Thin–Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Performance and damage states assessment of thin-walled steel bridge piers

with end-corrosion under earthquake loading
Qiang Zhang a, Qiang Han a, *, Jianian Wen a, b, Hanqing Zhuge a, c, Zhanfei Wang d
a
State Key Laboratory of Bridge Engineering Safety and Resilience, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
b
CCCC Highway Bridges National Engineering Research Centre, Beijing 100088, China
c
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University of Science &Technology, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province 310000, China
d
School of Transportation and Geomatics Engineering, Shenyang Jianzhu University, Shenyang, Liaoning Province 110168, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: End-corrosion is typical damage to steel bridge piers, which will reduce the seismic performance. Unlike overall
Steel bridge pier uniform corrosion, end-corrosion results in more complex stresses on bridge piers, however, there are few related
Corrosion studies. This study aims to analyze the mechanical performance of corroded bridge piers and to establish a
Earthquake
method for evaluating the seismic damage status of steel piers considering circumferential uniform end-
Damage assessment
Analysis model
corrosion. Firstly, the effect of corrosion parameters on key performance points of bridge piers is quantita­
tively analyzed using the validated finite element model. The calculation method of critical displacement value
corresponding to different damage states of the end-corroded bridge pier is proposed. A high-precision fiber
beam element analysis model is developed to simultaneously consider the effects of end-corrosion and shear
stiffness variation. The results show that the degradation degree of yield displacement of the end-corroded bridge
pier is relatively small. In contrast, the ultimate displacement, capacity point displacement and bearing capacity
are significantly affected by corrosion parameters, and the degradation degree after corrosion can reach more
than 30%. The pier damage ratio formula proposed in this study can accurately describe the degradation of the
ultimate value, and the calculation error is almost controlled within 15%. The multi-node variable section
(MNVS) fiber beam model proposed in this study has higher analysis accuracy, which can be improved by more
than 16% compared with the traditional fiber beam model. In addition, the accuracy of the MNVS model in the
dynamic analysis is verified by inputting the seismic records under three site conditions. Finally, considering the
characteristics of end-corrosion, an evaluation method and procedure for seismic damage status of the steel pier
with end-corrosion is established.

1. Introduction
Steel structures have excellent seismic performance and good plas­
ticity, and are widely used in countries and regions with high seismic
requirements [1–4]. Steel circular hollow section (CHS) pier is a typical
thin-walled steel structure, and as one of the main components of the
bridge, its damage state during earthquakes can directly affect the
post-earthquake service function and repair strategy of the bridge. The
recent earthquake disaster investigation found that many piers have
been damaged to some extent or even completely destroyed [5–7].
Therefore, the seismic performance of steel piers [8,9], analytical model
[10–13], and seismic design method [14,15] have been extensively
studied. In addition, to evaluate whether piers will be damaged during
earthquakes, experts and scholars have put forward some evaluation
methods for seismic performance and damage status of bridge structures
[16–21]. However, these methods need to consider the corrosion dam­
age that may occur during service of piers, which may lead to an over­
estimation of the seismic performance.
In recent years, some researchers have found that corrosion damage
has an important influence on mechanical properties of steel structures.
From the material point of view: Wang et al. [22] studied the residual
strength of corroded steel plates by test and finite element (FE) method,
and found that corrosion caused loss of steel sections and reduced the
ultimate strength of steel plates. Hu et al. [23] established a stress-strain
curve model of steel bars affected by corrosion parameters through tests.
Kainuma et al. [24] and Yang et al. [25] found that the corrosion

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: qhan@bjut.edu.cn (Q. Han).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2023.111173
Received 20 February 2023; Received in revised form 3 July 2023; Accepted 3 September 2023
Available online 15 September 2023
0263-8231/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Zhang et al.
Fig. 1. Steel circular section bridge piers and end-corrosion.
properties of steel were influenced by corrosive media and carried out
important research on interfacial corrosion. From the component point
of view: Xu et al. [26], Qin et al. [27] and Zheng et al. [28] analyzed the
seismic behavior of uniformly corroded H-shaped steel columns by
quasi-static test and numerical simulation and found that corrosion
damage reduced the seismic performance of steel structures. Gao et al.
[29] propose a calculation method of ultimate strength considering the
effect of corrosion through axial compression tests on corroded CHS and
CFST stub columns. Li et al. [30] studied the effect of localized pitting on
CFST columns under axial compression and proposed a simplified design
method for corroded columns. However, it can be found that the
research on the seismic performance of steel CHS piers is very limited at
present, and there is no effective method for evaluating the seismic
performance and damage status of corroded steel piers.
Ahn et al. [31] found that the mechanical properties of steel piers are
affected by corrosion areas, and different corrosion parameters will
cause differential mechanical degradation. At the same time, Kim et al.
[32,33], Ohnishi et al. [34], and Dao et al. [35] et al. have shown that
the end of the bridge pier is more susceptible to corrosion damage than
other parts due to the accumulation of dust and water at the
pier-foundation connection, as shown in Fig. 1. End-corrosion can seri­
ously affect mechanical properties and failure mode of steel CHS bridge
piers [36]. Therefore, the influence of end corrosion on seismic perfor­
mance and damage state of steel CHS bridge pier should be considered
when conducting seismic assessment and damage state checking.
In this context, this study aims to investigate the influence of
circumferential uniform end-corrosion on the mechanical properties of
steel CHS piers, and to establish an effective and reliable seismic damage
assessment method considering circumferential uniform end-corrosion
Fig. 2. Finite element model.
2
Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173
of steel piers by linking the measured corrosion damage parameters
(e.g., loss of steel plate thickness and corrosion height) with the seismic
damage assessment index of bridge piers. Therefore, in this paper,
firstly, the influence of corrosion parameters on yield strength point,
ultimate strength points and capacity point of the bridge pier is
analyzed, a displacement-based method for evaluating the seismic
damage state of steel CHS pier is improves, and the calculation formulas
of corresponding critical displacement for different damage states are
given. At the same time, a fiber beam element model considering shear
deformation and end-corrosion damage is established, and the accuracy
of the model is verified by the results of quasi-static and dynamic
analysis. Finally, the evaluation method and procedure for seismic
damage status of steel CHS pier with end corrosion damage are given.
This study can provide a theoretical reference and basis for related sci­
entific research, engineering design, and evaluation considering
durability.
2. Numerical method
2.1. FE model
In this study, a hybrid finite element model of steel CHS bridge pier,
which can consider both end corrosion and local buckling, is established
by using finite element software Abaqus [37], as shown in Fig. 2. The h,
P, F and D are the bridge pier height, vertical load at the top of the pier,
horizontal reaction at the top of the bridge pier and diameter of the pier
steel pipe. Shell elements are used in the lower 2D range of the bridge
pier, beam elements are used in the upper part of the bridge pier, and
meshes in the end 0.5D range are encrypted (with 1620 elements).
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Fy h3 Fy h
δy = + (2)
3EI κGA

where: Fy is the lateral yield load; E refers to the Young’ s modulus; I

represents the moment of inertia; G is the shear modulus and κ is the
shear unevenness coefficient of the cross section.
The lateral yield load of the pier can be determined by Eq. (3) [47].
{ ( ) ( )( )}
My P My P P
Fy = min 1− , 1− 1− (3)
h Py 0.85h PE Pu

where: Py and My are the yield axial load and moment for the pier,
respectively; PE represents the Euler’s buckling load of the column; Pu
denotes the ultimate axial compression strength, which is determined
from the Japanese specification [46].
Fig. 3. Cyclic loading protocol.

2.2. Validation of the numerical method

Kinematic coupling is the contact between beam and shell elements
[36].
P1, P11 and P12 are test specimens from references [14] and [15].
Previous studies have shown that the corrosion depth of mild steel
Specific parameters are shown in Table 1. σ y and σ u are the yield stress
follows a normal distribution and corrosion damage of steel structures
and the ultimate stress of the material and the values are the same as
can be simulated by the equivalent thickness method or corrosion
those in reference [14]. Rt, λ and μ are the radius-thickness ratio, slen­
morphology reconstruction method [38–45]. Therefore, the corrosion
derness ratio and axial pressure ratio of columns, respectively, calcu­
morphology of steel in the corrosion section within the range of the
lated by Eqs. (4–6) [15].
end-corrosion height hc is modeled finely using the corrosion
morphology data given in reference [38], as shown in Fig. 2. When the D σy √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅
Rt = 3(1 − v2 ) (4)
corrosion rate of the pier is ρ (ρ=du/t, where du and t stand for the 2t E
uniform corrosion depth and the original steel plate thickness of the √̅̅̅̅̅
corrosion section, respectively), the equivalent wall thickness te of the λ=
2h 1 σy
(5)
corroded section (Section 2-2) can be calculated by Eq. (1) [36]. The r π E
non-corroded parts of the pier have a wall thickness of t (t > te).
P
μ= (6)
te = t × (1 − ρ) (1) σy A
The kinematic hardening model of Q345 steel considering elasto­
where: r is the radius of gyration of the cross-section, σ y refers to the
plastic and Bausinger effects is adopted. In the quasi-static analysis, the
yield stress of steel, v denotes the Poisson’ s ratio and A is the cross-
displacement loading protocol of one cycle is applied to the top of the
sectional area of the column.
column, and the increment of displacement is the yield displacement δy
Fig. 4 shows the comparison between the FE analysis results and the
of the column. The cyclic loading protocol is shown in Fig. 3. The δy is
results of the hysteresis curve in reference [14]. From the diagram, the
calculated by Eq. (2) [11].
hysteresis curves of the simulation and test coincide. The FE model

Table 1
Measured geometrical of the specimens in the [14].
No. h (mm) D (mm) t (mm) Rt λ μ σy (MPa) σu (MPa)
P1 3403 891 9.00 0.110 0.26 0.12 289.6 510.0
P11 4391 891 9.61 0.088 0.30 0.15 235.4 426.1
P12 4391 891 16.8 0.050 0.30 0.15 235.4 426.1

Fig. 4. Comparison of the horizontal load-displacement hysteresis curves.

3
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Fig. 5. Comparison of the test and simulation failure mode for P1.

Table 2
Ranges of the parameters considered for steel CHS bridge piers.
Category Parameters Values

Corrosion parameters Corrosion rate ρ 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%
Corrosion height hc 0D, 0.1D, 0.2D, 0.3D, 0.4D
Geometric parameters Radius-thickness ratio Rt 0.052, 0.062, 0.078
Slenderness ratio λ 0.30, 0.32, 0.37
Axial compression ratio μ 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30

established in this study has a better simulation accuracy in exploring
the steel CHS bridge pier under reciprocating load, and a more accurate
force-displacement hysteresis curve can be obtained.
The FE analysis results are identical to the typical "elephant foot"
failure mode [15] in the Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake and the test re­
sults [14], as shown in Fig. 5, where "PEEQ" denotes equivalent plastic
strain. The FE model established in this study can obtain more accurate
failure modes of piers.
3. Numerical results and discussions
3.1. Characteristic parameters of the steel CHS pier
This study considers the effects of corrosion parameters and column
geometry parameters on the seismic behavior of steel CHS bridge piers
[36]. Corrosion rate ρ and corrosion height hc are the related variables of
corrosion parameters. Column geometric parameters include
radius-thickness ratio Rt, slenderness ratio λ and axial compression ratio
μ. The above parameters and their ranges are shown in Table 2.

Fig. 6. Damage state threshold and the associated states of the bridge piers.

Table 3
Damage states of bridge piers and implications on traffic [46,56,57].
Damage Demand Bridge piers state Bridge piers damage Traffic impact
states conditions

Blue (I) δy ≤ δ ≤ δm Slight damage, minor repairs Slight deformation, section about to Open to normal public traffic - no restrictions
yield
Yellow (II) δm ≤ δ ≤ δ95 Moderate or severe damage, major Section yielding, local buckling occurs Emergency vehicles only - speed/weight/lane
repairs restrictions
Red (III) δ95 ≤ δ Irreparable damage, function Local buckling exacerbation, large drift Closed - potential for collapse
compromised

4
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Fig. 7. Effect of corrosion parameters on yield strength point.

Fig. 8. Effect of geometric parameters on the yield strength point.

3.2. Concept of damage state and threshold
When the steel CHS bridge pier is subjected to seismic load, it can be
understood as applying vertical load on the pier top and horizontal cy­
clic load at the same time. The key performance points of corroded
bridge piers can be obtained by the envelope of hysteretic curve, as
shown in Fig. 6. The point at which the initial stiffness changes is
considered to be the yield point (δy, Fy), and the peak point of the en­
velope is called the ultimate strength point (δm, Fm) [47–50]. Consid­
ering the low cycle fatigue damage caused by earthquake, in order to
give full play to the ductility and strength of steel, refer to the previous
research [51–53] and specifications [46,54], and reduce the ultimate
strength to 95% is called the capacity point (δ95, F95). The bridge pier
capacity point is often used as the critical point of pier loss of service
function.
According to the different damage states of the bridge pier, the en­
velope curve can be divided into three damage stages and three key
performance points [10,14,15,51,55]. In the stage I (blue damage state),
the pier top displacement δ is between δy and δm, and the structure is in
the strain strengthening stage, with slight deterioration of stiffness and
bearing capacity, but no significant local buckling [56,10]; In the stage II
(yellow damage state), δ is between δm and δ95, at which point the
bearing capacity begins to degenerate and local buckling occurs and
develops gradually; In the stage III (red damage state), when δ > δ95, the

Fig. 9. Effect of corrosion parameters on ultimate strength point.

5
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Fig. 10. Effect of geometric parameters on ultimate strength point.

Fig. 11. Effect of corrosion parameters on capacity points.

bearing capacity decreases rapidly, local buckling develops rapidly, and
the pier gradually loses bearing capacity, as shown in Table 3 [10,56,
57]. Therefore, in this study, the yield strength point, ultimate strength
point and capacity point are taken as the key performance points of steel
CHS piers with end-corrosion damaged (and also the critical displace­
ment points of three damage states). The FE analysis results are used to
analyze the influence of corrosion parameters (the parameters range as
shown in Table 2) on the key performance points.
3.3. Yield strength point
Fig. 7 shows the mean results of yield point displacement and
strengths of steel bridge piers with different parameters. The yield points
(δy,c, Fy,c) of corroded bridge piers are treated dimensionless by using the
bridge piers yield point (δy, Fy) in the initial state (not corroded). The
point at which the initial stiffness changes for the first time in the en­
velope is determined as the yield point of the corroded bridge pier, as
shown in Fig. 6. According to Fig. 7(a), within the parameters studied in
this study, the influence of end-corrosion on the yield point Blue limit δy,

Fig. 12. Effect of geometric parameters on capacity points.

6
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Fig. 13. PEEQ when the bridge pier top displacement at δ95.

c is basically negligible, and the degradation of yield displacement δy,c is

almost no more than 5% under different corrosion parameters. It can be
seen from Fig. 7(b) that compared with the corrosion height hc, the yield
strength of the pier is more affected by the corrosion rate ρ. When the
corrosion rate reaches 25%, the yield strength of the bridge pier de­
creases by about 15%.
The influence of different geometric parameters on the dimension­
less displacement δy,c/δy and strength Fy,c/Fy of corroded steel bridge
piers is shown in Fig. 8. (δy,c/δy)gp,n and (δy,c/δy)gp,1st respectively
represent the mean results of δy,c/δy when the geometric parameters take
the nth value and the first value. Similarly, (Fy,c/Fy)gp,n and (Fy,c/Fy)gp,1st
represent the corresponding Fy,c/Fy, respectively. Because the bridge
piers are almost elastic before reaching the yield point, the change of
geometric parameters has little effect on the δy,c/δy and Fy,c/Fy.

3.4. Ultimate strength point

Fig. 9 shows the influence of corrosion parameters on the ultimate Fig. 14. Accuracy verification for γD.
strength point (δm, Fm) of the pier. It can be seen from Fig. 9(a) that with
the increase of ρ, the point displacement value δm/δy of the dimension­ corroded CHS piers, and this most unfavorable corrosion height can be
less ultimate strength decreases gradually. It is also found that the δm/δy determined by the buckling half-wavelength of the piers [36]. It can be
of the bridge pier reduces significantly when hc changes from 0.1D to found in Fig. 11(b) that when hc is kept constant, F95/Fy gradually de­
0.2D. However, when hc is 0.3D, δm/δy is slightly less than that when hc is creases with the increase of ρ. When ρ is kept constant, F95/Fy gradually
0.4D, it indicates that δm does not continuously decrease with the in­ decreases with the increase of hc, but the decreasing trend becomes flat.
crease of hc, but that there is a most unfavorable corrosion height that Fig. 12 shows the effect of different geometric parameters on the
minimizes δm, which can be determined by the buckling half-wavelength dimensionless displacement δ95/δy and strength F95/Fy of corroded steel
[36]. It can be seen from Fig. 9 that, when hc remains constant, Fm/Fy piers. The influence of geometric parameters on F95/Fy is similar to that
gradually decreases with the increase of ρ. When ρ remained constant, of Fm/Fy, because F95 is 95% of Fm. However, δ95/δy is significantly
Fm/Fy remained almost constant as hc increased to 0.3D. affected by the change of geometric parameters. When the Rt of corroded
Fig. 10 shows the effect of different geometric parameters on the piers increased from 0.052 to 0.078, the mean δ95/δy decreased by
dimensionless displacement δm/δy and strength Fm/Fy of corroded steel
bridge piers. Among the selected parameters, Rt has a significant effect
on δm/δy, while μ significantly changes Fm/Fy. When the Rt of corroded
piers increases from 0.052 to 0.078, the mean δm/δy and Fm/Fy decrease
by 33.8% and 14.8%, respectively. When the λ of corroded piers in­
creases from 0.30 to 0.37, the mean δm/δy and Fm/Fy decrease by 7.9%
and 10.1%, respectively. When the μ of corroded piers increases from
0.10 to 0.30, the mean δm/δy and Fm/Fy decreases by 12.0% and 19.4%,
respectively.

3.5. Capacity point

Fig. 11 shows the influence of corrosion parameters on pier capacity

points (δ95, F95). According to Fig. 11(a), when hc ≥ 0.2D, with the in­
crease of ρ, the dimensionless capacity point displacement value δ95/δy
gradually decreases, and the degradation can reach more than 30%
compared with the uncorroded bridge pier. It is also found that when hc
changes from 0.1D to 0.2D, the δ95/δy of the bridge pier decreases
significantly. However, δ95/δy for hc of 0.3D is slightly smaller than that
for hc of 0.4D, which indicates that there exists a most unfavorable
corrosion height making δ95 minimum for the capability point of end- Fig. 15. Global sensitivity of parameters.

7
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Fig. 16. Fitting results of the parameter influence terms for displacement capacity values.

41.3%. When the λ of corroded piers increase from 0.30 to 0.37, the
4. Calculation method of damage state threshold
mean δ95/δy decreases by 11.6%. When the μ of corroded piers increases
from 0.10 to 0.30, the mean δ95/δy decreases by 24.5%.
The seismic design methods for bridge piers mainly focus on the
It is noteworthy that the dimensionless displacement capacity value
performance-based seismic design concept, especially the direct
δ95/δy does not decrease significantly as ρ increases when hc is 0.1D,
displacement-based seismic design method. The direct displacement-
however, F95/Fy shows a decreasing trend. The plastic strain contours of
based seismic design method is to determine the corresponding target
the bridge pier when it reaches the capacity point is shown in Fig. 13.
displacement of the structure based on the damage degree of the
When the bridge piers have the same corrosion rate, the bridge piers
structure, and then to design the structure seismically at that target
with smaller corrosion heights have more significant plastic strains.
displacement [20].
When the corrosion height hc is 0.1D, the plastic strain of the bridge pier
In the previous analysis, the yield displacement of the pier after end-
when it reaches the displacement capacity point is more than three times
corrosion is equal to the yield displacement of the bridge pier when it is
as high as when hc is 0.4D, with more significant strain concentration
uncorroded. Therefore, for the bridge pier to reach the blue damage
phenomenon. When the corrosion height hc is 0.1D and the pier top
state in Fig. 6 of the critical displacement: δy, can be approximated by
displacement reaches δ95, the plastic strain of the pier is more than three
using the Eq. (2). However, the bridge pier to reach the yellow damage
times that of hc is 0.4D, with more significant strain concentration
state critical displacement: δm and red damage state critical displace­
phenomenon.
ment: δ95 influence significantly, need to establish a suitable calculation
formula to consider the impact of corrosion parameters.
3.6. Damage ratio
4.1. Yellow damage state limit: δm
The degradation of the ultimate strength point of the bridge pier can
be described by the damage ratio γD, which is the ratio between the
Before the displacement of the top of the pier reaches δm, the
secant stiffness and the initial stiffness of the ultimate point of the bridge
displacement of the bridge pier is mainly generated by the overall
pier, and is a better evaluation index of the degradation of the ultimate
deformation, and the local buckling of the pier bottom does not develop
strength of the structure, and the larger its value the more severe the
significantly [36]. The displacement of the ultimate strength point can
damage, which can be calculated by Eq. (7) [58].
be calculated by the relationship between the ultimate strength Fm and
Km the secant stiffness Km of the ultimate strength point, as shown in Eq. (9):
γD = (7)
Ky
Fm
δm = (9)
Km
where Ky is the initial stiffness; Km is the secant stiffness on the ultimate
strength point. When δm is dimensionless, the Eq. (10) is obtained:
Based on the numerical results, Eq. (8), which considers the column
δm Fm
geometric and corrosion parameters, is fitted in this study and can be = (10)
δy γ D × H y
used to calculate the value of γ D for end-corroded steel CHS piers. The
comparison of prediction results and data is shown in Fig. 14, and the According to Zhang et al. [36], the Fm of end-corroded steel CHS
error is almost within 15%. In addition, the variance-based Sobol piers can be obtained from Eq. (11):
parameter sensitivity analysis method [59] is used in this study to ( )
quantify the degree of global sensitivity of different parameters to γD, as σ cr − APb γp D2 t
Fm = (11)
shown in Fig. 15, and the specific procedure of the Sobol method is the (h − hb )
same as that of the paper [59]. Within the range of parameters consid­
ered in this paper, a larger percentage of sensitivity of a parameter in­ where σcr is the critical buckling stress; γp is the coefficient of sectional
dicates that γ D is more sensitive to changes in that parameter. plasticity development; Ab is the cross-sectional area at hb; hb is the
normalized buckling half-wavelength.
hc
γ D = 18.24(1 + μ)0.80 R0.74
t λ0.15 + 0.15ρ + 0.22 − 0.67μ − 19.49Rt − 0.37λ Thus, the value of the dimensionless ultimate strength point
D
displacement, δm/δy, can be calculated from Eq. (12):
− 0.32
(8)

8
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Table 4 fitting the FE results of corroded bridge piers, the value of Zcp is calcu­
Ranges of the parameters considered for supplementary FE models. lated by Eq. (15). The accuracy of Eqs. (14) and (15) are reflected in
Category Parameters Ranges Fig. 16(a) and (b), respectively.
Corrosion parameters Corrosion rate ρ 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% δ95
Corrosion height hc 0D, 0.1D, 0.2D, 0.3D, 0.4D
= Zgp × Zcp (13)
δy
Structural Radius-thickness ratio Rt 0.057, 0.070
parameters Slenderness ratio λ 0.31, 0.35
Axial compression ratio μ 0.13, 0.17, 0.23, 0.27
where Zgp and Zcp are the geometric parameter influence term and the
corrosion parameter influence term, calculated by Eqs. (14) and (15),
respectively.
( )
δm σ cr − APb γp D2 t Zgp = 0.33(1 + μ)− 0.54
Rt − 0.90 − 0.27
λ (14)
= (12)
δy γ D (h − hb )Fy
⎧
⎪ 0.26 hc hc hc
⎨ 1 + 0.12ρ − 0.45 D − 7.08ρ D , 0 ≤ < 0.2
⎪
4.2. Red damage state limit: δ95 Zcp =
D
(15)
⎪
⎩ 1 − 0.84ρ0.72 + 0.05 hc − 1.31ρ hc , 0.2 ≤ hc ≤ 0.4
⎪
When the displacement of the top of the bridge pier exceeds δm, the D D D
local buckling will increase sharply, and it is difficult to predict the
change of displacement by theoretical methods. In this study, Eq. (13) is 4.3. Accuracy verification
used to predict the displacement value of capacity point. Where, Zgp
refers to the influence item of geometric parameters (the value is only To verify the accuracy of the critical displacement calculation
determined by the geometric parameters) and can be considered as ca­ methods (i.e., Eqs. (12) and (13)) proposed in this study, the additional
pacity point displacement of the bridge pier without corrosion damage. FE models are supplemented for verification, and the supplemental
Referring to the previous study [10] and the FE model results, Zgp can be model parameters are shown in Table 4. In this study, the accuracy of the
calculated by Eq. (14). Zcp refers to the influence item of corrosion pa­ prediction equation is also verified by the test and simulation results of
rameters (the corrosion rate and corrosion height determines the value), Gao et al. [15], Chen et al. [10] and Fujii et al. [60].
reflecting the influence degree of corrosion parameters on the δ95. By The comparison of the theoretical results with the experimental or

Fig. 17. Accuracy verification of the proposed calculation method.

Fig. 18. Fiber-beam element model details.

9
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

simulation results is shown in Fig. 17. It can be found that both Eqs. (12)
Ka,α3
and (13) have acceptable prediction accuracy. γ2 = (19)
EA

5. Fiber-beam element model Based on reference [66], a general formula for k of arbitrary
cross-sections is given as:
To improve the computational efficiency and accuracy in large-scale 2(1 + v)Iy
bridge model analysis, simplified fiber beam element models are widely k = v(Ix − I) A
∫∫ (20)
− x(χ + xy2 )dxdy
used. For displacement-based seismic performance verification of bridge 2 Iy

piers, it is usually only necessary to judge the relationship between the

where χ is a harmonic function which satisfies the boundary condition; x
maximum displacement response of the model and the magnitude of the
and y are the coordinates of the coordinate system in which the section is
displacement limit, and the structure can be considered as failed when
located; Ix is the moment of inertia of the cross section about the x-axis;
the response of the structure exceeds the specified displacement limit
Iy is the moment of inertia of the cross-section about the x-axis; v denotes
[11]. Therefore, the purpose of this section is to establish a more accu­
Poisson’s ratio.
rate simplified beam element model that can consider the effect of end
For a circular section with inner radius a and outer radius b, the χ is
corrosion.
given by the work of Love [67] as:
( )[ ]
3 v ( 2 ) a2 b2 r3
5.1. Theoretical basis χ=− + a + b2 r + cosθ + cos3θ (21)
4 2 r 4
For the engineering practice of steel CHS bridge piers, classical beam where r and θ are polar coordinates.
element method (CBEM) models are usually used for seismic analysis Therefore, the shear coefficient kc of the circular section can be
[61–64], and the details of their composition are shown in Fig. 18. written as:
Currently, there are two major problems with the CBEM model:
2
6(1 + v)(1 + γ3 2 )
kc = (22)
1) The CBEM model ignores the effect of the change in shear stiffness of (7 + 6v)(1 + γ3 2 )2 + (20 + 12v)γ 23
the cross-section. End-corrosion changes the cross-sectional proper­
ties, resulting in different stiffness cases throughout the piers. Ac­ where γ3 = b/a is the ratio of inner to outer radius. For a steel CHS pier,
cording to the work of Goto et al. [64], neglecting the shear stiffness due to the thin-walled structure, Eq. (22) reduces to:
of bridge piers would introduce errors of more than 5% and these
2(1 + v)
errors may cause the seismic performance of the bridge piers to be kc = (23)
overestimated. 4 + 3v
2) The CBEM model does not consider the effect of corrosion damage Thus, the transverse shear stiffness for the steel CHS bridge pier
and only requires a partition into a relatively small number of three created in this study is calculated by Eq. (24):
elements within Le [55]. This model is used to verify the seismic /[ ]
(1 + v)Gl2 A
performance of steel CHS piers with end-corrosion, and it is found Kα3 = 2GA(1 + v) 4 + 3v + (24)
that the seismic performance of the piers is significantly over­ 6EIαα
estimated, which will be discussed in detail later. The cross-sectional area and moment of inertia for the corrosion part
of the thin-walled steel CHS bridge pier can be approximated by Eqs.
Therefore, Multi-node variable section (MNVS) fiber beam element (25) and (26):
models that can simultaneously consider the effects of end-corrosion
damage and transverse shear deformation are established in this Ac = πte D = (1 − ρ)πtD (25)
study, and the details are shown in Fig. 18. According to the work of ( )3
Nakajima et al. [65], higher accuracy seismic displacement response Ic,αα = π
D
te = (1 − ρ)Iαα (26)
results can be obtained when considering the coupling of positive 2
stresses of material elastoplasticity and shear stresses of linear elasticity. Therefore, the transverse shear stiffness Kc,α3 of the corroded section
Therefore, in the fiber beam element model established in this study, the element within hc of the end-corroded CHS steel pier is calculated by Eq.
transverse shear stiffnesses of the uncorroded section and the (27):
end-corroded section are considered separately according to elasticity, /[ ]
and the Timoshenko beam theory is used for numerical calculations. The Kc,α3 = 2Gπ(1 − ρ)tD(1 + v) 4 + 3v +
(1 + v)Gl2 πtD
(27)
effective shear stiffness is defined according to the following procedure: 6EIαα

Kα3 = γ 1 × Ka,α3 (16) According to the study of Usami et al. [68], the number of integration
nodes within Le is determined as seven. The equivalent thickness method
where Kα3 is the section shear stiffness; γ 1 is a dimensionless factor, is used to simulate the corrosion damage [36,69,70]. The wall thickness
calculated by Eq. (17) [36]; Ka,α3 is the actual shear stiffness of the of CHS steel piers within hc height is discounted according to Eq. (1).
section, calculated by Eq. (18). Considering the possible relationship between Le and hc to facilitate the
/( ) effective division of the junction part of corroded section and uncor­
l2 A
γ1 = 1 1 + γ2 (17) roded section, for the number of integral nodes assigned according to
12Iαα Eqs. (28) and (29):
When Le ≥ hc, the number of integral nodes is assigned in the
where l is the length of the beam element; A is the cross-sectional area;
following way:
Iαα is the moment of inertia; γ2 is the slenderness compensation factor,
⎧ ( )
calculated by Eq. (19). ⎪
⎪ hc
⎪
⎨ Le − hc = 7 1 − node
Le
Ka,α3 = kGA (18) (28)
⎪
⎪ 7h
⎪
⎩ hc = c node
where k is the shear factor, calculated by Eq. (20); G is the elastic shear Le
modulus; E is the elastic modulus.

10
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Fig. 19. Comparison of hysteresis curve results. (Rt = 0.062, λ = 0.32, μ = 0.15).

Table 5 When Le < hc, the number of integral nodes is assigned in the following
Analysis results and details of different models. way:
⎧ ( )
Corrosion parameters Capacity point strength Analysis error
⎨ hc − Le = 7 hc − 1 node
⎪
ρ hc Hybrid CBEM MNVS CBEM MNVS Le (29)
⎪
⎩
0 0 1.51 1.66 1.66 9.93% 9.93% Le = 7 node
5 0.2D 1.49 1.65 1.60 10.74% 7.38%
10 0.2D 1.38 1.64 1.53 18.84% 10.87% Where Le for steel CHS bridge piers is calculated by Eq. (30):
15 0.2D 1.28 1.64 1.44 28.13% 12.50% ( )
25 0.2D 1.12 1.62 1.24 44.64% 10.71% 1
20 0.1D 1.40 1.66 1.53 18.57% 9.29% Le = 1.2D 0.08 − 1 (30)
Rt
20 0.2D 1.26 1.64 1.34 30.16% 6.35%
20 0.3D 1.18 1.62 1.30 37.29% 10.17%
20 0.4D 1.19 1.63 1.30 36.97% 9.24%
Average error 26.14% 9.61% 5.2. Model accuracy verification: quasi-static analysis

To verify the accuracy of the proposed MNVS model, the hysteresis

behavior of steel CHS piers with different degrees of corrosion damage
occurred is analyzed and compared with the results of Hybrid and CBEM

11
Q. Zhang et al.
Fig. 20. Time history of the ground motions.
Fig. 21. Response spectra of the input ground motions.
Table 6
Summary of the earthquake ground motions for the dynamic analysis.
Excitation Ground type PGA (gal) Excitation Ground type
JMA-NS Type I − 812 JRT-NS Type II
JMA-EW 766 JRT-EW
models, as shown in Fig. 19. Since the steel bridge pier failure is
determined when the displacement response value exceeds the capacity
value (δ95), the accuracy of the model is focused on the pier before it
reaches the displacement capacity value [10–18].
In Fig. 19, for the uncorrosion steel CHS bridge piers, the analytical
results of the MNVS model are basically the same as the CBEM model
results, but the stiffness of the MNVS model is obviously closer to that of
the Hybrid model. With the occurrence of end-corrosion, the analytical
accuracy of the MNVS model is significantly better than that of the
CBEM model. When the corrosion rate is 25% and the corrosion height is
0.2D, the analytical errors of the CBEM model and the MNVS model
relative to the Hybrid model are 44.64% and 10.71%, respectively,
which means that the analytical accuracy of the MNVS model is
improved by about 34%. The analytical errors between the models
under different corrosion conditions are shown in Table 5, and the
analytical errors of the CBEM and MNVS models are 26.14% and 9.61%,
respectively. The CBEM model significantly overestimates the seismic
performance of steel CHS bridge piers with end-corrosion damage, while
the proposed MNVS model improves the average analytical accuracy by
16.53%. Therefore, the MNVS model is more applicable for the hyster­
esis analysis under the proposed static loading conditions.
12
Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173
PGA (gal) Excitation Ground type PGA (gal)
687 KPI-NS Type III − 557
− 673 KPI-EW 619
5.3. Model accuracy verification: dynamic analysis
The accuracy of the MNVS model in the dynamic analysis is further
verified. Six ground acceleration time history actually recorded in the
Kobe earthquake at three different types of sites as recommended in
Specification for Highway Bridges of Japan Road Association (JRA) [46]
are selected as input seismic waves, and the acceleration time history
curves are shown in Fig. 20. A comparison of the absolute acceleration
response spectrum of each seismic wave with the design response
spectrum of the three types of sites specified in the code [46] is shown in
Fig. 21. The details of seismic waves are shown in Table 6. These seismic
waves cover all site types specified in the Japanese code [46]: Ground
type I, Ground type II and Ground type III correspond to hard soil or
bedrock, normal soil and soft soil, respectively.
The nonlinear dynamic time history (NIDT) analysis is performed
using the Newmark-β direct integration method. The axial forces in the
analytical model are converted to concentrated masses at the top of the
piers according to the axial compression ratio of the bridge piers
[11–13]. To make the bridge pier reach the elastoplastic state and
facilitate the observation of the effect of corrosion damage on the
seismic response of the bridge pier, the peak ground acceleration (PGA)
Q. Zhang et al.
Fig. 22. Comparison of time-history curves of seismic displacement response.
of the seismic waves is appropriately adjusted. The time history curves
of the displacement response of the top of the bridge pier are shown in
Fig. 22.
The dynamic analysis reveals that under the same seismic excitation,
the end-corroded bridge piers have a more severe seismic damage state
compared to the uncorroded bridge piers. For example, under the JMA-
EW wave excitation, the uncorroded bridge piers reflect a blue damage
state (I), while the bridge piers with end-corrosion reach a red damage
state (III). Similarly, under JMA-NS wave excitation, the damage state of
uncorroded bridge piers and end-corrosion damaged bridge piers are
yellow damage state (II) and red damage state (III), respectively.
According to the displacement response results of the bridge pier
13
Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173
under seismic excitation, the pseudo-dynamic hysteresis curves of the
two models can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 23, and the analytical
results of the hybrid element model and the MNVS model are basically
the same. In summary, it can be concluded that the MNVS model has
better analytical accuracy in the dynamic analysis of CHS steel piers
with end-corrosion.
5.4. Model accuracy verification: deformation nephogram
Fig. 24 gives the deformation contours of the hybrid and MNVS
models at different damage states under seismic excitation using KPI-NS
waves as an example. When the pier is in blue damage state, the
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Fig. 23. Comparison of load-displacement hysteresis curves.

deformation results of the two models are almost the same; in yellow
damage state and red damage state, the hybrid model showed local
buckling at the bottom of the pier, while the MNVS model did not, but
the deformation results of the pier as a whole still had good analytical
accuracy, and the analytical error is controlled within 5%. Therefore, it
can be considered that the MNVS model can obtain more accurate
overall deformation results and displacement response of bridge piers in
the dynamic analysis, which can meet the demand of seismic damage
state assessment based on displacement.

14
Q. Zhang et al.
Fig. 24. Comparison of deformation between hybrid model and MNVS model.
6. Procedure of damage states assessment
Many studies have shown that using displacement as an index of
structural damage has more advantages than selecting strength in
seismic assessment [20,71,72]. Meanwhile, the displacement-based
damage state assessment method for steel bridge piers is characterized
by clear and effective theory, simple operation and easy practical
15
Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173
application, and is one of the most commonly used methods for seismic
assessment of structures such as bridge piers [16,20]. For the
single-column steel CHS piers where the fundamental modes play a
dominant role, the displacement calibration method is more appropriate
for seismic performance verification [55].
The displacement-based seismic assessment method for bridge piers
is to determine the relationship between the critical displacement and
Q. Zhang et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173

Fig. 25. Flowchart for seismic damage state assessment of piers.

the seismic displacement response values for different damage states of ⎧

1
the bridge piers [16]. Also, additional safety factors should be set for ⎪
⎪
⎪ δy , Blue damage state
⎪ γ
conservative design considering the important factor of the structure, ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
b
⎨1
soundness of the members and other factors, as shown in Eq. (31) [46,
Rd = δm , Yellow damage state (32)
55]. ⎪
⎪
⎪
γb
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1
Sd ⎪
γi ≤ 1.0 (31) ⎩
γb
δ95 , Red damage state
Rd

where γ i is the structural coefficient, depending on the importance of the
structure, the usual range of values is 1.0–1.2 [55]; Rd is the damage
state threshold of the bridge pier, which can be calculated by Eq. (32); Sd
is the displacement design value of the bridge pier, which is calculated
by Eq. (33).
Rd is used as the design threshold of the damage state of the bridge
pier, and δy, δm or δ95 can be selected as the design displacement limit of
the pier according to different design requirements to judge the damage
state of the pier. Considering that the bridge pier may have processing
and construction errors, a certain conservative design is needed as a
safety reserve, so its displacement capacity value R needs to be adjusted,
as shown in Eq. (32):
where γ b is the member coefficient, which is determined by evaluating
factors such as fabrication, construction deviations, strength analysis
model uncertainties, and properties of the limit state [68].
Sd is used as the displacement design demand value, which is usually
determined by the seismic response value of the bridge pier structure. In
the seismic assessment of bridge piers, FE analysis or tests are usually
used to obtain the maximum displacement response of the bridge pier,
so some analytical model errors need to be taken into account, as shown
in Eq. (33).
Sd = γ e δr (33)
where γe is the error correction factor; δr is the displacement response
peak of bridge piers by the numerical simulation or test.
In summary, this study gives the basic process of assessing the
seismic damage state of steel CHS piers considering end-corrosion

16
Q. Zhang et al.
damage, as shown in Fig. 25. The displacement design thresholds of Blue
damage state (I), Yellow damage state (II) and Red damage state (III): Rd,
y, Rd,m and Rd,95 can be calculated based on the pre-determined struc­
tural parameters and corrosion parameters of the bridge pier, and the
MNVS model is established to obtain the displacement design demand
value Sd of the bridge pier, and the damage state of the bridge pier is
judged according to the inequality relationship of Eq. (31).
7. Conclusions
In this study, the effect of corrosion parameters on the mechanical
properties of bridge piers is analyzed and quantified, and the critical
displacement calculation methods corresponding to different damage
states of bridge piers are proposed considering the coupling influence of
corrosion parameters and structural parameters of bridge piers. A fiber
beam element model considering shear deformation and end-corrosion
damage is established, and the accuracy of the model is verified by
the static and dynamic analysis results. Finally, the seismic damage state
assessment method and process for steel CHS bridge piers with
circumferential uniform end-corrosion are established. The main
research findings are as follows:
1 The yield displacement of the bridge pier is less affected by end-
corrosion, when the corrosion rate does not exceed 25%, the
degradation of the yield displacement of the corroded bridge pier is
kept within 5%. The corrosion rate influences the yield strength of
end-corroded bridge piers. When the corrosion rate reaches 25%, the
yield strength of bridge piers with different geometric parameters
decreases by about 15% on average.
2 The corrosion parameters affect the displacement values of the ul­
timate strength point of the corroded piers. When the corrosion
height changes from 0.1D to 0.2D, the ultimate strength point
displacement value of the bridge pier decreases significantly; with
the increase of corrosion rate, the dimensionless ultimate strength
gradually decreases. When the corrosion rate remains constant and
the corrosion height reaches 0.3D, the ultimate strength of the bridge
pier remains basically unchanged.
3 When the corrosion height exceeds 0.2D, the capacity point
displacement value gradually decreases as the corrosion rate in­
creases. When the corrosion height changes from 0.1D to 0.2D, the
capacity point displacement value of the bridge pier decreases
significantly; when the corrosion height remains constant, the ca­
pacity point strength value gradually decreases with the increase of
corrosion rate.
4 The seismic damage state of the end-corrosion bridge pier can be
determined by the pier top displacement response. This study es­
tablishes a theoretical calculation method for the critical displace­
ment of the yellow damage state (II) according to the damage ratio,
and establishes an empirical formula for the critical displacement of
the red damage state (III) of the bridge pier by considering the
coupling effect of multiple parameters. The accuracy of the formula
is verified by the supplementary finite element model and test
results.
5 A fiber beam element model is proposed considering end-corrosion
damage and transverse shear stiffness variation. It is found that the
analytical accuracy of the model proposed in this study is improved
by 16.53% compared with the previous conventional analytical
model. The accuracy of the model is verified by the proposed static
and dynamic analyses.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Qiang Zhang: Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Vali­
dation, Investigation, Writing ... original draft, Writing ... review &
editing. Qiang Han: Supervisor, Methodology, Conceptualization,
Funding acquisition, Resources, Project administration. Jianian Wen:
17
Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173
Methodology, Funding acquisition, Writing ... review & editing. Hanq­
ing Zhuge: Methodology, Writing ... review & editing. Zhanfei Wang:
Methodology, Writing ... review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from National
Key Research and Development Program of China (No.
2022YFB2602500), National Natural Science Foundation of China
(NSFC) (No. 52338010, No. 52108430), China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (No. 2021M693545, 2022T150732), Young Elite Scientists
Sponsorship Program by CAST (No. 2021QNRC001) and Beijing
Municipal Education Commission (No. IDHT20190504) for carrying out
this research.
References
[1] O. Zhao, L. Gardner, B. Young, Testing and numerical modelling of austenitic
stainless steel CHS beam–columns, Eng. Struct. 111 (2016) 263–274.
[2] O. Zhao, L. Gardner, B. Young, Finite element modelling and design of stainless
steel SHS and RHS beam-columns under moment gradients, Thin-Walled Struct.
134 (2019) 220–232.
[3] T.M. Chan, L. Gardner, Bending strength of hot-rolled elliptical hollow sections,
J. Constr. Steel Res. 64 (9) (2008) 971–986.
[4] J. Chen, T.M. Chan, A.H. Varma, Stub column behavior of cold-formed high-
strength steel circular hollow sections under compression, J. Struct. Eng. 146 (12)
(2020), 04020277.
[5] J. Dang, H. Yuan, A. Igarashi, T. Aoki, Curve-approximated hysteresis model for
steel bridge columns, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (9) (2014), 04014058.
[6] Q. Han, X. Du, J. Liu, Z. Li, L. Li, J. Zhao, Seismic damage of highway bridges
during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 8 (2) (2009)
263–273.
[7] L. Di Sarno, F. da Porto, G. Guerrini, P.M. Calvi, G. Camata, A. Prota, Seismic
performance of bridges during the 2016 Central Italy earthquakes, Bull. Earthq.
Eng. 17 (10) (2018) 5729–5761.
[8] H. Yuan, J. Dang, T. Aoki, Behavior of partially concrete-filled steel tube bridge
piers under bi-directional seismic excitations, J. Constr. Steel Res. 93 (2014)
44–54.
[9] W. Sui, H. Li, Q. Zhang, Z. Wang, Hysteretic mechanical behaviour of an
eccentrically loaded partially-concrete-filled steel tubular bridge pier under out-of-
plane horizontal cyclic loading, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 24 (5) (2020) 1509–1523.
[10] S. Chen, X. Xie, H. Zhuge, Hysteretic model for steel piers considering the local
buckling of steel plates, Eng. Struct. 183 (2019) 303–318.
[11] H. Zhuge, X. Xie, S. Chen, Z. Tang, Research on the multi-shear spring model for
circular-section steel piers, J. Constr. Steel Res. 188 (2022), 107041.
[12] H. Zhuge, X. Zheng, F. Song, Z. Tang, Fiber model considering the local instability
effect and its application to the seismic analysis of eccentrically compressed steel
piers, Appl. Sci. 12 (12) (2022) 5838.
[13] H. Zhuge, X. Xie, Hysteresis model for fiber elements in effective damaged zone of
square-section steel piers considering local instability effect of steel plates,
J. Struct. Eng. 146 (8) (2020), 04020156.
[14] H. Ge, S. Gao, T. Usami, T. Matsumura, numerical study on cyclic elasto-plastic
behavior of steel bridge piers of pipe-sections without stiffeners, Doboku Gakkai
Ronbunshu 1997 (577) (1997) 181–190.
[15] S. Gao, T. Usami, H. Ge, Ductility evaluation of steel bridge piers with pipe
sections, J. Eng. Mech. 124 (3) (1998) 260–267.
[16] N.G. Kulkarni, A. Kasai, H. Tsuboi, Displacement based seismic verification method
for thin-walled circular steel columns subjected to bi-directional cyclic loading,
Eng. Struct. 31 (11) (2009) 2779–2786.
[17] Y. Zheng, T. Usami, H. Ge, Ductility of thin-walled steel box stub-columns,
J. Struct. Eng. 126 (11) (2000) 1304–1311.
[18] S. Gao, T. Usami, H. Ge, Ductility of steel short cylinders in compression and
bending, J. Eng. Mech. 124 (2) (1998) 176–183.
[19] G. Zhang, Q. Han, K. Xu, Y. Song, J. Li, W. He, Numerical analysis and design
method of UHPC grouted RC column- footing socket joints, Eng. Struct. 281
(2023), 115755.
Q. Zhang et al.
[20] Q. Han, J. Wen, X. Du, Z. Zhong, H. Hao, Simplified seismic resistant design of base
isolated single pylon cable-stayed bridge, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16 (10) (2018)
5041–5059.
[21] M. Priestley, Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering-conflicts between
design and reality, Bull. Brazilian Math. Soc. 26 (3) (1993) 329–341.
[22] Y. Wang, S. Xu, H. Wang, A. Li, Predicting the residual strength and deformability
of corroded steel plate based on the corrosion morphology, Constr. Build. Mater.
152 (2017) 777–793.
[23] M. Hu, Q. Han, K. Xu, X. Du, Corrosion influences on monotonic properties of ultra-
high-strength reinforcing steels, Constr. Build. Mater. 198 (2019) 82–97.
[24] S. Kainuma, M. Yang, J. Xie, Y.S. Jeong, Time-dependent prediction on the
localized corrosion of steel structure using spatial statistical simulation, Int. J. Steel
Struct. 21 (3) (2021) 987–1003.
[25] M. Yang, S. Kainuma, Investigation of steel corrosion near the air–liquid interface
in NaCl solution and soil environment, Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 56 (7) (2021)
690–702.
[26] S. Xu, Z. Zhang, G. Qin, Study on the seismic performance of corroded H-shaped
steel columns, Eng. Struct. 191 (2019) 39–61.
[27] G.C. Qin, T. Lan, Q. Qin, S.H. Xu, Z.X. Zhang, Degradation model and evaluation
criteria for the seismic behavior of corrosion H-section steel column, KSCE J. Civ.
Eng. 23 (8) (2019) 3694–3705.
[28] S. Zheng, X. Zhang, X. Zhao, Experimental investigation on seismic performance of
corroded steel columns in offshore atmospheric environment, Struct. Des. Tall
Spec. Build. 28 (4) (2019) e1580.
[29] S. Gao, Z. Peng, X. Wang, J. Liu, Compressive behavior of circular hollow and
concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns under atmospheric corrosion, Steel
Compos. Struct. 33 (4) (2019) 615–627.
[30] G. Li, C. Hou, L. Shen, G.H. Yao, Performance and strength calculation of CFST
columns with localized pitting corrosion damage, J. Constr. Steel Res. 188 (2022),
107011.
[31] J.H. Ahn, W.R. Choi, S.H. Jeon, S.H. Kim, I.T. Kim, Residual compressive strength
of inclined steel tubular members with local corrosion, Appl. Ocean Res. 59 (2016)
498–509.
[32] I.T. Kim, Y.S. Jeong, D.K. Dao, Evaluation of tensile strength of painted steel wi
local corrosion at structural connections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 177 (3) (2020),
106449.
[33] H.S. Kim, D.K. Dao, C.H. Shin, Y.S. Jeong, I.T. Kim, Compressive strength
evaluation of circular tubular short columns with locally corroded ends, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 149 (2018) 31–40.
[34] T. Ohnishi, T. Ishikawa, K. Tsukada, Fundamental study on detection of corrosion
in embedded parts of steel bridge piers by high-sensitivity magnetic non-
destructive inspection, Infrastructure Maintenance Practices 1 (1) (2022) 297–305.
[35] D.K. Dao, D.K. Nguyen, H.S. Kim, Y.S. Jeong, I.T. Kim, A time-dependent corrosion
characteristic of a steel member in contact with concrete, Int. J. Steel Struct. 18 (3)
(2018) 976–992.
[36] Q. Zhang, J. Wen, Q. Han, Z. Wang, J. Sun, Seismic performance evaluation of steel
circular hollow section bridge piers with corroded ends, Bull. Earthquake. Eng.
(2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01748-1.
[37] ABAQUS analysis user’s manual 6.10-EF, Dassault Systems Simulia Corp,
Providence, RI, USA, 2010.
[38] H. Wang, S. Xu, L. Su, Statistical regularity of surface pitting morphology of steel in
accelerated corrosion environment, J. Civil, Archit. Environ. Eng. 38 (1) (2016)
23–29.
[39] S. Gao, Y. Pang, H. Ge, Predicting seismic performance of locally corroded steel
box-section piers, Steel Compos. Struct. 40 (5) (2021) 709–722.
[40] A. Bao, C. Guillaume, C. Satter, A. Moraes, P. Williams, T. Kelly, Y. Guo, Testing
and evaluation of web bearing capacity of corroded steel bridge girders, Eng.
Struct. 238 (2021), 112276.
[41] H. Karagah, C. Shi, M. Dawood, A. Belarbi, Experimental investigation of short
steel columns with localized corrosion, Thin-Walled Struct. 87 (2015) 191–199.
[42] C. Shi, H. Karagah, M. Dawood, A. Belarbi, Numerical investigation of H-shaped
short steel piles with localized severe corrosion, Eng. Struct. 73 (2014) 114–124.
[43] B. Wu, J.L. Cao, L. Kang, Influence of local corrosion on behavior of steel I-beams
subjected to end patch loading: experiments, J. Constr. Steel Res. 135 (2017)
150–161.
[44] J.H. Ahn, S.H. Jeon, Y.S. Jeong, K.I. Cho, J. Huh, Evaluation of residual
compressive strength and behavior of corrosion-damaged carbon steel tubular
members, Materials (Basel) 11 (7) (2018) 1254.
[45] Z. Zhang, S. Xu, Y. Wang, B. Nie, T. Wei, Local and post-buckling behavior of
corroded axially-compressed steel columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 157 (2020),
107018.
18
Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111173
[46] Japan Road Assoc, Specification For Highway Bridges-Part V seismic Design.
Tokyo, Japan, 2012.
[47] T. Usami, H. Ge, Cyclic behavior of thin-walled steel structures-numerical analysis,
Thin-Walled Struct. 32 (1–3) (1998) 41–80.
[48] Y. Goto, K. Jiang, M. Obata, Stability and ductility of thin-walled circular steel
columns under cyclic bidirectional loading, J. Struct. Eng. 132 (10) (2006)
1621–1631.
[49] H. Li, K. Lv, R. Cui, Seismic behaviour of eccentrically compressed steel-box bridge-
pier columns with embedded energy-dissipating shell plates, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 18
(2020) 3401–3432.
[50] C. Wang, Z. Qu, Y. Shen, J. Jiang, C. Yin, Y. Zong, Numerical investigation of the
performance of segmental CFST piers with external energy dissipators under lateral
cyclic loadings, Materials (Basel) 15 (2022) 6993.
[51] H. Ge, T. Usami, Cyclic tests of concrete-filled steel box columns, J. Struct. Eng.
122 (10) (1996) 1169–1177.
[52] T. Usami, H. Ge, A performance-based seismic design methodology for steel bridge
systems, J. Earthq. Tsunami 3 (3) (2009) 175–193.
[53] M. Jenothan, J.A.S.C. Jayasinghe, C.S. Bandara, Lateral behaviour and
performance evaluation of steel piers under cyclic lateral loading, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 201 (2023) (2023), 107764.
[54] Railway Technical Research Institute, Design Standards For Railway Structures and
Commentary (Seismic Design). Tokyo, Japan, 2007.
[55] B. Ji, D. Chen, S. Xu, H. Ge, L. Ma, Check method for seismic performances of
single-column type steel piers, J. Hohai Univ. (Natural Sciences), 38 (04) 436–441.
[56] H. Krawinkler, F. Zareian, D.G. Lignos, L.F. Ibarra, Significance of modeling
deterioration in structural components for predicting the collapse potential of
structures under earthquake excitations, Adv. Performance-Based Earthq. Eng. 13
(2010) 173–181.
[57] S. Mangalathu, J.S. Jeon, Regional seismic risk assessment of infrastructure
systems through machine learning: active learning approach, J. Struct. Eng. 146
(12) (2020), 04020269.
[58] X. Du, J. Ou, Seismic damage assessment model of building structures, World
Earthq. Eng. 7 (3) (1991) 52–58.
[59] X.Y. Zhang, M.N. Trame, L.J. Lesko, S. Schmidt, Sobol sensitivity analysis: a tool to
guide the development and evaluation of systems pharmacology models, CPT:
Pharmacometr. Syst. Pharmacol. 4 (2) (2015) 69–79.
[60] K. Fujii, H. Nakamura, T. Kondo, K. Hashimoto, H. Okimoto, T. Nakamura,
Experiments on bending buckling strength of corroded cylindrical shells, J. Struct.
Eng. (JSCE) 53A (2007) 784–793.
[61] T. Usami, M. Suzuki, H. Ge, I.H.P. Mamaghani, A proposal for check of ultimate
earthquake resistance of partially concrete filled steel bridge piers, Doboku Gakkai
Ronbunshu 1995 (525) (1995) 69–82.
[62] JSCE Subcommittee on New Technologies for Steel Structures, Seismic design wg:
draft guidelines for seismic design of steel structures and new technologies for
seismic design, pp. 51-79, pp. 136–146, 1996.
[63] Subcommittee on Seismic Design of Steel Structures, Committee on steel structures,
Benchmark For Seismic Analysis of Steel Structures and Advancement of Seismic
Design Method, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 2000.
[64] Y. Goto, T. Okumura, M. Suzuki, Effects of geometrical nonlinearity and shear
deformations on the seismic design analysis of steel piers based on nonlinear beam
model, Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu 2002 (696) (2002) 157–172.
[65] A. Nakajima, J. Fukuda, I. Saiki, T. Iwakuma, A study on effect of geometrical and
material nonlinearity on seismic behavior of steel pier, Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu
2001 (682) (2001) 427–432.
[66] G.R. Cowper, The shear coefficient in Timoshenko’s beam theory, J. Appl. Mech.
33 (2) (1966) 335–340.
[67] A.E.H. Love, A Treatise On the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, 4th edition,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge England, 1952. Chapter 15.
[68] T. Usami, M. Imai, A. Kasai, Demands for steel bridge piers subjected to level 2
earthquakes, Proc. JSCE Earthq. Eng. Symposium 28 (2005) 119. -119.
[69] Z. Wang, H. Ren, Q. Zhang, W. Sui, J. Sun, Mechanical performance of steel ring
restrainers with corrosion damage, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 26 (3) (2022) 1295–1315.
[70] Q. Zhang, Y. Ma, J. Feng, Z. Wang, Optimization for finite element model of a steel
ring restrainer with sectional defect, Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 1305 (2021)
333–340.
[71] W. Sui, H. Li, Q. Zhang, Z. Wang, X. Jin, The mechanical properties of a new
corrugated steel plate damper and its application in a steel arch bridge, KSCE J.
Civ. Eng. 24 (1) (2019) 228–240.
[72] A. Tsiavos, B. Stojadinović, Constant yield displacement procedure for seismic
evaluation of existing structures, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 17 (2019) 2137–2164.