Total dissipated
525 767 803 851 947 988 1044
energy (KJ)
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 14 of 24

4.2.2. SMA Cables in Seismic Protection of a Historic Brickwork Church in Northern Italy
Habieb et al. [64] studied the use of an embedded base isolation system for seismic
protection of a historic brickwork church. The system was built with an unbonded fibre
reinforced rubber isolator and SMA cables (see Figure 13).
Due to its high energy absorption capacity, the suggested model with a 2% pre-strain
SMA wire model demonstrates the biggest reduction of the lateral deflections of the church
and significantly lowers impact (from destruction to mild damage level) in the event of
powerful earthquakes. It should be mentioned that the model without pre-strain in the
SMA strand is less efficient than the pre-strained ones in decreasing damage and lateral
deformations of the structure. Finally, even for high PGA, the global seismic response of the
isolated church is not significantly different when comparing the usage of a pre-strained-
SMA-based system with the model without SMA wires. On the other hand, in the case of
SMA application, the fair decrease of isolator displacements, particularly under high PGA,
may be regarded as an essential advantage because unbonded isolators are susceptible to
sliding destabilization when subjected to substantial deflections.

Figure 13. The schematic of the proposed system and SMA strand in the isolation system of masonry
constructions [64].

In the case of PGA = 0.3 g, the use of SMA provides evident advantages. In reality, in
the model without SMA wires, substantial residual vibrations occur towards the conclusion
of the earthquake stimulation and progressively dissipate. The other two models (pre-
strained and non-pre-strained SMA wires) exhibit minimal residual vibrations at the
conclusion of the earthquake excitation due to the SMA wires’ superior damping and
energy dissipation capacity at large deformations.
It is worth noting that practically all of the fixed-base model’s reference points exhibit
drifts greater than the limit value associated with the collapse level. The base-isolated
models greatly minimize the displacements from failure to levels of minor/moderate
damage. Among the base-isolated models, the pre-strained-SMA-based model had the
greatest reduction in deflections. The non-pre-strained-SMA-based model, on the other
hand, exhibits relatively high residual displacements. Such findings indicate that the use
of SMA wires in an elastomeric isolation system is more beneficial in the event of large
earthquake excitation, with a specific degree of pre-strain used to keep the isolation system
rigidity moderate.

4.3. Implementation on Real Structures

4.3.1. SMA-Based Device in Retrofitting of San Paolo Eremita Church in Southern Italy
Cardone et al. [58] developed a proposed system based on the superelasticity features
of copper-based SMA to improve the thermal and seismic behaviour of steel connectors
in historical structures (San Paolo Eremita church (see Figure 14a)). Experimental results
show that the suggested device is effective at reducing force changes caused by changes
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 15 of 24

in air temperature. The testing findings clearly demonstrate the proposed SMA-based
device’s high efficacy in improving the thermal behaviour of steel connectors. Indeed, with
SMAs, the force fluctuations in the steel tie-rods caused by air temperature fluctuations
are 80–90% smaller than those without SMAs. Shaking table experiments reveal that using
the suggested SMA device can improve the seismic performance of buildings mounted
with alloy tie-rods. This is mostly due to the SMA device’s increased energy dissipation
capabilities and re-centring ability. For facilities in high seismicity territories where minor
temperature variations are predicted, ideal seismic behaviour of the SMA unit should be
addressed; for structures in low seismicity zones where significant temperature fluctuations
are predicted, the ideal temperature behaviour of the SMA unit should be followed.
The suggested model, seen in Figure 14b, links the two steel tie-rods with pre-
tensioned copper-based SMA strands. The hysteretic performance of the connector with
the SMA device during the tests with the artificial ground motions at 0.6 g was compatible
with the strain limit of SMA (equal to 9–10%, equivalent to the end of the martensitic
transformation) and yield force of the steel tie-rod, equivalent to approximately 3 KN. Fur-
thermore, the system equipped with the SMA unit exhibited excellent re-centring capability.
The tie-rod without an SMA device, on the other hand, had severe plastic deformations
with considerable residual displacements of the magnitude of 21 mm at the end of the
earthquake, equating to a residual deformation in the steel rod of a scale of 2.4%. During
testing on the structure with an SMA unit, no destabilizing behaviours were detected, how-
ever bending of the steel bar was detected frequently during the testing on the structure
without an SMA unit. When the tie-rod backs in tension, it causes shocks to the structure
around the anchorage plates.

(a) (b)

Figure 14. Retrofitting of the San Paolo Eremita church; (a) San Paolo Eremita church (photo by Saggittarius A.) (b) schematic
of the proposed SMA-based system [58].

Another aspect that deserves further studies concerns the opportunity of using virgin
wires or wires trained by a few loading cycles before installation. Indeed, shaking table
tests have shown that the use of virgin SMA wire is desirable. Two distinct techniques were
considered during the implementation. Both ideas were fully achieved, demonstrating the
viability of both options. Additional devices were installed and monitored over time to
give more information and ideas to improve the installation method.

4.3.2. SMA-Based Device in the Restoration of the Bell Tower of San Giorgio at Trignano
Castellano et al. [65] investigated the application of SMA in historical heritage seismic
retrofitting. They used the SMA-based device in the restoration of the Bell Tower of San
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 16 of 24

Giorgio at Trignano with four pre-tensioned SMA devices at the corners of the tower
(see Figure 15). The practicality of employing SMA devices with varying behaviours
was proved by the development of a number of prototypes that were extensively tested.
Shaking table studies revealed that a new binding approach based on SMA devices can
be extremely successful in preventing the out-of-plane collapse of outer masonry walls,
church façades, and insufficiently linked at ground floor structures.

Figure 15. Installation of four pre-tensioned steel tie bars and SMA devices in the interior corners of
the S. Giorgio church bell tower that were anchored to the foundation and the roof [65].

It was observed that the SMA device exhibits good acceleration reduction: for example,
almost 50% at the top and more than 60% at the connections level. Furthermore, the
maximum force peak in the wall reinforced with the SMA device is reduced by 45%. When
compared to standard ties, SMA device ties can boost resistance against out-of-plane
seismic vibrations of such masonry walls by at least 50% (in terms of maximum PGA
acceptable without degradation), contributing to a 50% reduction in peak acceleration.
Furthermore, unlike standard steel ties, SMA device ties may avoid tympanum structural
collapse. Pseudo-dynamic, in-plane experiments on masonry wall mock-ups with openings
revealed that SMA devices used in conjunction with steel tendons to prestress the masonry
may absorb around 30% of the seismic input energy and thereby increase a structure’s
seismic resistance.

5. Retrofit Techniques with SMA-Based Device for Masonry and Adobe Buildings
After reviewing different case studies that examined and determined the efficiency
of the application of SMAs in URM buildings, this section provides the schemes of URM
structural elements retrofitted with SMA-based components. The schemes are based on the
Iranian national design codes for masonry buildings in accordance with the most common
failure modes in the Bam 2003 earthquake. The collapse of the walls and lack of strength in
lateral resistance frames are considered two of the most common reasons for the damages
to the buildings in the Bam earthquake. Generally, the most common failure modes of
masonry buildings are listed as follows [66]:
• Lack of anchorage;
• Anchor failure;
• In-plane failures;
• Out-of-plane failure;
• Combined in-plane and out-of-plane effects;
• Diaphragm-related failures.
Additionally, as for masonry walls, since connections between neighbouring walls are
sufficiently strong, the wall’s in-plane shear resistance is deployed, and shear fractures form.
Once a building is fractured since there is no further connection between the neighbouring
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 17 of 24

components, the dynamic reaction is similar to rocking instability [67]. Besides rocking,
Figure 16 depicts other possibilities for the in-plane failure of masonry walls.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 16. In-plane failure modes of URM walls; (a) shear failure; (b) sliding failure; (c) rocking
failure; (d) toe crushing.

Shadbin et al. [68] provided the results of a shaking table test of a single-storey URM
building with a Jack-arch ceiling as a proper representative of existing URM buildings in
Iran, which also was one of the most common structural types in Bam before the earthquake
of 2003. Experimental results revealed that the recommended strengthening system in
Standard-2800 [69] for the roof diaphragm in jack-arch slabs was efficient as an effective
solution for reducing the seismic vulnerability of existing masonry buildings with flexible
floors.
Furthermore, based on the latest version of the Iranian design codes for masonry
buildings [70] and seismic design standards [71], the implementation of steel reinforcement
in masonry walls needs to be followed by the undermentioned regulations; however,
on the conceptual level, these rules can be applied for further applications of SMAs as
reinforcement materials in URM walls:
• The rebars must be entirely encased by building materials (for example, mortar), and
the strain connection between the mortar and the rebar must be such that the applied
loads are carried in a compound way.
• Vertical bars with a minimum value of 130 mm2 should be placed at each junction of
two or more walls, as well as at the ends of the walls. In addition, for the length of the
wall, at least 130 mm2 of vertical rebars shall be inserted, with a maximum horizontal
spacing of 1200 mm (across the wall).
• A minimum horizontal bar with a cross-sectional area of 130 mm2 should be con-
sidered for each of the following: above the wall and at the point of continuous
connection of the ceiling or floor to the wall; at the bottom of the wall or above the
foundations if the foundations are attached to the walls; concentrated at intervals of
up to 3 meters or uniform in height.
• The minimum yield strength of the rebars (fy ) and the minimum characteristic strength
of concrete (fc ) must be equal to 240 and 20 MPa, respectively.
• Using rebars with a diameter smaller than 10 mm is not allowed.
Up to now, there has not been any consideration of the application of SMAs in the
Iranian design codes, which is why prior to any implementation of SMA-based devices,
further investigation is required to obtain sufficient seismic resistance.
Figure 17a demonstrates the general schematic of the retrofitting of URM walls by
SMA-based devices and/or components considering aforementioned studies, Standard-
2800, the Iranian national code for masonry buildings, and the most common failure
modes of the Bam earthquake. An SMA device is designed between the roof and its
neighbouring column to provide integrity at the conjunction. It also might reduce the
maximum deflection of the floor due to the high energy dissipation capacity and re-centring
capacity of SMAs. Between the masonry wall and the foundation, a lateral SMA-based
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 18 of 24

resisting system is located, aiming to prevent the four mentioned failure modes of URM
walls (Figure 16) and the soft-story building. Furthermore, the SMA device between the
floor and foundation might assist in mitigating the earthquake energies and diminishing
the level of damage to the wall.
The SMA strips network, which can improve the performance of the URM walls, is
employed in order to enhance the strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity of
the wall during an earthquake. As the crossing network has shown better behaviour [63],
in this scheme, the same pattern is proposed. The network might be helpful to prevent
shear, sliding, and rocking failure of the URM wall. Additionally, the supportive beam
underneath the wall is designed to prevent toe-crushing of the masonry walls.
In addition to the failure of URM walls, the other significant failure modes of the
buildings at the Bam earthquake were the insufficient performance of bracing systems and
the weak connection in beam-column joints, mostly out-of-plane buckling and rupture of
the connections. By effective dissipation of the energy exposed to the bracing system, the
lateral resisting systems could be sufficiently utilized during an earthquake. In the event of
deforming the frame structures under excitation, SMA tie-rods dissipate energy through
stress-induced martensite transformation and prevent buckling in the bracing elements.
Figure 17b represents a general conceptualization of the connection between the X-
bracing element to a beam-column joint. The beam-column connection strengthened with
SMA bolts benefits from the high energy dissipation and re-centring capacity, providing
high ductility and rigidity. The vulnerability of the joints to external disturbances reduces
due to the greater dissipated energy of SMAs by large plastic deformations and then
recovering to their original shape [72,73].
These two schematic concepts are provided at a general level, which might be adjusted
and then utilized according to regional regulations and required design parameters. The
authors’ main idea was to provide such a conceptualized scheme that might be deployed
based on different parameters which can affect the shape, dimensions, material’s properties,
etc. However, in the authors’ future studies, the performance of these two schemes will be
evaluated by different parameters to provide a more specific scheme responding to specific
situations.

(a) (b)

Figure 17. (a) Schematic of a retrofitted masonry wall by the application of SMA devices; (b) retrofitting of the beam-column
connection and the X-bracing system of the steel frames in masonry buildings.

In each of these retrofitting schemes, some practices have to be fulfilled to obtain the
expected outcomes. These practices and results are demonstrated in Table 5.
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 19 of 24

Table 5. The retrofitting methods and their expected outcome of the proposed schemes.

Retrofitting Method Expected Outcomes References

Higher equivalent modulus of elasticity (Eeq ) and energy
SMA-based device between roof and
dissipation might lead to protecting of the URM walls during [62]
foundation
an earthquake.
SMA-based device between supportive beam Minimize the displacements of URM walls from failure to
[64]
(under the wall) and foundation levels of minor/moderate damage.
SMA-based strips in the shape of crossings 127.9% increase of the stiffness of the wall and higher energy
[63]
implemented in wall dissipation capacity.
SMA-based device between roof and column Providing a stabilized behaviour during an earthquake. [58]
Providing excellent re-centring abilities and moderate energy
SMA-based bolts and connectors dissipation capability with an equivalent viscous damping up [74,75]
to 17.5% with 94% deformation recovery.
Exhibiting greater initial stiffness (resulting in approximately
15% greater initial frequency) with less than half the weight
and supplemental re-centring capability, which may lead to
SMA-based bracing system [76]
sustaining higher inelastic deformations without jeopardizing
the structural system’s collapse safety or seismic resistance at
the end of the earthquake.

After evaluating the methodology and the results of the previous research, as well as
the two proposed retrofitting schemes, a generic algorithm is presented that depicts the
procedures for integrating SMA devices in masonry structures, a strategy to reduce the
seismic risk of masonry structures. Figure 18 depicts the six major steps of this method.
Inspections and seismic evaluations should be used to determine structural deficien-
cies in the initial phase. This step may include evaluating structures after an earthquake to
repair and retrofit a damaged structure or identifying the inadequacies of a constructed
structure in order to prevent future seismic failures. Then, in the following step, an optimal
seismic design should be supplied for future retrofitting techniques based on local construc-
tion codes. Depending on the damaged grade of a structure, some pre-implementation
repairs may be required in the first phase of retrofitting; for example, if a URM wall is
critically damaged and is unable to provide sufficient strength (to withstand dead and/or
live loads), it must first be repaired before any further seismic retrofitting.
The implementation of SMA-based devices consists of three interconnected sub-phases.
The type of the desired device should be defined in terms of its utilizing region; for example,
if the retrofitting is aimed at improving the isolation between the wall and foundation,
the SMA device should correspond to the requirements of such an application. Follow-
ing the determination of the device’s kind, its design parameters should be developed
in accordance with earthquake design rules. Since SMAs are relatively new materials,
they are not commonly included in design codes; hence, before any implementation, the
performance of the described system should be evaluated in another sub-phase. As a result,
these three sub-phases are co-related in this method. If the proposed device’s performance
evaluation is insufficient, altering the design parameters and/or device type may result in
a satisfactory implementation.
It is essential to note that prior to installing the SMA devices, the structure must
be secured to avoid possible failures, collapse, and harm to the people and machinery
engaged in the retrofitting operation. For example, in order to install a post-tensioned
SMA device, a temporary resisting system must be provided to withstand the forces before
the SMA device can be completely employed. The final stage includes the maintenance
of the structure and the employed device and monitoring the performance of the system
to determine the probable required repairs to reduce the risks caused by seismic events
during the life cycle of a structure.
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 20 of 24

Application of SMAs in seismic retrofitting of masonry structures

Seismic assessments

Post-earthquake seismic assessments Pre-earthquake seismic

assessments

Determining the damages and deficiencies of the structures exposed to

an earthquake and define the required retrofitting design parameters re- Identifying the existing masonry structures’ inadequacies in relation to lo-
garding the regional seismic hazards and design requirements to enable cal seismic concerns and design requirements to prevent future seismic
serviceability of the structure and prevent future seismic damages and fail- damages and failures.
ures.

Seismic design codes

Adopting the preceding stage’s design specifications based on the regional design codes.

First stage of the retrofitting: compulsory repairs

Before implementing SMA-based devices, if the structure’s brickwork is critically damaged, it must first be restored in accordance with regional
requirements.

Second stage of the retrofitting: utilizing SMA

Type of prototype Design parameter Assessing the efficiency

Using regional seismic hazards to determine

Specifying the type of device or element that Analyzing the performance of the prototype
the dimensions and required design specifica-
is expected to be used (isolation system, rebar, under seismic stresses using laboratory test-
tions based on the SMA properties (fatigue, en-
strips and etc.). ing, numerical analysis, and modeling.
ergy dissipation and etc.).

Implementation of the SMA device

Installation of the shape memory alloys-based device on the damaged structure while taking safety precautions and installing temporary reinforcing
systems to avoid collapse or further damage to the structure.

Ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the utilized system

In addition to yearly and regular maintenance of the structure, the structural performance of the system is evaluated to establish the system’s major
deficiencies.

Figure 18. Proposed algorithm of retrofitting of the masonry structures with implementation of SMA-based devices.

6. Conclusions and Discussion

Despite its enormous fatalities and losses, the Bam earthquake tragedy presents a
rare opportunity to raise world awareness of the significance of efficient execution of a
comprehensive earthquake risk reduction program in Iran as well as other hazard-prone
developing nations. It challenges governments to make the most use of current earthquake
knowledge and integrate it into development plans.
The major structural factors of the Bam earthquake may be divided into two categories:
first, the damages to buildings and infrastructures resulted in a large number of casualties
and difficult post-seismic developments; second, the collapse of an old-world heritage
site (Bam Citadel). All of these concerns might be effectively avoided by a well-planned
retrofitting effort for the historical section, as well as improved building inspections and
national regulations.
The use of SMA-based devices to strengthen earthen and masonry constructions is one
of the creative methods that might be applied. Based on a study of prior research, using
SMA devices can effectively moderate seismic forces and prevent structural damage and
collapse. SMAs benefit from the shape recovery functionality, which may also be employed
for post-earthquake repairs, which speeds up the repair process and saves time and money.
Another attribute of SMAs is their ability to withstand large deformations without rupture,
which masonry buildings do not have. In general, the use of SMAs in masonry structures
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 21 of 24

has shown to be an effective technique to protect ancient structures as well as thousands

of lives. This study is part of a larger research program examining the use of SMAs in
structural retrofitting. Future research will look into the use of SMA devices in the Bam
Citadel to prevent it from collapse again following its retrofitting phase.
Additionally, it is important to consider the reversibility of any further intervention
in historical structures. Cultural heritage sites are excellent illustrations of how heritage
is rarely an end artefact, but rather a continuous cultural product that is constantly being
moulded and altered. In this regard, any previous intervention, as well as any con-
temporary intervention, is irreversible and will influence how present and subsequent
descendants perceive the heritage [77]. It is critical to protect the integrity of interventions
while simultaneously using performance enhancement to increase the efficiency of historic
site maintenance. The intricacy of interventions on historic sites and buildings necessi-
tates a unique strategy that takes into consideration both the intricacy of existing historic
structures and the uniqueness of historic construction materials and techniques [78].
There are two requirements for maintaining these objectives [79]:
• Preserving the historical artefact’s construction rationale;
• Utilising materials and processes that are reversible.
Furthermore, marginal technological interventions should be considered, i.e., interfer-
ing more than enough to enable an object to maintain a condition of usability, but as little
as possible to prevent excessive substitution of historic fabric, thus further guaranteeing
the ethics of integration and reversibility in each interference [80].
The authors presented conceptual refurbishment strategies for achieving the optimal
seismic effect on a masonry structure during an earthquake. The method is based on
extensive literature research and national codes, and it will be further expanded and
explored by the authors in various case studies, notably for historical masonry structures,
which are seen as a major concern. Overall, this system might help construction engineers
achieve a building design and plan to reduce seismic risks, which might lead to long-
lasting structures with minimal earthquake damage. Finally, this article is associated with
a broader research plan aimed at improving structural performance under seismic forces
through the use of SMAs.
In this investigation, the authors focused on papers available in scientific databases
and publications. The given cases are based on findings obtained by researchers all across
the world. The authors are concerned that local practices and regional design codes may
impact the outcomes of utilizing the suggested methodology, but at a conceptual level, the
technique should be beneficial and fulfil its goal in terms of local practices, which will be
explored and evaluated further in the future.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.T.; formal analysis, A.T., M.H.-N., M.K., and S.L; inves-
tigation, A.T.; supervision, M.H.-N., M.K., and S.L.; writing—original draft, A.T.; writing—review
and editing, A.T., M.H.-N., M.K., and S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: Research was funded by the research project of the Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Architecture Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, and the Institute of Building
Engineering, Poznan University of Technology (grant number: 0412/SBAD/0046).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this article are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 22 of 24

References
1. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR); Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).
Economic Losses, Poverty and Disasters 1998–2017; Technical Report 3; Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters:
Brussels, Belgium, October 2018.
2. Işik, E. Consistency of the rapid assessment method for reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq. Struct. 2016, 11, 873–885,
doi:10.12989/eas.2016.11.5.873.
3. Işik, E.; Kutanis, M. Performance based assessment for existing residential buildings in Lake Van basin and seismicity of the
region. Earthq. Struct. 2015, 9, 893–910, doi:10.12989/eas.2015.9.4.893.
4. Harirchian, E.; Kumari, V.; Jadhav, K.; Raj Das, R.; Rasulzade, S.; Lahmer, T. A Machine Learning Framework for Assessing
Seismic Hazard Safety of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7153, doi:10.3390/app10207153.
5. Ghaedi, K.; Ibrahim, Z.; Jameel, M.; Javanmardi, A.; Khatibi, H. Seismic Response Analysis of Fully Base-Isolated Adjacent
Buildings with Segregated Foundations. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 1–21, doi:10.1155/2018/4517940.
6. Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Mišetić, V.; Morić, D. Seismic vulnerability assessment of an old historical masonry building in Osijek,
Croatia, using Damage Index. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 28, 140–150, doi:10.1016/j.culher.2017.05.012.
7. Pavić, G.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Plaščak, I.; Pavić, S. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Historical Unreinforced Masonry
Buildings in Osijek using Capacity Spectrum Method. Acta Phys. Pol. A 2019, 135, 1138–1142, doi:10.12693/APhysPolA.135.1138.
8. Javanmardi, A.; Abadi, R.; Marsono, A.K.; Md Tap, M.; Ibrahim, Z.; Ahmad, A. Correlation of Stiffness and Natural Frequency of
Precast Frame System. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 735, 141–144, doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.735.141.
9. Churilov, S.; Dumova-Jovanoska, E. In-plane shear behaviour of unreinforced and jacketed brick masonry walls. Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng. 2013, 50, 85–105, doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.03.006.
10. Ademović, N. Structural assessment & strengthening of the first singe-arch RC bridge in Sarajevo, BIH. Eng. Struct. 2021,
235, 112002, doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112002.
11. Javanmardi, A.; Ghaedi, K.; Huang, F.; Hanif, M.U.; Tabrizikahou, A. Application of Structural Control Systems for the Cables of
Cable-Stayed Bridges: State-of-the-Art and State-of-the-Practice. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021, 1–31, doi:10.1007/s11831-021-
09632-4.
12. Saatcioglu, M. Structural Damage Caused by Earthquakes; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 947–959, doi:10.1007/978-
1-4020-4399-4_346.
13. Işık, E.; Harirchian, E.; Bilgin, H.; Jadhav, K. The effect of material strength and discontinuity in RC structures according to
different site-specific design spectra. Res. Eng. Struct. Mater. 2021, doi:10.17515/resm2021.273st0303.
14. Matthys, H.; Noland, L. A review of conventional seismic retrofitting techniques for URM. In Proceedings of the International
Seminar on Evaluation, Strengthening and Retrofitting Masonry Buildings, TMS, CO, USA, 11–18 October 1989.
15. Papanikolaou, A.; Taucer, F. Review of Non-Engineered Houses in Latin America with Reference to Building Practices and Self-Construction
Projects; Joint Research Centre: Ispra, Italy, 2004.
16. Blondet, M.; Garcia, G. Adobe Construction; WHE Housing Report; Catholic University of Peru: San Miguel, Peru, 2003.
17. Oyguc, R.; Oyguc, E. 2011 Van Earthquakes: Lessons from Damaged Masonry Structures. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017,
31, 04017062, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001057.
18. Dougangün, A.; Ural, A.; Livaouglu, R. Seismic performance of masonry buildings during recent earthquakes in turkey. In
Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008.
19. Bazazzadeh, H.; Nadolny, A.; Attarian, K.; Safar ali Najar, B.; Sara Hashemi Safaei, S. Promoting Sustainable Development
of Cultural Assets by Improving Users’ Perception through Space Configuration; Case Study: The Industrial Heritage Site.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5109, doi:10.3390/su12125109.
20. Mahdavinejad, M.; Didehban, M.; Bazazzadeh, H. Contemporary architectural heritage and industrial identity in historic districts,
case study: Dezful. J. Stud. Iran. Islam. City 2016, 6, 41–50.
21. Javanmardi, A.; Ibrahim, Z.; Ghaedi, K.; Khatibi, H. Numerical analysis of vertical pipe damper. In IABSE Symposium, Vancouver
2017: Engineering the Future; International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE): Zurich, Switzerland, 2017;
pp. 2974–2980, doi:10.2749/vancouver.2017.2974.
22. (AVEI), T.A.E.I. Introduction to a Millennia Old Tradition. Available online: http://www.earth-auroville.com/world_techniques_
introduction_en.php (accessed on 23 June, 2021).
23. Kouris, L.A.S.; Kappos, A.J. Numerical Investigation and Empirical Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Timber-Framed Masonry
Buildings. In Handbook of Research on Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures; IGI Global: Hershey PA, USA,
2015; pp. 60–84, doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8286-3.ch003.
24. Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Ademovic, N.; Pavic, G.; Kalman Šipoš, T. Strengthening techniques for masonry structures of cultural
heritage according to recent Croatian provisions. Earthq. Struct. 2018, 15, 473–485, doi:10.12989/eas.2018.15.5.473.
25. Elgawady, M.A.; Lestuzzi, P. A review of conventional seismic retrofitting techniques for URM. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Amsterdam, Poland, 4–7 July 2004 .
26. Moghadam, A.S.; Eskandari, A. Post-earthquake quick inspection of damaged buildings in Bam earthquake of 26 December 2003.
J. Seismol. Earthq. Eng. 2004, 5, 81–90.
27. Biglari, M.; Formisano, A. Damage Probability Matrices and Empirical Fragility Curves From Damage Data on Masonry Buildings
After Sarpol-e-zahab and Bam Earthquakes of Iran. Front. Built Environ. 2020, 6, 2, doi:10.3389/fbuil.2020.00002.
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 23 of 24

28. Maheri, M.R. Performance of Building Roofs in the 2003 Bam, Iran, Earthquake. Earthq. Spectra 2005, 21, 411–424,
doi:10.1193/1.2098859.
29. Ghafouri, A.M. Editorial summary: Bam earthquake of 05: 26: 26 Of 26 December 2003, MS6. 5. J. Seismol. Earthq. Eng. 2004, 5,
1–3.
30. Jasieńko, J.; Raszczuk, K.; Kleszcz, K.; Fra̧ckiewicz, P. Numerical analysis of historical masonry domes: A study of St. Peter’s
Basilica dome. Structures 2021, 31, 80–86, doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.082.
31. Ramazi, H.; Jigheh, H.S. The Bam (Iran) Earthquake of December 26, 2003: From an engineering and seismological point of view.
J. Asian Earth Sci. 2006, 27, 576–584, doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.2005.05.009.
32. Ahmadizadeh, M.; Shakib, H. On the 26 December 2003, southeastern Iran earthquake in Bam region. Eng. Struct. 2004,
26, 1055–1070, doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.03.006.
33. Hosseini, H.B. Performance of batten columns in steel buildings during the Bam earthquake of 26 December 2003. J. Seismol.
Earthq. Eng. 2004, 5, 101–109.
34. Hosseini Hashemi, B.; Hassanzadeh, M. Study of a semi-rigid steel braced building damaged in the Bam earthquake. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 2008, 64, 704–721, doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.12.007.
35. Langenbach, R. Performance of the Earthen Arg-e-Bam (Bam Citadel) during the 2003 Bam, Iran, Earthquake. Earthq. Spectra
2005, 21, 345–374, doi:10.1193/1.2113167.
36. Bazazzadeh, H. Truth of sincerity and authenticity or lie of reconstruction; whom do the visitors of cultural heritage trust? In
Proceedings of International Conference of Defining the Architectural Space, Cracow, Poland, 19–20 November 2020 .
37. Bazazzadeh, H.; Mahdavinejad, M.; Ghomeshi, M.; Safaei, S.S.H. Requirements for comprehensive management of industrial
heritage sites and landscapes. In Proceedings of The International Conference on Conservation of 20th Century Heritage from
Architecture to Landscape, Tehran, Iran, 23–24 April 2019.
38. Mahdi, T. Performance of traditional arches, vaults and domes in the 2003 Bam Earthquake. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2004, 5, 209–221.
39. Ölander, A. An electrochemical investigation of solid cadmium-gold alloys. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1932, 54, 3819–3833,
doi:10.1021/ja01349a004.
40. Vernon, L.B.; Vernon, H.M. Process of Manufacturing Articles of Thermoplastic Synthetic Resins. U.S. Patent No. 2,234,993, 6
Februrary 1941.
41. Buehler, W.; Gilfrich, J.; Wiley, R. Effect of low-temperature phase changes on the mechanical properties of alloys near composition
TiNi. J. Appl. Phys. 1963, 34, 1475–1477.
42. Khachaturyan, A.G. Theory of Structural Transformations in Solids; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
43. Olson, G.; Owen, W. Martensite. A tribute to Morris Cohen; ASM International: Almere, The Netherlands, 1992.
44. Otsuka, K.; Wayman, C.M. Shape Memory Materials; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999.
45. Bhattacharya, K. Microstructure of Martensite. Why it Forms and How it Gives Rise to the Shape-Memory Effect; Oxford University
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
46. Lagoudas, D.C. Shape Memory Alloys. Modeling and Engineering Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.
47. Wilde, K.; Gardoni, P.; Fujino, Y. Base isolation system with shape memory alloy device for elevated highway bridges. Eng.
Struct. 2000, 22, 222–229.
48. Janke, L.; Czaderski, C.; Motavalli, M.; Ruth, J. Applications of shape memory alloys in civil engineering structures—overview,
limits and new ideas. Mater Struct 2005, 38, 578–592.
49. Müller, I.; Xu, H. On the pseudoelastic hysteresis. Acta Metall. Mater. 1991, 39, 263–271.
50. Raniecki, B.; Lexcellent, C.; Tanaka, K. Thermodynamic models of pseudoelastic behaviour of shape memory alloys. Arch. Mech.
1992, 44, 261–284.
51. Auricchio, F.; Taylor, R.; Lubliner, J. Shape-memory alloys: Macromodelling and numerical simulations of the superelastic
bahavior. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 1997, 146, 281–312.
52. Kuczma, M.; Mielke, A.; Stein, E. Modelling of hysteresis in two phase systems. Arch. Mech. 1999, 51, 693–715.
53. Kuczma, M.; Mielke, A. Influence of hardening and inhomogeneity on internal loops in pseudoelasticity. ZAMM 2000, 80, 291–306.
54. Desroches, R.; Smith, B. Shape memory alloys in seismic resistant design and retrofit: A critical review of their potential and
limitations. J. Earthq. Eng. 2004, 8, 415–429, doi:10.1080/13632460409350495.
55. Cladera, A.; Montoya-Coronado, L.A.; Ruiz-Pinilla, J.G.; Ribas, C. Shear strengthening of slender reinforced concrete T-shaped
beams using iron-based shape memory alloy strips. Eng. Struct. 2020, 221, 111018.
56. Choi, E.; hyun Nam, T.; Cho, S.C.; Chung, Y.S.; Park, T. The behavior of concrete cylinders confined by shape memory alloy wires.
Smart Mater. Struct. 2008, 17, 065032, doi:10.1088/0964-1726/17/6/065032.
57. Burgoyne, C. Fibre reinforced polymers–strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. In Proceedings of the 9th International
Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-9), Cambridge, UK, 13–15 July 2009.
58. Cardone, D.; Angiuli, R.; Gesualdi, G. Application of Shape Memory Alloys in Historical Constructions. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2019,
13, 390–401, doi:10.1080/15583058.2018.1563225.
59. Chuang, S.W.; Zhuge, Y. Seismic Retrofitting of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings—A Literature Review. Aust. J. Struct. Eng.
2005, 6, 25–36, doi:10.1080/13287982.2005.11464942.
60. Tabrizikahou, A.; Nowotarski, P. Mitigating the Energy Consumption and the Carbon Emission in the Building Structures by
Optimization of the Construction Processes. Energies 2021, 14, 3287, doi:10.3390/en14113287.
Materials 2021, 14, 4480 24 of 24

61. Shrestha, K.C.; Araki, Y.; Nagae, T.; Omori, T.; Sutou, Y.; Kainuma, R.; Ishida, K. Applicability of Cu-Al-Mn shape memory alloy
bars to retrofitting of historical masonry constructions. Earthquakes Struct. 2011, 2, 233–256, doi:10.12989/eas.2011.2.3.233.
62. Casciati, S.; Hamdaoui, K. Experimental and numerical studies toward the implementation of shape memory alloy ties in
masonry structures. Smart Struct. Syst. 2008, 4, 153–169, doi:10.12989/sss.2008.4.2.153.
63. Rezapour, M.; Ghassemieh, M.; Motavalli, M.; Shahverdi, M. Numerical Modeling of Unreinforced Masonry Walls Strengthened
with Fe-Based Shape Memory Alloy Strips. Materials 2021, 14, 2961, doi:10.3390/ma14112961.
64. Habieb, A.B.; Valente, M.; Milani, G. Hybrid seismic base isolation of a historical masonry church using unbonded fiber reinforced
elastomeric isolators and shape memory alloy wires. Eng. Struct. 2019, 196, 109281, doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109281.
65. Castellano, M.G.; Indirli, M.; Martelli, A. Progress of application, research and development, and design guidelines for shape
memory alloy devices for cultural heritage structures in Italy. In Smart Structures and Materials 2001: Smart Systems for Bridges,
Structures and Highways; International Society for Optics and Photonics: Bellingham, DC, USA, 2001; Volume 4330, pp. 250–261 ,
doi:10.1117/12.434124.
66. Bruneau, M. State-of-the-Art Report on Seismic Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. J. Struct. Eng. 1994, 120, 230–251,
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:1(230).
67. Kouris, E.G.S.; Kouris, L.A.S.; Konstantinidis, A.A.; Kourkoulis, S.K.; Karayannis, C.G.; Aifantis, E.C. Stochastic Dynamic
Analysis of Cultural Heritage Towers up to Collapse. Buildings 2021, 11, 296, doi:10.3390/buildings11070296.
68. Shabdin, M.; K.A. Attari, N.; Zargaran, M. Shaking table study on the seismic performance of an Iranian traditional Un-Reinforced
Masonry (URM) building. Structures 2020, 27, 424–439, doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2020.06.002.
69. Building.; Center, H.R. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistance Design of Buildings: Standard No. 2800; Research Center of the
Ministry of Roads, Urban Development and Housing, Tehran, Iran, 2005.
70. Office of National Building Regulations; Design and Construction of Buildings with Masonry Materials; Ministry of Housing and
Urban Development Deputy Minister of Housing and Construction, Tehran, Iran, 2013, Volume 2.
71. Research Center of the Ministry of Roads, Urban Development and Housing. Iranian building standards and regulations. In
Earthquake Design Regulations—Standard 2800, 4th ed.; Research Center of the Ministry of Roads, Urban Development and Housing:
Tehran, Iran, 2014.
72. Alam, M.S.; Youssef, M.A.; Nehdi, M. Utilizing shape memory alloys to enhance the performance and safety of civil infrastructure:
A review. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2007, 34, 1075–1086, doi:10.1139/l07-038.
73. Song, G.; Ma, N.; Li, H.N. Applications of shape memory alloys in civil structures. Eng. Struct. 2006, 28, 1266–1274,
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.12.010.
74. Fang, C.; Yam, M.C.; Lam, A.C.; Xie, L. Cyclic performance of extended end-plate connections equipped with shape memory
alloy bolts. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2014, 94, 122–136, doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.11.008.
75. Ma, H.; Wilkinson, T.; Cho, C. Feasibility study on a self-centering beam-to-column connection by using the superelastic behavior
of SMAs. Smart Mater. Struct. 2007, 16, 1555–1563, doi:10.1088/0964-1726/16/5/008.
76. Cardone, D.; Dolce, M.; Ponzo, F.C.; Coelho, E. Experimental behaviour of r/c frames retrofitted with dissipating and re-centring
braces. J. Earthq. Eng. 2004, 8, 361–396, doi:10.1080/13632460409350493.
77. Ureche-Trifu, C. Minimal Intervention and Decision Making in Conserving the Built Heritage. Ph.D. Thesis, Carleton University,
Ottawa, ON, Canada, May 2013.
78. Van Roy, N.; Verstrynge, E.; Van Balen, K. Quality management of interventions on historic buildings. Struct. Stud. Repairs Maint.
Herit. Archit. 2015, 313–324, doi:10.2495/STR150261.
79. Bellomo, S.D.M. The concept of reversibility in the structural restoration of archaeological sites. Adv. Archit. Ser. 2003, 1, 431–437.
80. Bertolin, C.; Loli, A. Sustainable interventions in historic buildings: A developing decision making tool. J. Cult. Herit. 2018,
34, 291–302, doi:10.1016/j.culher.2018.08.010.