Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Probabilistic seismic assessment of multispan RC highway bridges

considering soil-structure interaction and chloride-induced corrosion
Francisco Pinto a, Rodrigo Astroza b, *, Ramiro Bazáez c, Francisco Hernández b,
Nibaldo Navarro c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
b
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile
c
Departamento de Obras Civiles, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile

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

Keywords: Deterioration mechanisms, such as chloride-induced corrosion, affect bridges in aggressive environments,
Bridges making them more vulnerable to extreme events like earthquakes. Although many studies have assessed the
Seismic response impact of chloride-induced corrosion on the seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete (RC) highway bridges,
Uncertainty
several gaps still need to be addressed. Accordingly, this research primarily focuses on evaluating the seismic
Corrosion
performance of RC highway bridges in aggressive environments susceptible to chloride-induced corrosion and
Soil-Structure-Interaction
Fragility analysis earthquakes. To achieve this, a probabilistic framework is employed, which incorporates uncertainties associated
with corrosion progression, seismic events, and the impact of different modeling approaches for boundary
condition. The framework considers the time-dependent effects of corrosion on the physical and material
properties of steel and concrete in bridge columns. Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS), probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis (PSHA), and record selection strategies are utilized to address the uncertainties in corrosion and seismic
demand. Nonlinear dynamic models and multiple stripe analysis (MSA) are employed to obtain fragility surfaces
and curves for main bridge components and the entire system under different boundary conditions. The study
focuses on a five-span highway bridge with simply-supported prestressed concrete I-girder and RC multi-column
bents located in Chile. The results reveal that elastomeric bearings are the most vulnerable components,
exhibiting varying vulnerability levels under different corrosion exposure and boundary conditions. Abutments,
although the second most susceptible, are unaffected by corrosion uncertainty in terms of seismic fragility.
Bridge columns are identified as the third most vulnerable components, with the probability of exceeding slight
damage state consistently increasing with more prolonged corrosion exposure. It is noted that only flexure failure
mode in column is analyzed and possible shifting to shear or flexure-shear modes is not accounted for. The
findings of this study underscore the exceptional resilience of Chilean highway bridge columns to seismic de­
mand and corrosion uncertainties, contrasting with the situation in US regions where columns are more
vunerable. Additionally, the study indicates that Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) tends to reduce bridge vulner­
ability under combined corrosion and earthquake effects. The insights obtained from this study and the proposed
framework can inform the development of maintenance programs based on bridge performance expectations and
enhance the seismic resilience of bridge systems worldwide.

1. Introduction continuous deterioration of bridges, increasing their vulnerability to

Bridges are essential for economic and social activities and play a
significant role in disaster-resilient communities and sustainable
development. Therefore, ensuring these structures to withstand opera­
tional loads, environmental effects, and natural hazards during service
life is crucial. Aging and exposure to aggressive environments cause
extreme events, such as earthquakes [66,67]. Recent reports showed the
structural deterioration of bridges in Canada and the United States,
highlighting the relevance of considering their degradation to reach a
more comprehensive understanding of the potential risks and vulnera­
bilities of multi-span RC highway bridges. For instance, the Canadian
Infrastructure Report Card of 2016 [88] states that 26% of Canada’s

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: franpinto@uchile.cl (F. Pinto), rastroza@miuandes.cl (R. Astroza).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.117257
Received 4 June 2023; Received in revised form 19 November 2023; Accepted 26 November 2023
Available online 20 December 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Pinto et al.
bridges are in fair, poor, or very poor condition, requiring an investment
of US$50 billion for maintenance and replacement. Similarly, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) reports that 42% of bridges
in the U.S. have exceeded their 50-year design life, with an average age
of 44 years [7].
Reinforced concrete (RC) highway bridges are highly vulnerable to
corrosion, which can significantly reduce their structural performance.
Two primary corrosion processes can affect RC structures, i.e.,
carbonation-induced and chloride-induced corrosions [11]. The latter
represents a significant problem in RC bridges, causing time-dependent
corrosion of reinforcing steel due to the ingress of chloride ions [87].
Chloride-induced corrosion can cause severe effects on RC bridges,
including extensive delamination, cracking, and spalling of concrete,
degradation of steel reinforcement properties, and loss of bond between
concrete and reinforcing bars. Consequently, RC bridges under
chloride-induced corrosion become more vulnerable to earthquake
events. The engineering and scientific communities have recognized the
need to define a performance-based approach to assess bridges under the
combined effects of corrosion and earthquake in probabilistic terms [47,
58]. This performance-based earthquake engineering approach involves
using nonlinear dynamic analyses and objective performance criteria in
line with the inherent and epistemic uncertainties characterizing ma­
terial and geometric properties of structures, deterioration models, nu­
merical models, and external excitations.
Numerous studies have underscored the significance of chloride-
induced corrosion on the seismic vulnerability of aging highway
bridges in moderate to high seismicity areas and the development of
seismic fragility analysis accounting for such deterioration. Alipour et al.
[6] introduced a deterministic framework assessing the life-cycle per­
formance of box-girder concrete bridges, focusing on the impact of
earthquake ground motions and chloride ion attacks on the yield
strength of reinforcing bars in columns. Biondini et al. [13] proposed a
probabilistic procedure to model chloride-induced corrosion’s impact
on a four-span RC continuous bridge, emphasizing the randomness
involved in the diffusion process of aggressive agents and their effects on
concrete and steel strength. Their results highlighted the importance of
environmental exposure severity and structural lifetime in seismic
design. Cui et al. [29] conducted a probabilistic seismic fragility analysis
on a three-span continuous box girder bridge, factoring in uncertainties
in bridge geometry, the area reduction of the reinforcing bars due to
corrosion, and the initiation of corrosion. Their research showed an
accelerated growth of RC column vulnerability over time, particularly
after twenty-five years of chloride exposure. Ghosh and Padgett [38]
evaluated the lifetime exposure impact of chlorides from deicing salts on
the seismic performance of multi-span continuous highway bridges,
mainly through reinforcement area loss, without considering the effects
on the strength and stiffness of the concrete and steel materials. Sub­
sequently, Ghosh and Sood [39] presented a methodology for devel­
oping seismic fragility analysis for deteriorating steel girder bridge in
Central and Southeastern US, considering the effects of pitting corrosion
deterioration in the strength of steel and concrete in columns as well as
time-dependent capacity distributions for reinforced concrete columns.
Li et al. [48] proposed an alternative time-dependent seismic fragility
assessment framework for aging RC girder bridges in China, considering
non-uniform chloride-induced corrosion and various modeling uncer­
tainty parameters. These studies have demonstrated that
chloride-induced corrosion, a process with an uncertain evolution, de­
teriorates bridge structural capacity by affecting the mechanical prop­
erties of its steel and concrete components. Additionally, they have
identified various uncertainty sources impacting the seismic vulnera­
bility of corroded RC highway bridges, such as material behavior vari­
ability, uncertainty in corrosion initiation, seismic excitation, geometric
characteristics of bridge components, and epistemic uncertainty from
insufficient knowledge or modeling assumptions.
Although the studies above and others with similar scopes have
contributed significantly to a better understanding of the effects of
2
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
chloride-induced corrosion on the seismic vulnerability of aging RC
bridges, technical gaps still need to be addressed. The findings and
methodologies from these studies have been limited to typical bridges
with a regular configuration with one to three spans and constant col­
umn height in California, Central, and Southeastern US or crude column-
based models of bridges with designs and modeling philosophies pro­
posed for medium to high seismicity. This kind of study tends to omit the
effect of corrosion on the seismic vulnerability of bridges with irregular
geometries designed in regions of extreme seismicity, such as Chile.
Moreover, uncertainty in time-dependent chloride-induced corrosion
has been limited to the absolute presence of corrosion during the service
life of the bridge, overlooking the fact that due to the uncertain nature of
earthquakes and parameters describing corrosion initiation time (Ti ), it
is possible that corrosion may or may not occur in conjunction with
some earthquakes during the bridge’s exposure period to corrosion.
Additionally, all these studies have focused only on the impact of the
corrosion on the reduction of rebar area or/and strength parameters of
steel and concrete, without considering the impact of corrosion on the
degradation of other material properties (strength and stiffness) of both
concrete and steel in columns of RC highway bridges. Furthermore,
seismic demand has been treated without considering probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis of regions with extreme seismicity that accounts
for the uncertainty in seismic loading. Finally, neither of these studies
have evaluated the impact of the two typical philosophies of modeling
boundary condition [i.e., fixed-base (FX) and Soil-Structure interaction
(SSI)] in the seismic vulnerability of RC bridges affected by chloride-
induced corrosion.
Given Chile’s notable history of earthquake-induced bridge failures,
such as the collapse of nearly 24 bridges and 300 damaged during the
2010 Maule earthquake [20], and the absence of performance-based
maintenance programs for highway bridges [91], the country offers a
valuable opportunity to probabilistically examine bridge vulnerability
under the combined effects of chloride-induced corrosion and severe
earthquakes, while addressing the identified gaps. Thus, a probabilistic
assessment framework is carried out in this study to evaluate the seismic
performance of typical multi-span RC highway bridges under
chloride-induced corrosion. The framework is applied to a real five-span
bridge with simply-supported prestressed concrete (PSC) girders located
in Chile with geometric irregularities regarding the height of its piers.
Unlike other studies, the framework accounts for combined un­
certainties related to seismic demand and the time-dependent chlor­
ide-induced corrosion process, meaning that the corrosion could affect
or not the seismic performance of the bridge at any year of its lifetime.
This is achieved by propagating the uncertainties via Monte Carlo
simulation (MCS) by estimating deteriorated physical and material
properties of RC columns involved in nonlinear numerical modeling of
highway bridges. Additionally, the seismic excitation uncertainty is
addressed using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) and record
selection strategies, which provide a more comprehensive definition of
the seismic demand in probabilistic terms. Nonlinear dynamic analysis
considering two typical boundary conditions used in the engineering
practice (i.e., FX and SSI) are analyzed via MCS to obtain fragility sur­
faces related to the component responses and the global response of the
bridge.
The study concludes with the assessment of the impact of chloride-
induced corrosion and earthquake excitation on the vulnerability of
the five-span bridge with simply-supported PSC girder through 48000
nonlinear finite element (FE) model simulations. The analysis further
shows the impact of geometric irregularity (i.e., different heights of
columns along the length of the bridge) and boundary conditions on the
seismic fragility of the bridge. Finally, the findings from this research
provide evidence of how the design philosophy for Chilean bridges could
impact the performance of bridges under the combined effect of
chloride-induced corrosion and earthquakes.
F. Pinto et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic framework for the probabilistic assessment of the seismic performance of aging multi-span simply supported bridges considering soil-structure
interaction and uncertainties in corrosion deterioration and seismic events.
2. Probabilistic assessment framework
The proposed probabilistic framework for the seismic performance
assessment of degrading bridges is presented in Fig. 1. The framework
incorporates uncertainties related to corrosion initiation time (Ti ) dur­
ing possible exposure period of the bridge to corrosion (tj ) and the
degradation of strength and stiffness of confined and unconfined con­
crete and reinforcing steel material models in bridge columns, earth­
quake excitation uncertainty, and the effects of presence/absence of SSI
effects. The corrosion effects are mainly considered for the simulation of
the bridge’s columns because they are the components most exposed to
chloride-induced corrosion.
In Part 1-Deterioration uncertainty, MCS is conducted using
informed probabilistic density functions (PDFs) related to the parame­
ters that define Ti and corrosion progress in concrete and steel (see
Section 3). This determines random parameter vector (θ) related to the
modeling of effects of chloride-induced corrosion on the mechanical and
physical properties of concrete and steel in columns during tj . Random
samples of Ti (20,000 in this study) are obtained and compared against
tj , ranging 1–100 years, to determine whether corrosion has started
during the current tj and how long the corrosion has been progressing.
Depending on the comparison between each Ti and tj , θ is computed
according to state-of-art laws for chloride-induced corrosion modeling
(see Section 3), e.g. the parameters of the pristine bridge are preserved
when Ti ≥ tj . As a result, a database of θij possible values (20,000 in this
study) for each tj is stored. Finally, nq realizations (1000 in this study) of
θ are randomly selected from θij at each tj for a posterior stochastic
seismic fragility analysis of the bridge.
In Part 2-Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, a suite of ground
motions (GMs) is selected following PSHA (see Section 4) and strategies
for seismic record selection. The PSHA involves the selection of ground
motion models (GMMs) as well as recurrence models for the site being
analyzed. Then, PSHA is developed considering the period of interest of
the structural system (i.e., fundamental period of the bridge in this
3
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
study, T1 ) to determine conditional mean spectra (CMS) for the different
return periods of seismic hazard levels (HL) of interest (four in this
study), and select GM records based on the CMS as proposed by [9].
In Part 3-Nonlinear dynamic analyses are conducted using FE models
developed in OpenSees [55] considering m different θij randomly
selected for each HL (see Section 5). Although the structural system can
be analyzed at each tj where θij database was defined, this study uses
specific exposure period of the bridge to corrosion (i.e., tk = 0, 25, 50,
and 100 years) to reduce the number of cases and computation time.
Therefore, the analysis involves m realization of θij parameters to carry
out nonlinear dynamic analysis under the suite of selected GMs.
In Part 4-Fragility analysis, fragility surfaces are developed for
relevant bridge components and the entire system at each tk using
multiple stripe analysis (MSA) [10] as shown in Section 6. In this step,
engineering demand parameters (EDP) defining different damage states
(DS) for bridge components are selected and defined according to the
literature [39,80,81,82,83]. Then, fragility surfaces of the entire system
are obtained by means of the first-order reliability method [41]. The
resulting fragility analysis provide a probabilistic assessment of the
seismic performance of aging highway bridges, considering (1) uncer­
tain of Ti during tj and its effect in the degradation of material properties
of concrete and reinforcing steel in columns, (2) input excitation un­
certainty, and (3) the impact of the modeling approach for the boundary
conditions. The proposed framework provides a useful tool for engineers
to evaluate the seismic performance of aging bridges under effects of
chloride-induced corrosion in order to make informed decisions about
their capacity and maintenance.
3. Modeling of time-dependent chloride-induced corrosion
uncertain parameters
One of the most relevant parameters in the study of the corrosion
process and its impact on the performance of RC highway bridges is the
uncertainty in the estimation of Ti . Structural deterioration in RC
F. Pinto et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257

Table 1 bridge structures.

Statistical information for estimating corrosion initiation time under splash [ [ ( ) ]− 2 ]1−1 n
exposure conditions. x2 Ccr
Ti = erf − 1
1 − (1)
Variable Unit Distribution Parameters 4ke kc D0 (to )n Cs
Do mm2 /year N(μ, σ)a μ = σ = -

(For w/c 473 43.2 where, x is the depth of the reinforcement steel (cover depth, 8 cm in
ratio = this study), Ccr is the chloride concentration when the corrosion begins,
0.50) ke is an environmental factor, kc is a parameter considering the influence
Ccr (For w/c mass % of N(μ, σ)a μ = σ =
ratio = binder 0.5 0.10
of curing, Do (to ) is the diffusion coefficient, to is the age of the concrete
0.50) when the compliance test is performed, and n is an age factor. Finally, Cs
Acs mass % of N(μ, σ) a
μ = σ = is the equilibrium chloride concentration in the exposed concrete sur­
binder 7.76 1.36 face, estimated as Cs = Acs (w/c) + εcs , where Acs is the chloride surface
mass % of N(μ, σ)a μ =0
content regression parameter, εcs is an error term, and wb is the water-
εcs σ =
binder 1.11
ke (-) Ga(α, β)c α = β = binder ratio.
2.92 11.0 The DuraCrete Guidelines [34] provide PDFs for the parameters in
kc (-) B(a, b, p, q)d a = b = p = q = Eq. 1 to assess the uncertainty in Ti in various corrosion exposure zones.
1.0 4.0 2.15 10.7
In this study, these PDFs are utilized to propagate corrosion uncertainty
n (-) B(a, b, p, q)d a = b = p = q =
0.0 1.0 17.2 29.3 in a bridge located in a splash zone (see Table 1).
b
The uncertainty in Ti modifies material properties related to concrete
N (λ, ζ) refers to a Lognormal distribution with parameters λ and ζ. These pa­
and reinforcing steel of bridge column by means of the chloride corro­
rameters correspond to the mean and standard deviation of the corresponding [ ( )]
Normal distribution.
sion rate at year tp (= tj − Ti ) after corrosion initiation rcorr tp , as
a
(μ, σ) refers to a normal distribution with μ and σ referring to the mean and presented in Fig. 2 and Appendix A. To account for the propagation of
standard deviation of the distribution. this uncertainty in the probabilistic nonlinear dynamic analysis of the
c
a(α, β) refers to a Gamma distribution with shape parameter α and inverse bridge, the material properties of concrete and steel affected by the
scale parameter β. evolution of the corrosion process are defined from state-of-art consti­
d
(a, b, p, q) refers to a four-parameter Beta distribution with a and b repre­ tutive models used to represent the behavior of these materials. The
senting the upper and lower bounds, and p and q representing the shape Giuffrè -Menegotto-Pinto uniaxial steel constitutive law [57] is used for
parameters. steel, while the Mander et al. [51] constitutive model is used for un­
confined and confined concrete. The probability distributions defined in
Table 1 and the time-dependent corrosion model discussed in Appendix
structures due to corrosion initiates after some exposure time. During A, are employed to generate 20,000 samples of these parameters
this time, chloride ions ingress the concrete cover, depassivates the through MCS. After estimating the corroded parameters for concrete and
embedded steel, and initiates the corrosion [34]. Ti calculation is usually steel as summarized in Fig. 2 (see Appendix A for corresponding equa­
based on the solution of the one-dimensional version of Fick’s second tions), they are implemented in the numerical model by generating m
law of diffusion through a semi-infinite solid [12,24,34]. Engelund et al. (50 in this study) realizations of the parameters for each hazard level
[34] introduced a model (Eq. 1) that can take into account the uncer­ (see Section 4) and replacing them in the numerical model. It is worth
tainty in the governing parameters in the calculation of Ti . This model mentioning that this study goes beyond prior studies that only consid­
such as presented in DuraCrete Guidelines [34] and [78] is used in this ered the impact of corrosion on the strength of steel and concrete, by
study to probabilistically predict the corrosion status of RC columns of taking into account both strength and stiffness properties involved in the

Fig. 2. Flow Diagram of physical and mechanical parameters involved in the propagation of uncertainty of chloride-induced corrosion.

4
F. Pinto et al.
Fig. 3. Effects of corrosion in (a) area loss of rebar [A(t)/A(0) ], (b) material behavior of core concrete, and (c) and steel, considering service lifetime of 25, 50, and
100 years and samples for HL-MCE.
modeling of concrete and steel in columns.
The effect of uncertainty in Ti on the hysteretic behavior of concrete
and steel in RC columns is showed in Fig. 3 for those samples selected for
HL-MCE (see Section 4). Fig. 3a shows the effect of uncertainty on the
area of reinforcing steel over 1–100 years of exposure to corrosion, in
terms of the remaining area of rebar with respect to the pristine condi­
tion [A(t)/A(0)]. The uncertainty band and the mean ± 1 standard de­
viation of the estimates reveal a high degree of variation in A(t)/A(0),
which increases with tj .Fig. 3a indicates that on average, after 100 years
of exposure, the area of rebar in bridge columns undergoes an average
reduction of 6% due to corrosion, with a range between 0% and 10%.
This suggests that corrosion may not have a significant impact on the
cross-sectional area of rebars in most cases. These findings align with
previous research conducted by [39,66,79]. They reported a decrease in
the cross-sectional area of rebars ranging from 10% to 20% after 100
years of exposure, considering a cover depth between 3.8 cm and
4.5 cm.
The effect of corrosion on the material properties of column com­
ponents is shown in Fig. 3b and c for core concrete and steel, respec­
tively, through stress-strain curves for tk = 25, 50, and 100 years. The
5
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
results indicate that core concrete is more impacted by corrosion un­
certainty than steel, as seen in more variable stress-strain curves. Also, it
is noted that core concrete strength can decrease by 50%, 65%, and 78%
after exposure periods of 25, 50, and 100 years, respectively, while the
strength of the steel can be reduced by only 5% after 100 years exposure
of the bridge to corrosion.
4. Ground motion selection
Probabilistic seismic response assessment of aging highway bridges,
accounting for corrosion uncertainty, must also consider seismic un­
certainty. Therefore, suites of GM records are selected for four HLs. The
considered HLs are those typical used in engineering practice in Chile
and worldwide [18,1,62,61,53]. These HLs lead to mean return periods
of 108, 461, 1033, and 2475 years when assuming a Poisson model, and
they are defined as follows: low level hazard (HL-Low) with a 50%
probability of exceedance in 75 years, intermediate level hazard
(HL-Inter.) with a 15% probability of exceedance in 75 years, high level
hazard (HL-High) with a 7% probability of exceedance in 75 years, and
MCE level (HL-MCE) with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
F. Pinto et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257

Fig. 4. Response spectra of ground motion for the four hazard levels conditioned to T1 at FX and SSI boundary conditions.

To ensure the appropriateness of the GM records for each of the four
hazard levels in this study, they are chosen and scaled using the pro­
cedure introduced by [9]. This procedure involves defining CMS by
means of PSHA and imposing spectral constraints at a single period of
structural interest (T1 , in this case). Accordingly, CMSs at each HLs are
obtained by means of disaggregation data from the SeismicHazard plat­
form [22] which integrates the latest developments related to ground-­
motion models (GMMs) for Chilean subduction [42,60] and recurrence
models [71]. Finally, the PSHA and CMS are established, accounting for
the fundamental period of the bridge according to boundary conditions
of interest (i.e., FX and SSI).
Once the target spectra (i.e., CMS at each HL) are determined, 30
pairs of ground motions from the Siber-Risk Strong Motion database
[23] are selected and scaled for the case study bridge. These ground
motions are scaled while considering T1 under the FX (0.71s) and SSI
(0.97s) boundary conditions as show in Fig. 4. It is important to point
out that the vertical component of the records is not included into the
analysis.
5. Finite element model
5.1. Bridge description
An existing bridge is selected as case study since it is representative
of multi-span highway bridges in Chile. This bridge showed no signifi­
cant damage after the 2010 Mw= 8.8 Maule earthquake, indicating its

Fig. 5. Case study bridge.

6
F. Pinto et al.
Fig. 6. Nonlinear FE model of the bridge (dimensions in meters).
good performance in the face of high seismic demand. The bridge is a
five-span bridge with simply-supported prestressed concrete girders
(see, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6) that cross the Angostura River. The total length of
the bridge is 148 m, each span with a length of 29.6 m. The super­
structure of the bridge includes the deck, seismic bars, elastomeric
bearings, four longitudinal girders in each span, and diaphragms, while
the substructure is comprised of multi-column bents with shear keys,
seat-type abutments, and 3 piles at bents and 5 piles at abutments. The
continuous deck is supported by four simply-supported longitudinal PSC
girders per span and is prevented from uplift by means of seismic bars
connected to the substructure. The longitudinal girders rest on unan­
chored elastomeric bearings, are connected by transverse RC beams
(diaphragms) at the ends of each span, and are prevented from unseating
by external RC shear keys. The superstructure loads are transmitted to
the foundation system via four bents (B1 to B4, see Fig. 6) with columns
of varying heights, from 3.3 to 4.9 m, and two abutments (Abut. 1 and
Abut. 2, see Fig. 6) with a height of 1.70 m. The bents are supported by 3
RC piles of 16.75 m long and 1.2 m in diameter, while abutments rest on
5 RC piles of 12.75 m long and similar diameter to those in bents.
5.2. FE model
Three dimensional (3D) nonlinear numerical simulations of the
bridge are conducted using the open-source FE software OpenSees [55].
Fig. 6 shows a schematic view of the 3D FE model of the bridge. The
numerical modeling approach was first rigorously validated for the
pristine structure through a comprehensive approach, leveraging in-situ
data derived from the Aguila Norte bridge [68].
7
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
The initial phase of validation of the numerical modeling of the
Águila Norte bridge involved an in-depth analysis of the soil properties
surrounding the piles, utilizing geophysical prospecting methods
including surface wave analysis, Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) measurements. This was further sup­
plemented with additional data from nearby tests such as soil charac­
terization tests and boreholes, providing a multifaceted and
comprehensive understanding of the site’s characteristics, which
informed subsequent modeling processes of SSI (see below). System
identification methods based on recorded ambient vibration responses
were employed to estimate the modal properties of the bridge [26,27].
These identified dynamic properties were then meticulously contrasted
with several calibrated FE models of varying sophistication levels in
OpenSees [55], focusing on modeling SSI.
Moreover, the research conducted by [14,15,70] played a crucial
role in this study, providing thorough uncertainty quantification in
constitutive models for specific components of Chilean highway bridges.
Pinto et al. [70] defined Bayesian updated parameters of constitutive
models of seismic bars, elastomeric bearings, and proposed joint prob­
ability distributions for the most influential parameters. In addition, [14,
15] conducted Bayesian updating of uniaxial reinforcing steel models
and calibrated hysteretic constitutive models of reinforcing steel. The
numerical model of the Aguila Norte bridge incorporated the outcomes
from these studies by considering the mean values of the posterior
probability distributions of the parameters of the constitutive models
used for modeling seismic bars, elastomeric bearings, and reinforcing
steel in bridge columns. It is imperative to note that these constitutive
models represent the state-of-the-art in the numerical modeling of
F. Pinto et al.
bridges subjected to extreme seismicity and have been extensively uti­
lized in assessing the impact of corrosion on the seismic response of
bridges.
The corrosion modeling approach adopted in this study is based on
methodologies from [6,29,39,48,66,67,72,76]. This approach aligns
well with design philosophies for Chilean bridges and others in extreme
seismicity zones, combining applicability with preserved significance in
results. The methods emphasize the reduced cross-sectional area of
corroded reinforcement and update the effects of corrosion on the
stiffness of both concrete and steel, an aspect earlier overlooked in
literature. This corrosion modeling is suitable for the highway bridge
columns examined herein, given that corrosion-induced bond loss is
assumed negligible. Panchireddi and Ghosh [67] highlighted that bond
strength reduction has a minimal impact on the structural failure of
corroding reinforced concrete under cyclic loading. Furthermore, tests
on bare steel suggest that corrosion might influence buckling strength
and low-cycle fatigue degradation [45]. However, they underscored the
need for extended research on RC components, since the uncertainty
surrounding localized corrosion and pit formation necessitates a prob­
abilistic approach for precise modeling. As a result, the modeling of
bridge case study omits considerations of deteriorated bond and buck­
ling strengths, as well as low-cycle fatigue degradation. However, this
approach might overestimate energy dissipation in other deteriorated
RC structures. Advanced techniques addressing these aspects have
recently been introduced, as demonstrated in [2,3,4]. Therefore, bridge
engineers can incorporate these techniques within the probabilistic
framework introduced here. For instance, in extreme cases, like expo­
sure to deicing salts, models disregarding these factors could substan­
tially undervalue seismic vulnerability. Under such conditions,
sophisticated modeling, as emphasized by [78], becomes imperative.
This study also acknowledges the spatial-temporal nature of pitting
corrosion. While the temporal dimension is implicitly addressed, the
spatial variability is not directly incorporated due to the uncertainties
surrounding the exact locations of pits along the steel rebars. This de­
cision, while potentially could lead to a slight overestimation of the
fragility/vulnerability estimates as indicated by [30], was made to avoid
computational complexities as recommended by [38,65,78,79]. Also,
defining spatial variability parameters, particularly the mean value,
standard deviation, and correlation length of the properties defining
time-dependent corrosion, is challenging. This complexity arises from
the specific conditions of the corrosion, as underscored by [43,64].
However, such data is currently lacking, especially for bridges in regions
with extreme seismicity. Several factors, including corrosion rate, con­
crete mix, and exposure type, could influence the spatial variability of
corroded bars. Given that most existing studies have used bars corroded
at a consistent rate and sourced from concrete specimens with identical
mixes, these parameters remain largely unexplored. Thus, integrating
spatial variability of corrosion at the section level across the entire
system is a complex endeavor that necessitates further investigation. A
potential scenario where localized pitting corrosion could substantially
impact the global response would be if the structure experiences severe
localized pitting corrosion at a critical location, like a plastic hinge. Such
occurrences, which could stem from defects in the cover concrete or
construction quality, are unpredictable. Furthermore, [30] suggested
that overlooking the spatial variability of pitting corrosion might result
in a minor/slight overestimation of structural capacity. They further
concluded that for nonlinear behavior modeling, it is sufficient to
consider pitting uniformly distributed along the reinforcing bars. In
addition, they suggested that while spatial variability of pitting corro­
sion may have a pronounced local effect at the material level, its impact
on the global nonlinear dynamic response of the structure might be
limited.
It is also important to acknowledge a limitation related to the po­
tential variation in failure modes in columns due to corrosion. While this
study employs state-of-the-art numerical modeling techniques to assess
the impact of corrosion on bridges, the modeling approach focuses on
8
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
flexure failure. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that under severe
corrosion conditions, there may be a transition from flexure to shear or
flexure-shear failure mode. This shifting in failure modes, while a critical
consideration in real-world scenarios, falls beyond the scope of this
paper and the state-of-the-art in numerical modeling of corrosion.
Future research endeavors should aim to delve deeper into compre­
hensively understanding and characterizing practical modeling ap­
proaches for these corrosion-induced failure modes. Such efforts will
contribute to a more holistic assessment of structural integrity under
adverse environmental conditions and pave the way for a more robust
understanding of corrosion-induced structural behavior.
Finally, considering the natural unpredictability of corrosion pro­
cesses influenced by field conditions, actual structural degradation can
deviate from standard model predictions. Hence, the probabilistic
seismic assessment framework, considering uncertainties from chloride-
induced corrosion, employs broad measures and techniques to picture
corrosion effects. Applying this framework to a Chilean multi-span
bridge underscores its value, especially for fragility analysis and
decision-making. The approach used here is consistent with suggestion
in literature of holding simplicity when evaluating vulnerability and
cost implications of bridge exposure to corrosion [38,65,78,79].
Furthermore, bridge engineers can easily adapt the proposed framework
to alternative benchmarks or techniques based on unique needs, incor­
porating specific effects such as spatial variability of corrosion, buckling,
low-cycle fatigue, and bond-slip.
5.2.1. FE characteristics
The deck, diaphragm, and longitudinal girders are modeled using
elastictimoshenkoBeamColumn elements with uncracked concrete prop­
erties, since they are expected to remain linear elastic during the
anticipated loads.
Bridge columns are modeled using nonlinear fiber-based beam-col­
umn elements with forced-based formulation. The model takes into ac­
count steel reinforcement, confined and unconfined concrete, and
spread of plasticity along the element. The unconfined and confined
concrete are modeled using the uniaxialMaterial Concrete02 material,
while longitudinal reinforcement is modeled using the uniaxialMaterial
Steel02 material. The effect of the uncertainty of the time-dependent
chloride-induced corrosion is incorporated in the numerical FE model
by modifying, in each realization during the numerical simulation, the
deteriorated physical and mechanical properties of the steel and con­
crete in columns. Columns are the most affected bridge component in
splash zone since the constant wetting and drying cycles can lead to the
presence of salt, moisture, and oxygen triggering the corrosion process
in columns.
The seismic bars, elastomeric bearings, and shear keys are also
modeled to account for their nonlinear behavior. The elastomeric
bearings are modeled using a twoNodelink element, which incorporates
constitutive models for their lateral, vertical, and rotational response, in
accordance with common engineering practices in Chile. The lateral
response is characterized using the Steel01 material with parameters
defined in [74], while the vertical and rotational response are modeled
using a uniaxial elastic material with properties defined in [18,96]. The
seismic bars are modeled using a zeroLength nonlinear element, incor­
porating Hysteretic and MinMax materials to reflect the transverse and
longitudinal behavior of this bridge component as proposed by [54]. The
shear keys, which play a crucial role in limiting the lateral movement of
the deck, are modeled as a zeroLength element using a combination of
ElasticPPGap and uniaxialMaterial materials through a Series integrator
as recommended by [96].
The pile-soil interaction in the bents and abutments of the bridge is
modeled by establishing two interacting zones, as shown in Fig. 6. The
first zone, with 6 degrees of freedom per node, comprises the pile rep­
resented by elasticBeamColumn element and their corresponding nodes.
The second zone, with 3 degrees of freedom per node, comprises springs
(zeroLength elements) representing the vertical and horizontal behavior
F. Pinto et al.
Fig. 7. Time history response of bridge components at bent 2 under HL-MCE ground motion. (a) Column for FX, (b) Elastomeric bearing for FX, (c) Column for SSI
and (d) Elastomeric bearing for SSI.
of the soil and their corresponding free nodes (magenta in Fig. 6) and fix
nodes (green in Fig. 6). The interaction between both zones is accom­
plished through equalDOF constraints, which enforce equal movement at
the same height between nodes in pile and free nodes of the springs
representing the soil. Each pile is modeled with 21 elasticBeamColumn
elements, with nodes that match the soil stratification. The springs at the
bottom end node of the pile depict lateral thrust and toe bearing of the
soil using p-y and q-z curves, while the springs in other nodes represent
lateral thrust and shaft friction of the soil-pile interaction using p-y and t-
z curves. The properties of the soil material model vary depending on the
soil type, following the formulation of [16]. For the studied bridge, three
soil layers are considered: medium to dense gravel, stiff clay, and dense
gravel. These geomaterials, along with their corresponding p-y, t-z, and
q-z models, are implemented in OpenSees [55] through Pysimple1,
Tzsimple1, and Qzsimple1 materials, respectively. These materials also
incorporate vertical and horizontal radiation damping as recommended
by [16].
The behavior of the abutment in the numerical model of the bridge is
incorporated by considering the impact of the surrounding backfill soil.
The soil behavior is modeled using the hyperbolic material presented in
[32,77] and failure coefficient as described in [17]. The simulation of
the backfill soil is achieved through a zeroLength element equipped with
a HyperbolicGap material placed on both abutments.
6. Probabilistic seismic response assessment
6.1. Time history analysis
A total of 48,000 nonlinear dynamic analysis of the five-span Chilean
highway bridge are conducted through FE simulations considering the
physical and mechanical parameters affected by time-dependent
corrosion process as detailed in Section 3 and GMs selected as
described in Section 4. These simulations consider m = 50 different
random samples of θij for each tk (i.e., 0, 25, 50 and 100 years), the 30
GM pairs selected for each HL in Section 4, and two boundary conditions
at the base of the bridge (i.e., FX and SSI). To illustrate the influence of
corrosion uncertainty on the seismic performance of multi-span bridges,
9
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
the responses of columns and elastomeric bearings are presented,
considering HL-MCE and bridge exposure periods to corrosion of 0, 25,
50, and 100 years.
Fig. 7a and b compare the column transverse curvature response
considering both boundary conditions (i.e., FX and SSI) for the case
study bridge at tk = 0, 25, 50, and 100 years. Compared to the pristine
structure (tk = 0 years), the column transverse curvature shows no
impact at 25 and 50 years of exposure to corrosion, while at 100 years
the column curvature increases by approximately 56% and 17% for FX
and SSI, respectively. Experimental results from simplified column
specimens under corrosion effects align with the degradation observed
for the FX boundary condition after 100 years. For example, Meda et al.
[56] found that a corroded column, with around 20% corrosion, showed
a 30% decrease in lateral load and a 50% reduction in maximum
displacement compared to an uncorroded counterpart. Similarly, Ma
et al. [50] reported a 50% reduction in ultimate displacement capacity
and a 20% decrease in yield and ultimate forces for a corroded RC col­
umn with a 15% corrosion level. Kashani [44] presented a
state-of-the-art review of residual capacity of corroded reinforced con­
crete bridge components. Kashani’s research highlight from experi­
mental results in ([94,95]) that corrosion effects are minimal for
mass-loss ratios below 10%, consistent with the negligible impact
observed at 25 and 50 years (Fig. 7) in this study. This is attributed to the
corrosion propagation uncertainty and design philosophy of design for
Chilean bridges, which led to a mass-loss ratio of less than 5% for
corrosion exposure under 50 years as shown in Fig. 3. However, after
100 years, the mass-loss ratio exceeds 10%, leading to significant cur­
vature impacts. This emphasizes the importance of incorporating
corrosion propagation uncertainty in the bridge’s fragility analysis, as
column degradation may or may not occur during its service life.
Furthermore, the results highlight the influence of SSI on the col­
umn’s response. SSI increases the system’s lateral flexibility and energy
dissipation capabilities, reducing the column’s transverse curvature
response by over 40% compared to the FX condition. Historically,
corrosion impacts on column specimens have been studied under fixed-
base conditions, neglecting the potential flexibility introduced by SSI.
This emphasizes the need to understand how SSI can modify the effects
F. Pinto et al.
of corrosion on bridge responses and its fragility analysis.
Fig. 7c and d show that maximum responses of elastomeric bearing
decrease as the exposure period to corrosion of the bridge increases. The
maximum transverse deformation decreases by about 11% and 3% at
100 years of exposure under FX and SSI conditions, respectively,
compared to the pristine bridge. However, no significant effects are
observed at 25 and 50 years of exposure. This reduction in maximum
transversal deformation is due to the lateral flexibilization of bridge
columns as corrosion reduces its lateral stiffness. This leads to a decrease
in relative displacement at the elastomeric bearing compared to its
response under the pristine bridge. This phenomenon is called the
"isolation" effect, which is consistent with previous observations made
by [38,39].
The responses of columns and elastomeric bearings emphasize the
influence of the uncertain nature of corrosion initiation and progress
during the bridge’s exposure period to corrosion, as corrosion may or
may not affect the response of columns and elastomeric bearings at 25
and 50 years of exposure but is likely to manifest at 100 years. It is noted
that the results presented in this section relate to a deterministic sce­
nario. The following section will evaluate further the effects of the un­
certainty in corrosion initiation and its effect on the fragility of the
studied bridge, propagating the uncertainties associated to deterioration
of the bridge at specific values of tk . In addition, seismic demand un­
certainty will also be investigated by analyzing a significant number of
GMs for the different hazard levels.
6.2. Multiple stripe analysis (MSA) considering EDP uncertainty
Fragility of structures is often assessed by comparing the probability
that engineering demand parameters (EDPs) at a given IM exceed a DS.
MSA [8,10,52,80] is a method used to perform this analysis, and it has
several advantages compared to other approaches, such as incremental
dynamic analysis (IDA) and cloud analysis (CA). In particular, MSA have
shown better representation of ground motion conditions, improved
accuracy, greater flexibility, efficient computation, better handling of
uncertainty, and high reliability of the results obtained [10]. Accord­
ingly, MSA is used to obtain the fragility curves from the dataset of 30
pairs of seismic records for each hazard level, using the pseudospectral
acceleration at the fundamental period of the bridge Sa (T1 ) IM and
relative displacement of elastomeric bearings and abutments and cur­
vature (φ) of the columns as EDPs.
The fragility curve obtained from MSA is represented according to
Eq. 2, which assumed that the curve follows a log-normal cumulative
distribution function.
( )
ln(x/θ)
P(EDP > LS|IM = x) = ϕ (2)
β
Where, LS refers to limit state, which correspond to different damage
states (DS) determined by a capacity model, x is Sa (T1 ) at a specific HL,
and the mean estimator θ and the standard deviation estimator β define
the distribution of the response.
The fragility curve from Eq. 2 is represented by the likelihood
function in Eq. 3, which comprises the product of the binomial proba­
bility of each stripe [10].
m ( ) ( )z ( ( ) )n j − z j
∏ nj ln(x/θ) j ln(x/θ)
Likelihood = ϕ 1− ϕ (3)
j=1
zj β β
Where m is the number of stripes, nj is the number of seismic records
at the specific HL, and zj are the observations when the EDP is larger
than the corresponding LS.
Then, the binomial probability in Eq. 3 is determined as follows in
Eq. 4, where pj represents the probability of exceeding a specific DS
given x = Sa (T1 ) at a specific HL.
10
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
Table 2
Values of LSs for EDP of abutments and elastomeric bearings.
EDP/Damage State DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4
(Slight) (Moderate) (Extensive) (Complete)
Elastomeric bearing – 2.9 10.4 13.6 18.7
relative displacement
(cm)
Abutment – relative 137.5 151.5 186.5 277.5
displacement (mm)
( )
nj zj ( )n −
(4)
zj
P(zj in nj ) = pj 1 − pj j
zj
6.3. Damage limit state and engineering demand parameters
The seismic performance of bridge components is evaluated using
four DSs for the local EDPs of each bridge component investigated (i.e.,
columns, elastomeric bearings, and abutments). The DSs are mainly as
follows: slight (DS1), moderate (DS2), extensive (DS3), and complete
(DS4). DSs thresholds for abutments and bearings are identified in terms
of peak relative displacement of each component, as per literature rec­
ommendations [80,83] and they are summarized in Table 2. The limits
for the relative displacement of elastomeric bearing are estimated from
recommendations by [63]. DS1 for elastomeric bearings displacement is
related to the start of sliding for non-anchored bearings, while DS4 is
related to a 250% shear deformation of the bearing. The DSs thresholds
for abutments are those proposed by [80] and are related to the relative
displacement of abutment against the soil. DS1 is reached when the
abutment relative displacement is 1.10 times the gap between the deck
and the abutment’s backwall, starting cracking of the backwall. The
other three DS are directly expressed as a function of the relative
displacement at DS1, in terms of a fraction of the backwall height, with
DS4 representing a relative displacement in the abutment that generates
ultimate deformation of soil.
Component-specific DS thresholds for RC columns should consider
specific features of the column, such as geometry, material properties,
reinforcement ratios, load, and boundary conditions [80]. This explicit
definition is necessary as it can affect the capacity of the columns. In this
study, the material properties of columns vary with the propagation of
the uncertainty in the corrosion modeling, and DS threshold values are
defined accordingly as recommended by [39]. The four DSs considered
for corroded RC columns are qualitatively and quantitatively defined
and associated to material strain limits based on recommendations by
[80,81,82]. In accordance with the methodology presented by [82] for
evaluating fragility curves of retrofitted bridges with RC and steel
jackets, nonlinear moment–curvature (M − φ) analysis of the corroded
RC columns cross-sections are conducted in OpenSees [55]. The purpose
of the analysis is to determine the values of φ (φ1,φ2,φ3,φ4) at which the
material strain limits are exceeded, while considering the database of
mechanical parameters of concrete and steel affected by uncertainty in
the time-dependent corrosion process.
The impact of uncertain Ti during tk on M − φ and DSs of column
curvature is shown in Fig. 8 for the different hazard levels at tk = 25 and
100 years. The results reveal that the values of DS3 and DS4 are highly
susceptible to corrosion uncertainty during tk , resulting in substantial
variability when compared to DS1 and DS2. It is also observed that tk has
a significant impact on the capacity of the columns, as columns with 100
years of exposure to corrosion, exhibit a lower capacity than those with
25 years. Additionally, it is worth noting that the variation between HL
was minimal; and therefore, the mean values of φ for the DSs are esti­
mated only for each tk . These mean values are then utilized to calculate
the fragility surfaces of the bridge. Table 3 presents the mean values of φ
for the DSs at 25 and 100 years of corrosion time as a representative
case. The mean values for DS3 and DS4 exhibit a slight increase with
more prolonged exposure to corrosion, consistent with finding from [25,
F. Pinto et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257

Fig. 8. M − φ and DSs of the columns at each hazard level considering the database of mechanical parameters of concrete and steel affected by uncertainty in
corrosion for (a) tk = 25 and (b) 100 years.

6.4. Fragility analysis

Table 3
Mean values of LSs for φ of corroded columns for tk = 25 and 100 years.
This section presents the seismic fragility analysis from the 48,000
EDP/Damage State DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 nonlinear dynamic analysis of the five-span highway bridge used as case
(Slight) (Moderate) (Extensive) (Complete)
of study considering tk = 0, 25, 50, and 100 years. The fragility analysis
φ(rad/m) (tk : 25 years) 0.0031 0.0181 0.0694 0.0869 is presented for the different bridge components analyzed (i.e., columns,
φ(rad/m) (tk : 100 years) 0.0033 0.0180 0.0871 0.1089
elastomeric bearings, and abutments), location of the bridge compo­
nents, and for both boundary conditions considered (i.e., FX and SSI).
39,46]. These studies indicated that higher curvatures are required to Fragility surfaces for DS1 of the most demanded columns in terms of
reach the concrete strain associated with higher damage states, curvature response are shown in Fig. 9a and b when FX and Fig. 9c and
accompanied by a decrease in the longitudinal steel ratio. However, d when SSI for Bent 1 and Bent 3, as representative cases. The results
uncertainty in the time to corrosion initiation can lead to instances imply that the chances of exceeding DS1 given a Sa (T1 ) are consistently
where the opposite trend is observed. This highlights the complexity of higher as the exposure time increases from 25 to 100 years, compared to
corrosion uncertainty over the bridge’s exposure time. While this study the pristine structure. A significant increase in the probability of
addresses such uncertainty through the Monte Carlo analysis approach, exceeding DS1 is observed over 50 years (see, Fig. 9c and d), primarily
it also offers opportunities to enhance our understanding and prediction while considering the SSI effects at the base of the bridge. This trend
of the impact of corrosion on column curvatures. could be attributed to an increased probability of corrosion presence and
progression in the bridge columns with prolonged exposure periods
(50–100 years) compared to shorter tk .

11
F. Pinto et al.
Fig. 9. Fragility surfaces for DS1 of column in Bent 1 and Bent 3 for different exposure periods and boundary conditions. (a) Column in Bent 1 for FX, (b) Column in
Bent 3 for FX, (c) Column in Bent 3 for SSI, (d) Column in Bent 3 for SSI.
FX boundary conditions lead to a higher probability of DS1 exceed­
ance than when SSI is present in the bridge foundation, regardless of tk
(as shown when comparing Fig. 9a with c and Fig. 9b with d). For
instance, at Sa (T1 ) = 1g and tk = 50 years, differences ranging from 25%
to 100% are observed between fragility curves with FX (Fig. 9a and b)
and those curves with SSI (Fig. 9c and d). This observation can be
attributed to the damping and flexibility introduced by SSI effects at the
base of the bridge, which help to reduce the seismic demand due to
elongation of the vibration periods and effects of corrosion at the column
during any tk .
In addition, increment of probability of exceedance between
different tk is affected by the boundary condition, with a greater increase
when considering SSI. In particular, at Sa (T1 ) = 1g surface considering
SSI exhibit differences among different tk ranging from 0% to 200% (see
Fig. 9c and d), while those considering FX boundary have differences
ranging between 0% and 10% (see Fig. 9a and b). This suggests that the
degree of flexibility exhibited by the substructure plays a critical role in
determining the point to which corrosion uncertainty affects the seismic
vulnerability of the bridge throughout its exposure to corrosion.
Moreover, the bent with the taller columns, Bent 3 (Fig. 9b or d), are
generally more vulnerable to damage at the DS1 than those bents with
shorter columns, Bent 1 (Fig. 9b or d). The difference in the probability
of exceedance between bents at Sa (T1 ) = 1g and tk = 100 years range
between 0% and 10% for those cases considering FX base condition
(compare Fig. 9a and b) and 25% and 27% when considering SSI
(compare Fig. 9c and d). This trend emphasizes the importance of
evaluating the vulnerability of bridges with geometric irregularities
considering the location of the component in the system.
Finally, it is worth noting that the likelihood of surpassing damage
states DS2, DS3, and DS4 is minimal or nonexistent. This is attributed to
the design philosophy adopted for Chilean highway bridges, which
12
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
includes a higher depth of concrete cover. This increased depth delays
the initiation of corrosion and reduces corrosion rates. Additionally, the
presence of other bridge components serves as sacrificial elements,
absorbing any demand before transmitting it to substructure compo­
nents such as columns and piles.
Fragility surfaces of the most impacted elastomeric bearings in Bent
1 and Bent 3, as representative cases, and FX boundary conditions are
presented in Fig. 10a and b for DS2 and Fig. 10c and d for DS3. Fragility
surfaces for DS1 and DS4 are omitted, as they show 100% and 0%
probabilities of exceedance at any Sa (T1 ), respectively. The proba­
bility of elastomeric response exceeding DS2 marginally decreases with
increasing tk for models under FX conditions (refer to Fig. 10a and b),
and this trend is more pronounced in fragility surfaces for DS3. For
instance, at Sa (T1 ) = 1g, the exceedance probability after 100 years of
corrosion exposure is approximately 15–35% lower for DS2 than for the
pristine structure, whereas this drops in DS3 exceedance probability
after the same exposure period ranges from 43% to 85% compared to the
pristine structure. As mentioned in section 6.1.1, this observed trend can
be attributed to the lateral flexibilization of bridge columns resulting
from the reduction in their lateral stiffness due to corrosion. Conse­
quently, as the extent of corrosion increases in the bridge columns, there
is a corresponding decrease in relative displacement of elastomeric
bearing. This phenomenon is called the "isolation" effect, which is
consistent with previous observations made by [38,39].
The fragility surfaces of elastomeric bearings for DS1 and DS4 with
SSI boundary conditions exhibit similar vulnerability to those observed
for FX boundary conditions. In contrast, the DS2 fragility surfaces under
SSI boundary conditions reveal that the impact of bridge exposure to
corrosion on the exceedance probability of DS2 by elastomeric bearing
response depends on their location within the bridge system (see
Fig. 11a and b). For instance, at Sa (T1 ) = 1g, the exceedance probability
F. Pinto et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257

Fig. 10. Fragility surfaces for DS2 and DS2 of elastomeric bearings in Bent 1 and Bent 3 for different exposure periods and FX boundary condition. (a) Elastomeric
bearing in Bent 1 at DS2, (b) Elastomeric bearing in Bent 3 at DS2, (c) Elastomeric bearing in Bent 1 at DS3, (d) Elastomeric bearing in Bent 3 at DS3.

Fig. 11. Fragility surface for DS2 of elastomer bearings for different exposure periods and SSI boundary condition. (a) Elastomeric bearing in Bent 1 and (b)
Elastomeric bearing in Bent 3.

for elastomeric bearings in Bent 1 (refer to Fig. 11a) after 100 years of
corrosion exposure drops by approximately 43% compared to the pris­
tine structure. Meanwhile, elastomers in Bent 3 may experience around
an 8% increase after the same exposure period (refer to Fig. 11b). The
fragility surface for DS3 of the elastomers is also omitted, as it only
shows a probability of exceedance below 5% when Sa (T1 ) surpasses
levels anticipated for HL-MCE.
In addition, incorporating damping and flexibility through SSI at the
bridge base reduces the vulnerability of elastomeric bearings. For the
same DS (i.e., DS2), models analyzed under FX boundary conditions
(Fig. 10a and b) typically exhibit higher exceedance probabilities than
those with SSI (Fig. 11a and b), with differences ranging between 16%
and 65% at Sa (T1 ) = 1g seismic intensity. These differences are rela­
tively smaller than those observed for bridge columns. This result can be
attributed to the substantial contrast between the degraded column’s
flexibility and elastomeric bearings in cases analyzed under FX condi­
tions, as opposed to those with SSI-induced flexibility at the column
base. Additionally, column (or bent) height tends to influence the ex­
ceedance probability of elastomeric bearings. Contrary to column
components, elastomeric bearings in bents with taller columns (e.g.,

13
F. Pinto et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257

Fig. 12. Fragility curves for the abutment for different exposure periods and boundary conditions (a) FX, (b) SSI.

Figs. 10b or 11b) are generally less vulnerable to DS2 damage than those
with shorter columns (e.g., Figs. 10a or 11a). For example, the difference
in exceedance probability between columns with different heights at
Sa (T1 ) = 1g and tk of 100 years in DS2 ranges between 0% and 50% for
both boundary conditions (compare Figs. 10a and b or Figs. 11a and b).
Fragility curves for the abutments with the highest exceedance
probability are presented in Fig. 12a and b for FX and SSI boundary
conditions, respectively. Overall, the fragility curves exhibit minimal
effects due to tk , with differences less than 5% between curves. However,
notable differences emerge when comparing bridges analyzed under
different boundary conditions. Cases incorporating SSI (Fig. 12b)
generally exhibit a higher exceedance probability at DS1 and DS2, about
33% higher than those cases examined under FX (Fig. 12a). Further­
more, SSI effects reveal vulnerabilities of abutments reaching DS3
(Fig. 12b), which is not observed when FX boundary conditions are
considered. This result is attributed to the increased base flexibility in

Fig. 13. System fragility Surfaces by DS and boundary condition. (a) DS2 for FX, (b) DS2 for SSI, (c) DS3 for FX, and (d) DS3 for SSI.

14
F. Pinto et al.
models analyzed under SSI, leading to greater longitudinal displacement
in the superstructure and an impact on the bridge’s abutment, as
compared to conditions that disregard the soil.
Finally, analyzing the seismic fragility under the influence of un­
certain corrosion during tk reveals intriguing trends in the vulnerability
among bridge components. Elastomeric bearings emerge as the most
vulnerable component, with their vulnerability decreasing as tk in­
creases under FX condition. However, under influence of SSI effects, the
vulnerability of elastomeric bearings either increases or decreases,
depending on the height of the column within the bent where the elas­
tomeric bearing is situated. Abutments are identified as the second most
vulnerable component and uncertainty of corrosion during tk does not
significantly impact their seismic fragility. Bridge columns are the least
vulnerable component in the bridge system, showing significant
vulnerability only in DS1, which increases with a longer tk . These
findings contradict prior observations in typical bridges located in Cal­
ifornia, Central, and Southeastern US (see, [38,39]), which point out
that columns are the most vulnerable component in the bridge system.
This discrepancy is attributed to three main aspects. First, the complex
load patterns present in multi-span bridges with more than three spans
and geometry irregularities, as in this study. These bridges may have
components with different geometries, such as columns of different
heights absorbing more seismic demand, which can affect the seismic
vulnerability of each component affected by exposure to corrosion.
Second, the exceptional resilience of Chilean highway bridge columns to
seismic demand and uncertainty corrosion during exposure period of the
bridge to corrosion is noted. Even with prolonged exposure to corrosion,
the columns are the least affected at any DS in the structural system of
the bridge. This resilience is primarily attributed to the design philoso­
phy of bridge engineering in Chile, which includes RC shear keys at
abutments and bents that act as sacrificial elements before transferring
any demand to substructure components such as columns and piles, as
detailed by [96], and columns with deep cover concrete depth, which
leads to delayed corrosion initiation time and reduces corrosion rates.
Finally, it is important to note that the uncertainty surrounding the
initiation and progression of corrosion during tk can impact the mani­
festation of vulnerability in bridge components. The longer a bridge is
exposed to corrosion, the higher the likelihood of corrosion affecting it,
and previous studies may have overlooked this aspect.
6.5. System fragility curves
The system probability of reaching any limit state is estimated using
the first-order reliability method (Eq. 5), which provides both lower and
upper bounds for the system probability [41]. The lower bound, which is
a less conservative estimate, corresponds to the maximum probability of
reaching each LS among EDPs as shown on the left side of the equation.
The upper bound, which is a more conservative estimate, is obtained by
the expression on the right side of the equation. This approach ensures
that the system probability is estimated within a range of uncertainty,
providing a more comprehensive understanding of the system’s per­
formance under different damage conditions.
max(P[Fcomp i ]) ≤ P[Fsystem ] ≤ 1 −
∏(
P[Fcomp i ]
)
(5)
EDPi
Where, P[Fsystem ] and P[Fcomp i ] are probabilities of failure of the system
and each bridge component, respectively, and Π is the product operator.
System fragility surfaces for DS2 and DS3 for both boundary condi­
tions (i.e., FX and SSI), are presented in Fig. 13. It is important to note
that DS1 independent of corrosion condition exhibits a 100% probability
of exceedance beyond Sa (T1 ) = 0.20g, while DS4 shows minimal to non-
existent probability of exceedance. As shown in Fig. 13, the influence of
bridge exposure to corrosion on system-level vulnerability is not sig­
nificant. This is because the vulnerability of critical components, such as
elastomeric bearings and abutments, has a significant impact on the
15
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
entire bridge system’s response, as observed by [5] for Chilean skewed
highway bridges or [39] for steel girder bridge in Central and South­
eastern US. As a result, the probability of exceeding DS2 and DS3 re­
mains steady or decreases over time with bridge exposure to corrosion.
For instance, at Sa (T1 ) = 0.75g for DS2, the pristine structure under FX
boundary condition (see Fig. 13a) has a 29% higher probability of ex­
ceedance than the bridge with 100 years of corrosion exposure, while
this difference is around 0.1% under SSI boundary condition (see
Fig. 13b). Regarding DS3 at Sa (T1 ) = 0.75g, the pristine structure under
FX boundary condition (see Fig. 13c) exhibits an 80% higher probability
of exceedance than the bridge with 100 years of corrosion exposure,
while this difference is around 45% under SSI boundary condition (see
Fig. 13d). This trend is a result of the fact that elastomeric bearings
experience more relative displacement when the bridge structural sys­
tem’s flexibility is increased, either by column corrosion or by SSI at the
foundation system.
7. Conclusions
This study proposed a probabilistic framework which addresses
existing research gaps related to vulnerability of reinforced concrete
(RC) highway bridges subject to the combined effects of chloride-
induced corrosion and earthquakes. The probabilistic framework fills
the gaps related to limited consideration of bridge typologies and
modeling methodologies beyond specific US regions, insufficient eval­
uation of corrosion’s impact on all material and physical properties of
bridge components, uncertainty of corrosion process in conjunction with
earthquakes during bridge’s exposure period to corrosion, and the need
for seismic demand analysis incorporating probabilistic seismic hazard
assessments with updated data for highly seismic regions in subduction
environments. The study comprehensively evaluated two main
modeling philosophies for boundary conditions and employs direct
estimation of seismic response through Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) of
3D nonlinear dynamic FE models. By propagating uncertainties associ­
ated with bridge deterioration due to chloride-induced corrosion at
specific exposure periods, this study led to a comprehensive under­
standing of the seismic vulnerability of multi-span RC bridges by means
of fragility surfaces of main bridge components and the entire system
under typical boundary conditions used in engineering practice, i.e.,
fixed-based (FX) and including soil-structure-interaction (SSI).
The pertinence and novelty of the probabilistic framework was
evaluated by applying it to assess the seismic vulnerability of a five-span
Chilean bridge with simply-supported prestressed concrete (PSC)
girders, accounting for chloride-induced corrosion uncertainty. Key
findings included the observation that, after 100 years of corrosion
exposure, concrete strength reduced significantly, while reinforcing
steel strength only decreased by 5%. The study highlighted increased
lateral flexibility in bridge columns due to corrosion, emphasizing the
need to consider variable effects on material strength and stiffness in
evaluating structural performance. Nonlinear time-history response
analysis of columns and elastomeric bearings in the bridge emphasized
the influence of corrosion initiation and progression during the bridge’s
exposure period. While the impact of corrosion may or may not be
observed between 25 and 50 years, it became evident after 100 years.
The transverse column curvature response showed minimal impact at 25
and 50 years but increased after 100 years. Similarly, the demand for
elastomeric bearings decreased with increasing corrosion exposure.
In terms of the vulnerability of case study bridge, the fragility anal­
ysis of columns revealed that the probability of exceeding damage state
DS1 (i.e., slight damage) consistently increases with longer exposure
periods, particularly when considering SSI effects. The presence of SSI
reduced the probability of DS1 exceedance compared to FX condition
due to additional damping and flexibility. The vulnerability of columns
to damage states DS3 and DS4 was minimal, highlighting the excep­
tional resilience of Chilean highway bridge columns to seismic demand
and corrosion uncertainties. In addition, elastomeric bearings were the
F. Pinto et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257

Fig. A 1. Types of deterioration mechanisms on reinforcing steel: a) uniform corrosion, b) deep-pit formation, c) pitting corrosion.
adapted from [78].

most vulnerable component, with abutments showing moderate
vulnerability and bridge columns exhibiting resilience, particularly in
damage state DS1. The findings underscored the exceptional resilience
of Chilean highway bridge columns to seismic demand and corrosion
effects. System fragility analysis indicated that the influence of bridge
exposure to corrosion on system-level vulnerability is not significant,
with the probability of exceeding certain damage states remaining
steady or decreasing over time.
These conclusions are particularly applicable to bridges with similar
characteristics and seismic demand considered in this study, acknowl­
edging that different modeling philosophies and bridge typologies may
yield different outcomes. It is noted that only flexure failure mode is
considered in the columns, but under severe corrosion conditions, a shift
to shear or flexure-shear failure modes could be generated. This limi­
tation has not been fully addressed within the current state-of-the-art
numerical modeling of corrosion and it is out of the scope of this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Navarro Nibaldo: Writing – original draft, Software, Investigation,
Conceptualization. Pinto Francisco: Writing – review & editing,
Writing – original draft, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Conceptualization. Astroza Rodrigo: Writing – review &
editing, Supervision, Software, Project administration, Methodology,
Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.
Bazáez Ramiro: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Conceptualization. Hernández Francisco: Writing – review &
editing, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization.
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
This study was financially supported by the National Research and
Development Agency (ANID) through the FONDECYT Regular project
1200277 and the FONDECYT Postdoctoral project 3230313 and the
"Fondo de Ayuda a la Investigación" of the Universidad de los Andes
(Chile). The authors also acknowledge the support of Mr. Miguel Med­
alla in the seismic hazard analysis.

Appendix A. Time-dependent chloride-induced corrosion

Deterioration of reinforcing steel.

After the corrosion initiation phase (diffusion) when chloride ingress through the depth of the concrete cover and depassivate the reinforcing steel,
the first effect is a loss of sectional area of embedded rebars in RC member. This can be manifested by two main modes: 1) uniform corrosion or 2)
pitting corrosion (see Fig. A1).
Reduced bar area due to uniform corrosion [Au (t)].
In the uniform corrosion modes, the loss of the sectional area of reinforcing steel after initiated corrosion is assumed constant around the
circumference and length of the embedded rebar (see Figure A1.a) and the reduced area of the rebar is computed as in Eq. A1 [35].
[ ∫t ]2
π Di − 2 Ti rcorr (tp )dtp
Au (t) = (A1)
4

where, t is the time after corrosion initiation (years), Ti is the corrosion initiation time (years), D0 is the initial uncorroded rebar diameter (mm) and
rcorr (tp ), in mm/year, is the chloride corrosion rate at tp year after corrosion initiation, calculated as in [97,37,49,90,93].
rcorr (t) = 0.85 rcorr (0)t−p 0.29 (A2)

16
F. Pinto et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257

Where, rcorr (0) is the initial corrosion rate under marine exposure conditions, in mm/year.
⎛ ( )− 1.64 ⎞
37.8 1 − wc
⎜ ⎟
rcorr (0) = 0.0116⎝ ⎠ (A3)
x

Where, x is the concrete cover depth in mm, and w/c is the water-binder ratio (assumed 0.5 in this study).
Reduced bar area due to pitting corrosion [Ap (t)].
Engineering practice and researchers have extensively adopted uniform corrosion modes for seismic life-cycle analysis, because of its simplicity.
However, corrosion is recognized as a non-uniform deterioration process since chloride-induced corrosion generates intermittent deep-pit formation
or pitting cavities, and accordingly, models assuming that should be adopted. Cup-shaped hemispherical pit formations have been the most observed
in the corrosion process in rebars [89], and near-hemispherical and near-conical cavities have also been reported in a minor grade in literature [73].
Several studies have typically modeled localized cavity formation due to pitting corrosion as a cup-shaped hemispherical loss of steel area along with
uniform corrosion [40,84,85]. Thus, this study adopts the regularly used hemispherical pit formation to calculate the residual steel area at a pit
location Ap (t) (see Figure A1.c) after time t as defined by [19,39] in Eq. A4.
[ ]
a(t)
Ap (t) = 1 − [Au (t) − A0 ] + ADP (t) (A4)
2Di

where, D0 is the initial rebar diameter (mm), t is the time after corrosion initiation (years), A0 is the area of uncorroded rebar (mm2), Au (t) is the
reduced rebar area for uniform corrosion, a(t) is the width of pit without uniform section loss and ADP (t) is the residual area of pit without uniform
section loss, calculated with Eq. A5 and Eq. A6, respectively.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2
p(t)
a(t) = 2p(t) 1 − (A5)
D0
⎧
⎪
⎪ D0
⎨ A0 − (A1 − A2 )
⎪ for p(t) ≤ √̅̅̅
2
ADP (t) = (A6)
⎪
⎪ D0
⎪
⎩ (A1 − A2 ) for D0 > p(t) ≥ √̅̅̅
2

where, p(t) is the pit depth and areas A1 and A2 are computed through Eq. A7, Eq. A8, and Eq. A9:
∫t
( )
p(t) = R rcorr tp dtp (A7)
Ti

[ ⃒ ⃒] [ ]
⃒ p(t)2 ⃒⃒ a(t)
A1 = 0.5 θ1 (0.5Di )2 − a(t)⃒⃒0.5Di − ; θ = 2arcsin (A8)
Di ⃒
1
Di
[ ] [ ]
p(t)2 a(t)
A2 = 0.5 θ2 (p(t))2 − a(t) ; θ2 = 2arcsin (A9)
Di 2p(t)
In the Eq. A7, the factor R represents the pitting factor, characterized in this study by means of Extreme Value Type I Gumbel distribution with
Gumbel parameters modified as μo = 5.56 and αo = 1.16 [86].
Changes of the yield strength of corroding rebars [fy (t)], elastic modulus for steel [Es (t)] and time-dependent volumetric ratio of confining steel [ρs (t)].
Recent experimental studies such as Du et al. [31] and Kashani et al. [43] have confirmed a reduction in fy (t) and fu (t) for reinforcing bars due to
pitting corrosion. Accordingly, this study adopts a linear strength reduction model (Eq. A10 and Eq. A11) as a function of steel mass loss proposed by
Du et al. [31] using regression analysis of experimental data.
fy (t) = [1 − 0.005 Qcorr (t) ]fy (0) (A10)

fu (t) = [1 − 0.005 Qcorr (t) ]fu (0) (A11)

where, Qcorr (t) is the percentage area loss of reinforcing steel due to corrosion at time t [66], which can be expressed as in Eq. A12 [48].
A0 − Ar (t)
Qcorr (t) = • 100 (A12)
A0

where, A0 is the initial area of reinforcement and Ar (t) is the time-variant residual cross-sectional area of reinforcement due to corrosion.
Similarly, Es (t) can be calculated as in Eq. A13 [21]:
Es (t) = [1 − 0.01 Qcorr (t) ]Es0 (A13)

where, Es0 is the elastic modulus and ultimate strain of uncorroded steel reinforcements and Qcorr (t) is the percentage area loss of reinforcing steel due
to corrosion at time t.
While ρs (t) can be computed as expressed in Firouzi et al. [36], as follows:

17
F. Pinto et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257

ρs (t) = (1 − 0.3113 • Qcorr (t)) ρs0 (A14)

where, Qcorr (t) is the percentage area loss of reinforcing steel due to corrosion at time t and ρs0 is the ratio of volume of transverse confining steel to the
volume of confined concrete core, computed as expressed by Mander et al. [51] in Eq. A15.
4Asp
ρs0 = (A15)
ds s

where, Asp is the area of transverse reinforcement bar, ds is the diameter between bar centers of the transverse reinforcement bar and s is the center to
center spacing of the transverse reinforcement bar.

Deterioration of concrete

Even though the main effect of corrosion is on mechanical properties of reinforcing steel of structural elements of the bridges, corrosion also attach
concrete in the form of various secondary effects such as loss of cover concrete strength from gradual micro-cracking or spalling due to the expansive
forces of accumulated rust products, loss of core concrete strength due to corrosion of reinforcing ties, changes in mechanical characteristics of steel,
loss of bond strength, amongst others. This is briefly discussed below along with the assumptions in the present study.
Reduction in cover concrete strength [fc′(t)].
The loss in cover concrete strength is a consequence of the expansion of corroding steel, which leads to complete cracking and eventual spalling of
cover. Coronelli and Gambarova [28,72] suggested models the reduction in cover concrete strength as in Eq. A16.
fc′(0)
fc′(t) = ∗ (A16)
1 + κ εεcv(t)

where, fc′(0) is the compressive strength of cover concrete for the pristine column cover, κ is a parameter that depends on the reinforcing bar diameter
and roughness, assumed to be 0.1 for medium-diameter ribbed bars [92], εcv is the concrete compressive strain corresponding to fc′(0), and ε∗ (t) is the
average tensile strain in the transverse direction leading to the formation of microcracks due to corrosion, calculated as in Eq. A17 [72]:
nbars wcr (t)
ε∗ (t) = (A17)
Dcol

where, nbars is the total number of corroded reinforcing bars in a column section, Dcol is the diameter of the column before corrosion and wcr (t) is the
total crack width for a given corrosion level, which can be computed using Eq. A18 proposed by Molina et al., [59]:
wcr = 4π(vrs − 1)Y (A18)

where, vrs is the ratio of the volume of the corroded steel bar including the expansive rust products to the volume of the virgin steel bar. This value is
assumed to be equal to 2, by Molina et al. [59], and Y is the depth of the corrosion attack which is equal to the reduction in bar radius.
Reduction in elastic modulus of concrete [Ec (t)] and shear modulus of concrete [Gc (t)].
Similarly, Ec (t) can be calculated by the typical expression (Eq. A19) dependent on f ′c , suggested by AASHTO [18]:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Ec (t) = 4700 f ′c (t)(MPa) (A19)

where, fc′(t) is the reduction in cover concrete strength at time t.

Furthermore, Gc (t) is computed following recommendations of Elwood & Eberhard [33] and expressed in Eq. A20.
Gc (t) = 0.2Ec (t) (A20)

Reduction in compressive strength of confined core concrete [f cc (t)] and time-dependent ultimate compressive strength of confined core concrete [fcu (t)] and
′

associated strain levels.

The loss in compressive strength of confined core concrete is a consequence of the corrosion deterioration and area loss of traversal tie re­
inforcements. This loss of strength is typically estimated using the theoretical stress–strain model of Mander et al., [51], Eq. A21.
( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
7.94fl (t) fl (t)
f ′cc (t) = fc′(t) 2.254 1 + − 2 − 1.254 (A21)
fc′(t) fc′(t)

where, fc′(t) is the reduction in cover concrete strength at time t and fl (t) is the time-dependent effective lateral confining stress on the concrete,
evaluated as in Eq. A22.
1
fl (t) = ke ρs (t)fy (t) (A22)
2

where, ρs (t) is the time-dependent volumetric ratio of confining steel, fy (t) is the yield strength of corroding rebars and ke is the confinement
effectiveness coefficient, calculated for circular hoops as follows,

18
F. Pinto et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257

( )2
s′
1− 2ds
ke = (A23)
1 − ρcc (t)
where, s′ is the clear vertical spacing between hoop bars, ds is the diameter between bar centers of the transverse reinforcement bar and ρcc (t) is the
ratio of area of longitudinal reinforcement to area of core of section.
Likewise, Mander et al., [51] developed an expression (Eq. A24) for the compressive strain of confined core concrete [(εcc (t)]:
( [′ ])
f (t)
εcc (t) = εcv 1 + 5 cc′ − 1 (A24)
f c (t)

where, εcv is the concrete compressive strain corresponding to fc′(0), f ′cc (t) compressive strength of confined core concrete and fc′(t) is the cover
concrete strength.
Finally, the time-dependent ultimate concrete compressive strain (εcu (t)) can be determined according to Eq. A25 Paulay & Priestley [69] and the
associated ultimate compressive strength of confined core concrete (fcu (t)) following the material model proposed by Scott et al., [75], Eq. A26:
[ ]
ρ (t)f (t)ε
εcu (t) = 0.004 + 1.4 s ′ y su (A25)
f cc (t)

f ′cc (t) • X • r
fcu (t) = (A26)
r − 1 + Xr

where, f ′cc (t) compressive strength of confined core concrete, X and r are computed as in Eqs. A27–A29:
εcu (t)
X= (A27)
εcc (t)

Ec (t)
r= (A28)
Ec (t) − Esec

f ′cc (t)
Esec = (A29)
εcc (t)

References [13] Biondini F, Camnasio E, Palermo A. Lifetime seismic performance of concrete

bridges exposed to corrosion 2014;10(7):880–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15732479.2012.761248. 〈Https://Doi.Org/10.1080/15732479.2012.761248〉.
[1] Aashto 2nd L.2012. Bridge design specifications. American Association of State
[14] Birrell M, Astroza R, Carreño R, Restrepo JI, Araya-Letelier G. Bayesian parameter
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
and joint probability distribution estimation for a hysteretic constitutive model of
[2] Abtahi S, Li Y. Efficient modeling of steel bar slippage effect in reinforced concrete
reinforcing steel. Struct Saf 2021;90:102062. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
structures using a newly implemented nonlinear element. Comput Struct 2023;279:
STRUSAFE.2020.102062.
106958. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPSTRUC.2022.106958.
[15] Birrell M, Astroza R, Restrepo JI, Loftizadeh K, Carreño R, Bazáez R, et al. Bayesian
[3] Abtahi S, Liu Z, Li Y. Corrosion-related parameter estimation for RC structures
inference for calibration and validation of uniaxial reinforcing steel models. Eng
using UKF-based Bayesian nonlinear finite element model updating with seismic
Struct 2021;243:112386. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2021.112386.
data. Mech Syst Signal Process 2023;191:110169. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[16] Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A. Seismic soil-pile-
YMSSP.2023.110169.
structure interaction experiments and analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1999;
[4] Afsar Dizaj E, Kashani MM. Nonlinear structural performance and seismic fragility
125(9):750–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:9(750).
of corroded reinforced concrete structures: modelling guidelines. Eur J Environ Civ
[17] Bozorgzadeh A, Ashford SA, Restrepo JI, Nimityongskul N. Experimental and
Eng 2022;26(11):5374–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2021.1896582.
analytical investigation on stiffness and ultimate capacity of bridge abutments.
[5] Aldea S, Bazaez R, Astroza R, Hernandez F. Seismic fragility assessment of Chilean
SSRP 2008;7:12.
skewed highway bridges. Eng Struct 2021;249:113300. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[18] Bridge design specifications. American Association of State Highway and
ENGSTRUCT.2021.113300.
Transportation Officials. Washington, DC; 2017.
[6] Alipour A, Shafei B, Shinozuka M. Performance evaluation of deteriorating
[19] Broomfield, J.2003. Corrosion of steel in concrete: understanding, investigation
highway bridges located in high seismic areas. J Bridge Eng 2010;16(5):597–611.
and repair, Second Edition. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482265491.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000197.
[20] Buckle I, Hube M, Chen G, Yen WH, Arias J. Structural performance of bridges in
[7] ASCE, A. S. of C. E. 2021, June. “2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,.”
the offshore maule earthquake of 27 February 2010. Earthq Spectra 2020;28(1_
2021. 〈https://infrastructurereportcard.org/〉.
suppl1):533–52. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000031.
[8] Bakalis K, Vamvatsikos D. Seismic fragility functions via nonlinear response history
[21] Cairns J, Plizzari GA, Du Y, Law DW, Franzoni C. Mechanical properties of
analysis. J Struct Eng 2018;144(10):04018181. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
corrosion-damaged reinforcement. ACI Mater J 2005;102(4):256.
ST.1943-541X.0002141.
[22] Candia G, Macedo J, Jaimes MA, Magna-Verdugo C. A new state-of-the-art
[9] Baker JW. Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct
platform for probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard assessment. Seismol Res
Eng 2010;137(3):322–31. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
Lett 2019;90(6):2262–75. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190025.
541X.0000215.
[23] Castro S, Benavente R, Crempien JGF, Candia G, de la Llera JC. A consistently
[10] Baker, J.W. 2015. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic
processed strong-motion database for Chilean earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 2022;
structural analysis. https://Doi.Org/10.1193/021113EQS025M, 31(1), 579–599.
93(5):2700–18. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200336.
https://doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M.
[24] Choe DE, Gardoni P, Rosowsky D, Haukaas T. Probabilistic capacity models and
[11] Bertolini, L., Elsener, B., Pedeferri, P., & Polder, R.2005. Corrosion of steel in
seismic fragility estimates for RC columns subject to corrosion. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
concrete: prevention, diagnosis, repair. pp. 1–392. 〈https://doi.org/10.1002/352
2008;93(3):383–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2006.12.015.
7603379〉.
[25] Choine MN, O’Connor A, Padgett JE. A seismic reliability assessment of reinforced
[12] Bertolini, L., Elsener, B., Redaelli, E., & Polder, R. , 2013. Corrosion of steel in
concrete integral bridges subject to corrosion. Key Eng Mater 2013:569–70.
concrete: prevention, diagnosis, repair: second edition 〈https://doi.org/10.1002
https://doi.org/10.4028/WWW.SCIENTIFIC.NET/KEM.569-570.366.
/9783527651696〉.
[26] Contreras, N.2019. Estudio de microvibraciones ambientales del puente Águila
Norte y plataforma de informes sísmicos del viaducto El Salto. Universidad de
Chile.

19
F. Pinto et al.
[27] Contreras, N., Hernández, F., Grand, J., Astroza, R., Ochoa, F., & Pastén, C.2020,
November. Identificación de Propiedades Dinámicas del Puente Águila Norte. III
Congreso Internacional de Puentes - Chile 2020, Futuros Desafíos: Diseño,
Construcción, Mantenimiento.
[28] Coronelli D, Gambarova P. Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concrete
beams: modeling guidelines. J Struct Eng 2004;130(8):1214–24. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:8(1214).
[29] Cui F, Zhang H, Ghosn M, Xu Y. Seismic fragility analysis of deteriorating RC
bridge substructures subject to marine chloride-induced corrosion. Eng Struct
2018;155:61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2017.10.067.
[30] Dizaj EA, Madandoust R, Kashani MM. Probabilistic seismic vulnerability analysis
of corroded reinforced concrete frames including spatial variability of pitting
corrosion. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2018;114:97–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SOILDYN.2018.07.013.
[31] Du, Y.G., Clarkt, L.A., & Chan, A.H. C. 2015. Effect of corrosion on ductility of
reinforcing bars. Https://Doi.Org/10.1680/Macr.2005.57.7.407, 57(7), 407–419.
https://doi.org/10.1680/MACR.2005.57.7.407.
[32] Duncan JM, Mokwa RL. Passive earth pressures: theories and tests. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(3):248–57. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2001)127:3(248).
[33] Elwood KJ, Eberhard MO. Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete columns. ACI
Struct J 2009;106(4).
[34] Engelund, S., Mohr, L., & Edvardsen, C.2000. General guidelines for durability
design and redesign: duracrete, probabilistic performance based durability design
of concrete structures. CUR.
[35] Enright MP, Frangopol DM. Probabilistic analysis of resistance degradation of
reinforced concrete bridge beams under corrosion. Eng Struct 1998;20(11):
960–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00190-9.
[36] Firouzi A, Abdolhosseini M, Ayazian R. Service life prediction of corrosion-affected
reinforced concrete columns based on time-dependent reliability analysis. Eng Fail
Anal 2020;117:104944. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2020.104944.
[37] Frangopol DM, Lin K-Y, Estes AC. Reliability of reinforced concrete girders under
corrosion attack. J Struct Eng 1997;123(3):286–97. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:3(286).
[38] Ghosh J, Padgett JE. Aging considerations in the development of time-dependent
seismic fragility curves. J Struct Eng 2010;136(12):1497–511. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000260.
[39] Ghosh J, Sood P. Consideration of time-evolving capacity distributions and
improved degradation models for seismic fragility assessment of aging highway
bridges. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016;154:197–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RESS.2016.06.001.
[40] Hajializadeh, D., Stewart, M.G., Enright, B., & OBrien, E. 2015. Spatial time-
dependent reliability analysis of reinforced concrete slab bridges subject to realistic
traffic loading. Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1086385, 12(9),
1137–1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1086385.
[41] Hedayati Dezfuli F, Alam MS. Effect of different steel-reinforced elastomeric
isolators on the seismic fragility of a highway bridge. Struct Control Health Monit
2017;24(2):e1866. https://doi.org/10.1002/STC.1866.
[42] Idini B, Rojas F, Ruiz S, Pastén C. Ground motion prediction equations for the
Chilean subduction zone. Bull Earthq Eng 2017;15(5):1853–80. https://doi.org/
10.1007/S10518-016-0050-1/FIGURES/12.
[43] Kashani MM, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA. Nonlinear stress–strain behaviour of
corrosion-damaged reinforcing bars including inelastic buckling. Eng Struct 2013;
48:417–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2012.09.034.
[44] Kashani MM, Maddocks J, Dizaj EA. Residual capacity of corroded reinforced
concrete bridge components: state-of-the-art review. J Bridge Eng 2019;24(7):
03119001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001429.
[45] Kashani MM, Alagheband P, Khan R, Davis S. Impact of corrosion on low-cycle
fatigue degradation of reinforcing bars with the effect of inelastic buckling. Int J
Fatigue 2015;77:174–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2015.03.013.
[46] Kowalsky MJ. Deformation limit states for circular reinforced concrete bridge
columns. J Struct Eng 2000;126(8):869–78. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2000)126:8(869).
[47] Krawinkler H, Deierlein GG. Challenges towards achieving earthquake resilience
through performance-based earthquake engineering. Geotech, Geol Earthq Eng
2014;32:3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8875-5_1.
[48] Li H, Li L, Zhou G, Xu L. Effects of various modeling uncertainty parameters on the
seismic response and seismic fragility estimates of the aging highway bridges. Bull
Earthq Eng 2020;18(14):6337–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10518-020-00934-9.
[49] Lu R, Luo Y, Conte JP. Reliability evaluation of reinforced concrete beams. Struct
Saf 1994;14(4):277–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(94)90016-7.
[50] Ma Y, Che Y, Gong J. Behavior of corrosion damaged circular reinforced concrete
columns under cyclic loading. Constr Build Mater 2012;29:548–56. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2011.11.002.
[51] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stressstrain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
[52] Mangalathu S, Jeon J-S. Machine learning–based failure mode recognition of
circular reinforced concrete bridge columns: comparative study. J Struct Eng 2019;
145(10):04019104. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002402.
[53] Guidelines for Performance - Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings. Berkeley:
University of California; 2017.
[54] Martínez A, Hube MA, Rollins KM. Analytical fragility curves for non-skewed
highway bridges in Chile. Eng Struct 2017;141:530–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENGSTRUCT.2017.03.041.
20
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
[55] Mckenna, F., Fenves, G., Scott, H., & Jeremic, B.2000. Open system for earthquake
engineering simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Research Center, Univ. of
California, Berkeley.
[56] Meda A, Mostosi S, Rinaldi Z, Riva P. Experimental evaluation of the corrosion
influence on the cyclic behaviour of RC columns. Eng Struct 2014;76:112–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2014.06.043.
[57] Menegotto M., Pinto P.E. 1973. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R. C. plane
frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under
combined normal force and bending. 15–22. In Proc. of IABSE Symposium on
Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined
Repeated Loads; 1973.
[58] Moehle, J., Deierlein, G.G. 2004. A framework methodology for performance-based
earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 679, 12.
[59] Molina FJ, Alonso C, Andrade C. Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion:
Part 2—Numerical model. Mater Struct 1993;26(9):532–48. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF02472864.
[60] Montalva GA, Bastías N, Rodriguez-Marek A. Ground-motion prediction equation
for the Chilean subduction zone. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2017;107(2):901–11.
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160221.
[61] NCh2745, 2003. Diseño de edificios con aislación sísmica–requisitos (in Spanish).
Instituto Nacional de Normalización de Chile.
[62] NCh433, 2009. Earthquake Resistant Design of Buildings (in Spanish). Instituto
Nacional de Normalización de Chile.
[63] Nielson BG, DesRoches R. Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using
a component level approach. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36(6):823–39. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.655.
[64] O’Connor AJ, Kenshel O. Experimental evaluation of the scale of fluctuation for
spatial variability modeling of chloride-induced reinforced concrete corrosion.
J Bridge Eng 2013;18(1):3–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-
5592.0000370.
[65] Otárola K, Fayaz J, Galasso C. Fragility and vulnerability analysis of deteriorating
ordinary bridges using simulated ground-motion sequences. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2022;51(13):3215–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/EQE.3720.
[66] Panchireddi B, Ghosh J. Cumulative vulnerability assessment of highway bridges
considering corrosion deterioration and repeated earthquake events. Bull Earthq
Eng 2019;17(3):1603–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10518-018-0509-3/TABLES/
3.
[67] Panchireddi B, Ghosh J. Probabilistic seismic loss estimation of aging highway
bridges subjected to multiple earthquake events 2020;17(9):1155–74. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1801765. 〈https://Doi.Org/10.1080/15732
479.2020.1801765〉.
[68] Pasten, C. , Astroza, R. , Bazaez, R. , Contreras, N. , Grand, J. , Hernandez, F. , &
et al.2021. Guía para el Análisis Sísmico No Lineal de Puentes Chilenos.
[69] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, Vol. 768. New York: Wiley,; 1992.
[70] Pinto FJ, Toledo J, Birrell M, Bazáez R, Hernández F, Astroza R. Uncertainty
quantification in constitutive models of highway bridge components: seismic bars
and elastomeric bearings. Materials 2023;16(5):179. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma16051792.
[71] Poulos A, Monsalve M, Zamora N, de la Llera JC. An updated recurrence model for
Chilean subduction seismicity and statistical validation of its poisson nature. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 2019;109(1):66–74. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170160.
[72] Rao AS, Lepech MD, Kiremidjian AS, Sun XY. Simplified structural deterioration
model for reinforced concrete bridge piers under cyclic loading. Life-Cyc of Str Syst
2016:55–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1198402.
[73] Ribeiro JLS, Panossian Z, Selmo SMS. Proposed criterion to assess the
electrochemical behavior of carbon steel reinforcements under corrosion in
carbonated concrete structures after patch repairs. Constr Build Mater 2013;40:
40–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2012.09.097.
[74] Rubilar, F.2015. Modelo no lineal para predecir la respuesta sísmica de pasos
superiores. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (Chile).
[75] Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN. Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by
overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. J Proc 1982;79(1):13–27.
[76] Shafei B, Alipour A. Estimation of corrosion initiation time in reinforced concrete
bridge columns: how to incorporate spatial and temporal uncertainties. J Eng Mech
2015;141(10):04015037. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-
7889.0000861.
[77] Shamsabadi A, Rollins KM, Kapuskar M. Nonlinear soil–abutment–bridge structure
interaction for seismic performance-based design. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;
133(6):707–20. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:6(707).
[78] Shekhar S, Ghosh J, Padgett JE. Seismic life-cycle cost analysis of ageing highway
bridges under chloride exposure conditions: modelling and recommendations.
Struct and Infr Eng 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2018.1437639.
[79] Sood, P., Ghosh, J., & Padgett, J.2017. Seismic life-cycle cost analysis of aging
highway bridges under pitting and uniform corrosion: A comparative study. Life-
Cycle of Engineering Systems: Emphasis on Sustainable Civil Infrastructure - In:
Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Life-Cycle Engineering,
IALCCE 2016, 1025–1032.
[80] Stefanidou SP, Kappos AJ. Methodology for the development of bridge-specific
fragility curves. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2017;46(1):73–93. https://doi.org/
10.1002/EQE.2774.
[81] Stefanidou SP, Kappos AJ. Bridge-specific fragility analysis: when is it really
necessary? Bull Earthq Eng 2019;17(4):2245–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/
S10518-018-00525-9/TABLES/14.
F. Pinto et al.
[82] Stefanidou SP, Kappos AJ. Fragility-informed selection of bridge retrofit scheme
based on performance criteria. Eng Struct 2021;234:111976. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2021.111976.
[83] Stefanidou SP, Paraskevopoulos EA, Papanikolaou VK, Kappos AJ. An online
platform for bridge-specific fragility analysis of as-built and retrofitted bridges.
Bull Earthq Eng 2022;20(3):1717–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10518-021-
01299-3/FIGURES/16.
[84] Stewart MG. Spatial variability of pitting corrosion and its influence on structural
fragility and reliability of RC beams in flexure. Struct Saf 2004;26(4):453–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STRUSAFE.2004.03.002.
[85] Stewart MG. Reliability safety assessment of corroding reinforced concrete
structures based on visual inspection information. ACI Struct J 2010;107(6):671.
[86] Stewart MG, Al-Harthy A. Pitting corrosion and structural reliability of corroding
RC structures: experimental data and probabilistic analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
2008;93(3):373–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2006.12.013.
[87] Tang L., Nilsson L.-O., Basheer P.A.M. Resistance of concrete to chloride ingress:
testing and modelling 2011. https://doi.org/10.1201/B12603.
[88] The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card - Bulletin de rendement des
infrastructures canadiennes, 2019. 〈http://canadianinfrastructure.ca/〉.
[89] Val DV, Melchers RE. Reliability of deteriorating RC slab bridges. J Struct Eng
1997;123(12):1638–44. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:12
(1638).
[90] Val DV, Stewart MG, Melchers RE. Life-cycle performance of RC bridges:
probabilistic approach. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 2000;15(1):14–25.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0885-9507.00167.
21
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117257
[91] Valenzuela M.A., Peña-Fritz A. The state of damage on South American road
bridges due to degradation and extreme events: a proposal for performance
indicators 2019;15(2):244–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2018.154731
9.
[92] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression-field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J Proc 1986;83(2):219–31. https://doi.
org/10.14359/10416.
[93] Vu KAT, Stewart MG. Structural reliability of concrete bridges including improved
chloride-induced corrosion models. Struct Saf 2000;22(4):313–33. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0167-4730(00)00018-7.
[94] Vu NS, Yu B, Li B. Prediction of strength and drift capacity of corroded reinforced
concrete columns. Constr Build Mater 2016;115:304–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.CONBUILDMAT.2016.04.048.
[95] Vu NS, Yu B, Li B. Stress-strain model for confined concrete with corroded
transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct 2017;151:472–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENGSTRUCT.2017.08.049.
[96] Wilches J, Santa María H, Riddell R, Arrate C. Effects of changes in seismic design
criteria in the transverse and vertical response of Chilean highway bridges. Eng
Struct 2019;191:370–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2019.04.064.
[97] Yokozeki, K., Motohash, K., Okada, T. & Tsutsumi I.K. 1997. A Rational Model to
Predict the Service life of RC Structures in Marine Environment n Marine. In:
Proceedings of the SP-170: Fourth CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Durability of Concrete.