G effect contributes towards the most aspect in the total lateral displacement however the fixed pier primarily depended around the flexural deformation with the pier itself. The seismic responses from the section in the bottom of the plastic hinge 17 of 21 area in two bridge systems are presented in Figure 20, which implies that the fixed base ECC-reinforced pier suffered extreme damage but the rocking pier stayed elastic. The seismic response of a single SMA washer set is displayed in Figure 21, where the self-locking self-locking impact is triggered when the compressive deformation reached 0.03 m. Once the impact is triggered when the compressive deformation reached 0.03 m. As soon as the L-?Leucyl-?L-?alanine Endogenous Metabolite maximum maximum of theratio of the Trapidil supplier resilient bridge reaches self-locking effect willeffect will act and drift ratio drift resilient bridge reaches two.0 , the 2.0 , the self-locking act and the ECCthe ECC-reinforced pier will yield simultaneously. words, ifwords, when the driftthe resilient reinforced pier will yield simultaneously. In other In other the drift ratio of ratio of the resilient bridge exceeds two.0 , the incrementaldisplacement will absolutely rely on the bridge exceeds two.0 , the incremental lateral lateral displacement will absolutely depend on the yielding deformation ECC-reinforced pier. pier. yielding deformation on the with the ECC-reinforcedShear force (kN)2000 1000Resilient Conventional-1000 -2000 -3000 -0.02 -0.01 0.0.0.0.Drift ratioFigure 19. Shear force vs. drift ratio. Figure 19. Shear force vs. drift ratio.40,Bending moment (kNm)30,000 20,000 10,000 0 -10,000 -20,000 -30,000 -40,000 -3 -2 -1Resilient ConventionalCurvature ductilityFigure 20. Bending moment vs. curvature ductility. Figure 20. Bending moment vs. curvature ductility.Figure 21. Compressive force vs. deformation of SMA washer set.Supplies 2021, 14,18 of5.four. Comparison of Seismic Responses involving the RC and ECC-Reinforced Resilient Bridges The aforementioned comparisons demonstrates that the ECC-reinforced bridge systems are extra resilient than the traditional bridge systems. The following portion will make a comparison in between the two resilient bridge systems with all the RC rocking pier as well as the ECC-reinforced rocking pier. The average maximum drift ratio with the resilient bridge with RC rocking bridge beneath E2 level earthquakes is 1.49 but the worth of your ECC-reinforced resilient rocking bridge is 1.70. The reason is that the yielding strength with the RC pier is smaller sized than the ECC-reinforced pier to ensure that it can’t sustain significant rocking amplitude. It can reconfirm by the response in the typical maximum curvature ductility of two bridges. For example, the typical maximum curvature ductility in the resilient bridge with RC rocking bridge beneath E2 level earthquake is 1.50, whereas the value with the ECC-reinforced resilient rocking bridge is 0.98. A case is chosen for additional investigation: the drift ratio versus lateral seismic force responses of two resilient bridges subjected to a typical earthquake (i.e., Earthquake No. 1 at E2 level) is shown in Figure 22. From Figure 23, it might be recognized that the maximum drift ratio from the resilient bridge together with the ECC-reinforced pier is 2.07, but the corresponding value is only 1.63. The curvature ductility versus bending moment responses of two resilient bridges below a standard earthquake (i.e., Earthquake No. 1 at E2 level) is shown in Figure 23. The maximum curvature ductility of the RC pier is 1.47 but the counterpart from the ECC-reinforced pier is 1.07. Th.