Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Hysteretic model for steel piers considering the local buckling of steel plates T
Shuxian Chen, Xu Xie , Hanqing Zhuge
⁎

College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The pier is a vital structural component of bridges and thus critically considered in the seismic design. In order to
Steel pier provide an accurate and efficient methodology in the analysis of seismic response, a hysteretic model con-
Seismic response analysis sidering the effect of local buckling of steel plates is proposed for steel piers. In the hysteretic model, the Giuffre-
Hysteretic behavior Menegotto-Pinto hysteresis model is employed to establish the hysteresis curve equation, and the energy-based
Hysteretic model
Ibarra-Krawinkler degradation rule is followed to describe the deterioration rule of structural bearing capacity
Hysteresis curve equation
Degradation rule
and stiffness. In this study, a widely used Chinese steel Q345qC was taken as an example to illustrate the
proposed model for steel piers. At first, the seismic performance of steel piers under horizontal cyclic load was
analyzed. Then, the empirical formulae of the vital limit state points for evaluating the structural seismic per-
formance were established, and further the identification of the decisive parameter (degradation parameter) of
the hysteretic model was carried out. Morever, the verification on the effectiveness of the proposed model was
verified, and the results showed its applicability and accuracy for steel piers under horizontal cyclic loads.
Finally, the application of the proposed model in the seismic calculation of steel piers was interpreted.

1. Introduction becomes difficult to generalize in case of practical projects owing to a

The steel pier is the vulnerable structural component of steel bridges
during strong earthquake which necessitates considering the method of
calculation of seismic response in the structural seismic design. During
1995 Kobe Earthquake in Japan, some steel bridges were structurally
ineffective due to the damage of piers [1]. Since then, many researchers
have conducted extensive research on the seismic performance and
seismic design methodology of steel piers. It has been confirmed that
local buckling of steel plates is one of the most important factors re-
sulting in the deterioration of seismic performance of piers [2]. Further,
several empirical formulae in assessing the seismic performance of steel
piers considering the local buckling of steel plates have been presented.
For example, through experimental and elasto-plastic finite element
analysis, Ge et al. [3–6] proposed the formulae of the maximum bearing
capacity and ductility factors for steel piers; Goto et al. [7,8], Aoki et al.
[9] and Kulkarni et al. [10,11] studied the corresponding formulae
under the condition of bi-directional horizontal seismic action.
However, compared with the above-mentioned relatively mature
methods for the seismic performance evaluation, the calculation
method on the structural seismic response of steel piers still remains to
be improved. Although the elasto-plastic finite element technique and
the hysteretic constitutive model of materials can be combined to si-
mulate the deformation performance of steel plates accurately [4], it
lengthy and large number of calculations and poor convergence. As a
result, several seismic design methods based on the frame structure
computational theory have been established in the past twenty years
[2,12]. Among them, the idea of considering the steel pier as a single-
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system received wider attention due to easy
calculation and good practicality. For instance, in order to consider the
effect of development of structural seismic damage and structural
geometric non-linearity, Suzuki et al. [13] proposed a 2-para hysteretic
model for steel box piers on the basis of tri-linear skeleton curve and an
energy-based deterioration parameter; by using Park-Ang damage
index; Liu et al. [14,15] and Kumar et al. [16,17] established an evo-
lutionary-degrading (E-D) hysteretic model for circular and box piers
considering both the structural bearing capacity and stiffness de-
gradation. Nevertheless, the above two models are featured with poly-
lines, and the degradation parameters in the damage index fail to reflect
different damage degrees resulting from the local buckling of steel
plates. Recently, a curve-approximated hysteresis model proposed by
Dang et al. [1] which is based on the cumulative plastic displacement
gave a solution to the currently existing shortcoming on the shape of
hysteresis loops. However, the experimental data are less and the
generality of the model needs to be further discussed.
Considering the above problems comprehensively, a horizontal de-
formation hysteretic model for the seismic response analysis of steel

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xiexu@zju.edu.cn (X. Xie).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.101
Received 29 July 2018; Received in revised form 10 December 2018; Accepted 30 December 2018
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

piers is proposed. The Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto hysteresis model (MP

H Severe
model) [18] is used to describe the relation between horizontal load No Minor Moderate

and displacement of the steel pier, and the Ibarra-Krawinkler de- Bearing capacity peak
Local buckling appear
gradation rule (IK rule) presented by Ibarra et al. [19,20] is employed
Hm Ultimate limit
to consider the effect of deformation of steel plates on the structural 0.95Hm
bearing capacity and stiffness in the proposed model. In this study, a elope
Env
widely used Chinese steel Q345qC was taken as an example to illustrate aggravate
Hy
the proposed model. At first, the seismic performance of the steel pier Yield point
structure was analyzed. Following this, the empirical formulae of the
vital limit state points for assessing the seismic performance of the steel
piers were built, and further the identification of the decisive parameter
(degradation parameter) of the hysteretic model was carried out. δy δm δ95 δ
Moreover, validation on the effectiveness was conducted to verify the Safety safe destruction
applicability and accuracy of the model. Finally, the application of the
proposed model for the seismic calculation of steel piers was inter- Fig. 2. Hysteresis envelope of the single-column pier under horizontal cyclic
preted. loading.

2. Seismic performance of steel piers
2.1. Fundamental characteristics
To establish the hysteretic model for steel piers, an analysis on the
seismic performance needs to be carried out at first. Fig. 1 shows the
typical hysteretic curve of a steel pier under a constant axial force N and
horizontal cyclic displacement. In this figure, h is the height of the pier,
H and δ represent the horizontal bearing capacity and corresponding
displacement at the pier top, respectively. (δm, Hm) is the peak point of
the bearing capacity, and (δu, Hu) is the critical point where the bearing
capacity begins to drop rapidly. It could be seen from this figure that
the hysteretic curve can be mainly divided into three stages. In stage I,
the displacement δ is less than δm and the structure is in the elastic or
strain intensification stage, where the deterioration phenomena of
stiffness and bearing capacity could be ignored [21]. In stage II, the
displacement δ is in between δm and δu, where only the degradation of
bearing capacity is manifested as the main structural damage. Whereas
in stage III, the displacement δ is greater than δu, where both the
bearing capacity and stiffness appear to be significantly degraded.
The results of experimental and theoretical analysis were summar-
ized by Ge et al. [22] as a horizontal deformation hysteresis envelope of
steel piers, as shown in Fig. 2. In this figure, (δy, Hy) and (δ95, 0.95Hm)
represent the yield point and the point when the bearing capacity drops
to 95% from its peak value, respectively. As seen from this figure,
before reaching the peak bearing capacity Hm, the degree of damage
gradually increased from no damage, minor damage and to moderate
damage. When the capacity reached Hm, the local buckling phenom-
enon of the pier begins to appear. Whereas, once the bearing capacity
falls below 0.95Hm, the local buckling aggravates and the bearing ca-
pacity drops sharply. Consequently, (δm, Hm) and (δ95, 0.95Hm) are
always studied as vital limit state points for evaluating the seismic
performance of steel piers [6,23,24].
Since the hysteretic behavior of steel piers is related to the prop-
erties of the applied steel, the limit state points for assessing the
structural seismic performance need to be determined via experiment
or finite element method. In this study, a commercial finite element
software ABAQUS 6.14 was employed for the analysis.
2.2. Assessment of seismic performance
2.2.1. Basic structural parameter
Schematic diagrams of the circular and box sectioned steel piers are
shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the structure of circular piers is
relatively simple. Experimental and finite element analysis results have
indicated that the local instability of circumferential steel plates leads
to the failure of circular piers during earthquake [25], and the ratio of
diameter to thickness Rt and slenderness ratio λ are the two main
parameters affecting the hysteretic behavior of the structure [26], as
expressed by the following Eq. (1) [27]:

H H(δ)
Envelope
(δm , Hm)
Hysteretic curve (δu , Hu)

Bearing capacity
degradation
h

Stiffness
degradation
Single-column pier

Fig. 1. Typical hysteretic curve of a single-column pier under horizontal cyclic loading.

304
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

N H(δ)
H(δ)

a Longitudinal
Diaphragm
Diaphragm stiffener
D
a h
h r Longitudinal
t t
stiffener y

B
Fixed x
boundary b1
Fixed
Diaphragm Flange t1
boundary B
D
a1 Web

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of steel piers: (A) Circular section; (B) Box section.

N
H(δ) H(δ)

Fibre Fibre
element element

2r Shell a
element
Shell
element a
2r
Fixed
Fixed Bourndary

Fig. 4. Finite element model of steel piers: (A) Circular section; (B) Box section.

Fig. 5. Division of fibre elements: (A) Circular

section; (B) Box section.

r
Rt = t · E 3(1
y
µ2) modulus and μ is the Poisson's ratio.
Fig. 3(B) shows the structure of the box pier. In this figure, a is the
y 2h 1 y
= = · distance between two diaphragms, D is the web width, B is the width of
E r0 E (1)
the flanges subjected to pressure, n is the number of flange plates se-
where, r is the radius of the central position of the wall thickness, t is parated by longitudinal stiffeners, a1 is the spacing of longitudinal
the thickness of the pier wall, r0 is the radius of gyration of the cross stiffeners, t and t1 are the thickness of flange plate and longitudinal
section in the deformation direction, σy and σE are the yield stress of the stiffener respectively, and b1 is the width of longitudinal stiffener.
material and Euler's instability stress respectively, E is the elastic Compared with the circular pier, the structure of box pier is complex,

305
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

δv v
1
[4n2 (1 + n l ) 2 ( 2 + 1) 2], 4 1+n
v E0P F’ Z’ l = n l

F X’
1
n
{[2n2 (1 + n l ) 1] 1}, > 4 1+n l (5)
C E0
P
X’m
E where Il represents bending moments of inertia related to a single
m longitudinal stiffener against flange plates, δl is the sectional area ratio
A B
2κ of single longitudinal stiffener to the flange plate.
κ0
κ0
Q1 2.2.2. Finite element method
2κ2 O’x In this study, to acquire the seismic performance of the steel pier,
O
the finite element method was carried out. Based on a comprehensive
x εp consideration of computational efficiency and accuracy [28], the hy-
brid element model was established as shown in Fig. 4.The bottom of
δin
Q2 the pier where local buckling occurs was modeled with shell elements
while the rest were modeled with fibre elements [3,4]. For circular
δ Y’m piers, the 0–2r range and the 2r–4r range from the base were modeled
D
Y’ with fine-grid and coarse-grid shell elements, respectively. For box
m
E P
0 piers, three times the length of a at the bottom were modeled with shell
δv 2ρ1
elements. The four-node quadrilateral shell element with reduced in-
2
tegration (S4R) in Abaqus 6.14 was adopted, and there were five in-
Fig. 6. Uni-axial cyclic stress σ versus plastic strain εp for the modified two- tegral points along the thickness direction. The element type of fibre
surface model. elements was two-node linear beam (B31) in space. The division of fibre
elements is shown in Fig. 5, and the length of each fibre element was
and the form of local buckling and the hysteretic behavior of box piers 0.05 m. The fibre and shell elements were degree-of-freedom (DOF)-
are thus influenced by more structural parameters, including the width coupled through using multi-point constraint (MPC). The bottom of
to thickness ratio of the mother plate RR, the width to thickness ratio of piers was fixed, whereas the top of the pier was subjected to a forced
the stiffened plate RF, the overall slenderness ratio λ, and the modified cyclic displacement. Material non-linearity and geometric non-linearity
slenderness ratio parameter of the stiffener λs′, which are defined as were taken into account during computation process using the Newton-
follows [4,27]: Raphson method.
The material constitutive model is a vital factor affecting accuracy
µ2 )
of calculation of FE models. Compared with the bi-linear isotropic
B y 12(1
RR = hardening model and bi-linear kinematic hardening model, two-surface
t E 4n2 2

B y 12(1 µ2 )
model provides more satisfactory predictions for steel columns under
RF = t E 2K cyclic loading [5]. Thus, in this study, the modified two-surface model
F
y 2h 1 y as improved by Wang [29] was used. The stress-plastic strain (steel
= = ·
E r0 E stress, σ versus plastic strain, εp) curve corresponding to the uni-axial
s =
1 a 1 y stress state of the modified two-surface model is depicted in Fig. 6, and
5 rs Q E (2) specific details of this constitutive model have already been reported
[29].
In this, Q could be represented as: In this study, a circular pier [3] and a box pier [4] from the reported
literature were selected to perform the sensitivity analysis of grid par-
1
Q= [1.33RR + 0.868 (1.33RR + 0.868)2 4RR ] tition method and to examine the validity of the finite element method.
2RR (3)
The above-mentioned two-surface constitutive model was adopted and
where a′ is the length of the longitudinal stiffeners (the spacing of the its parameters were determined following the earlier reports [3,4].
diaphragms, a), α is the ratio of the diaphragm spacing a to the flange Table 1 shows the material and structural parameters of the steel piers
width B, rs is the radius of gyration of a T-section consisting of one reported in the literature. In this table, σu is the ultimate strength of the
longitudinal stiffener and the adjacent sub-panel of width (B/n), and KF material, and the meaning of other structural parameters is the same as
is the buckling coefficient. The meaning of other structural parameters indicated earlier.
is the same as that of circular piers. Besides, the relative stiffness ratio Analysis results are shown in Fig. 7, where all the numerical values
of the longitudinal stiffeners γl and the optimal stiffness ratio l are two in this figure were considered to be basically convergent. In Fig. 7(A),
other significant structural parameters for box piers, as expressed by “20”, “30” and “40” represent the number of layers in the 0–2r range of
Eqs. (4) and (5), respectively. the shell segment which were divided from the bottom; In the Fig. 7(B),
“10”, “15” and “20” denote the number of layers belonging to the
Il length of a at the bottom. It can be concluded that “30 layers” and “15
=
l Bt 3 layers” are the preferable grid partition method for circular and box
11 (4) section piers, respectively, and thus this grid partition method was
applied in the following analysis, and the reliability of this finite

Table 1
Material and structural parameters of steel piers as reported in the literature.
Section type Material parameter Structural parameter

σy (MPa) σu (MPa) E (GPa) μ Rt (RR) λ N/Ny λs′ γl/γl* α

Circular 289.6 510 206 0.3 0.110 0.26 0.12 – – –

Box 379 629 206 0.3 0.56 0.26 0.125 0.63 0.9 1.0

306
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

20 layers 2
Test 10 layers Test
30 layers 15 layers
1 40 layers 1 20 layers

H/Hy
0 0

-1 -1

-2
-2 6
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
δ/δy δ/δy

Fig. 7. Influence of grid partition method on the results of finite element models: (A) Circular section; (B) Box section.

Without RS With RS
1

-0.3 σy 0
σy

-1

-2
-0.3 σy -0.3 σy -10 -5 0 5

Fig. 10. Influence of welding residual stress on the hysteretic behavior of a box
steel pier.
σy σ
-0.3 σy
element method was also validated.
In addition, the influence of initial imperfections on the structural
hysteretic curves of steel piers was also investigated.
Because there is a close relation between residual stress distribution
and welding method, in this study, the above box pier with a specific
Fig. 8. Residual stress distribution pattern. self-balancing residual stress distribution pattern as shown in Fig. 8 was

Fig. 9. Initial geometric deformation of steel piers: (A) Circular section; (B) Box section.

307
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

Without GI With GI Without GI With GI

1 1

0 0

H/Hy
-1 -1

-2 -2
-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5
δ/δy δ/δy

Fig. 11. Influence of an initial geometric deformation on the hysteretic behavior of steel piers: (A) Circular section; (B) Box section.

Table 3
2.5 Limit state point values of circular section steel piers.
2.0 No. Structural parameter Limit state point
1.5
1.0 Rt λ N/Ny Hm/Hy δm/δy δ95/δy

C-1-1-1 0.095 0.2625 0.1 1.442 3.0 3.781

0.0 C-1-1-2 0.095 0.2625 0.2 1.495 2.5 3.563
C-1-1-3 0.095 0.2625 0.3 1.547 2.5 3.219
C-1-2-1 0.095 0.3937 0.1 1.404 2.5 3.365
-1.0 C-1-2-2 0.095 0.3937 0.2 1.464 2.5 3.105
-1.5 C-1-2-3 0.095 0.3937 0.3 1.482 2.5 2.892
C-1-3-1 0.095 0.4593 0.1 1.392 2.5 3.192
-2.0
C-1-3-2 0.095 0.4593 0.2 1.435 2.5 3.027
-2.5 C-1-3-3 0.095 0.4593 0.3 1.453 2.5 2.785
C-2-1-1 0.079 0.2625 0.1 1.478 3.5 4.448
Fig. 12. Loading pattern. C-2-1-2 0.079 0.2625 0.2 1.542 3.5 4.117
C-2-1-3 0.079 0.2625 0.3 1.588 3.5 4.693
C-2-2-1 0.079 0.3937 0.1 1.439 3.0 3.895
considered as an example to illustrate the effect of residual stress. On C-2-2-2 0.079 0.3937 0.2 1.496 3.0 3.805
the other hand, in order to study the effect of initial geometric de- C-2-2-3 0.079 0.3937 0.3 1.538 3.0 3.260
formation on the cyclic behavior of steel piers, the first eigenvalue C-2-3-1 0.079 0.4593 0.1 1.425 3.0 3.749
C-2-3-2 0.079 0.4593 0.2 1.467 3.0 3.664
buckling mode with an magnitude of D/500 (for the circular pier) or B/
C-2-3-3 0.079 0.4593 0.3 1.490 2.5 3.549
500 (for the box pier), as shown in Fig. 9, was taken as the initial C-3-1-1 0.063 0.2624 0.1 1.523 4.5 5.362
geometric imperfection. The influence of welding residual stress and C-3-1-2 0.063 0.2624 0.2 1.619 4.0 5.084
initial geometric imperfection are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respec- C-3-1-3 0.063 0.2624 0.3 1.707 4.0 4.887
C-3-2-1 0.063 0.3937 0.1 1.488 4.0 4.799
tively. In Fig. 10, “Without RS”and “With RS” denote the numerical
C-3-2-2 0.063 0.3937 0.2 1.638 4.0 5.015
models without and with residual stress, respectively. In Fig. 11, C-3-2-3 0.063 0.3937 0.3 1.626 4.0 4.487
“Without GI”and “With GI” represent the numerical models without C-3-3-1 0.063 0.4593 0.1 1.468 3.5 4.666
and with initial geometric imperfection, respectively. It can be con- C-3-3-2 0.063 0.4593 0.2 1.523 4.0 4.469
cluded that both the welding residual stress and initial geometric de- C-3-3-3 0.063 0.4593 0.3 1.585 3.5 4.235
C-4-1-1 0.047 0.2624 0.1 1.584 5.5 7.019
formation had little impact on the structural hysteretic performance of
C-4-1-2 0.047 0.2624 0.2 1.711 5.5 6.495
steel piers. As a consequence, initial imperfections were not taken into C-4-1-3 0.047 0.2624 0.3 1.859 5.0 6.227
account in the following analysis. C-4-2-1 0.047 0.3936 0.1 1.538 5.0 6.240
C-4-2-2 0.047 0.3936 0.2 1.638 5.0 5.913
C-4-2-3 0.047 0.3936 0.3 1.755 5.0 5.724
2.2.3. Limit state point C-4-3-1 0.047 0.4591 0.1 1.509 4.5 5.951
As mentioned in Section 2.1, (δm, Hm) and (δ95, 0.95Hm) are the vital C-4-3-2 0.047 0.4591 0.2 1.589 4.5 5.649
limit state points for evaluating the seismic performance of steel piers. C-4-3-3 0.047 0.4591 0.3 1.681 4.5 5.537
To establish empirical formulae for the piers manufactured from Chi-
nese steel Q345qC, the hybrid element model as shown in Fig. 4 and the

Table 2
Main parameters of the modified two-surface model for steel Q345qC.
σy/MPa E/MPa μ EstP /GPa
p
st E0Pi /GPa ¯ 0 /MPa σu/MPa

391.2 2.045 × 105 0.3 4.47 1.53 × 10-2 1.43 412.2 636.4

Note: EstP is the plastic modulus at the initial hardening; p

st is the length of yield plateau; E0Pi is the slope of the bounding line; ¯ 0 is one half of the initial size of the
elastic range.

308
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

Fig. 13. Hysteretic curves of circular section steel piers: (A) C-1-1-1; (B) C-2-1-1.

Equation (6) Equation (6)

8
1.8 Data point Data point Data point
6 7
1.6 6
δm/δy

δ95/δy
1.4 4 5

4
1.2
2 3
1.0 2
1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Fig. 14. Fitting results of regression formulae for the limit state point values of circular section steel piers: (A) Hm/ Hy ; (B) m/ y ; (C) 95/ y .

Table 4
Limit state point values of box section steel piers.
No. Structural parameter Limit state point

RR λ λs’ α γl/γl* N/Ny Hm/Hy δm/δy δ95/δy

B1 0.5155 0.3945 0.3586 0.5 3 0.15 1.327 2.5 2.699

B2 0.3924 0.2255 0.2625 0.5 3 0.15 1.475 4.0 4.776
B3 0.3924 0.3945 0.2300 1 3 0.15 1.468 4.0 4.612
B4 0.3924 0.3945 0.2625 0.5 3 0.15 1.409 3.5 3.885
B5-10 0.3924 0.3944 0.2482 0.7 3 0.1 1.383 3.5 4.180
B5-15 0.3924 0.3944 0.2482 0.7 3 0.15 1.429 4.0 4.310
B5-20 0.3924 0.3944 0.2482 0.7 3 0.2 1.469 3.5 4.053
B5-30 0.3924 0.3944 0.2482 0.7 3 0.3 1.538 3.5 4.073
B6 0.3924 0.3039 0.2625 0.5 3 0.15 1.452 3.5 4.278
B7-10 0.3924 0.2254 0.2482 0.7 3 0.1 1.435 4.5 5.561
B7-15 0.3924 0.2254 0.2482 0.7 3 0.15 1.483 4.0 5.244
B7-20 0.3924 0.2254 0.2482 0.7 3 0.2 1.535 4.5 4.882
B7-30 0.3924 0.2254 0.2482 0.7 3 0.3 1.627 4.0 4.768
B8-10 0.3924 0.3079 0.2482 0.7 3 0.1 1.416 4.0 4.928
B8-15 0.3924 0.3079 0.2482 0.7 3 0.15 1.478 4.0 4.660
B8-20 0.3924 0.3079 0.2482 0.7 3 0.2 1.512 4.0 4.398
B8-30 0.3924 0.3079 0.2482 0.7 3 0.3 1.600 4.0 4.276
B9 0.3924 0.2254 0.2300 1 3 0.15 1.518 4.5 5.929
B10 0.3924 0.3071 0.2300 1 3 0.15 1.499 4.0 5.255
B11 0.5155 0.3945 0.3391 0.7 3 0.15 1.318 2.5 2.829
B12 0.5155 0.3945 0.3175 1 3 0.15 1.349 3.0 3.207
B13 0.4542 0.3945 0.3101 0.5 3 0.15 1.370 3.0 3.220
B14 0.4542 0.3946 0.2932 0.7 3 0.15 1.377 3.0 3.449
B15 0.4542 0.3944 0.2722 1 3 0.15 1.411 3.5 3.784

loading pattern [28] as shown in Fig. 12, were used. The main para- pier; the variations of the following three numbers represent different
meters of the modified two-surface model for steel Q345qC are shown values of the ratio of diameter to thickness Rt, slenderness ratio λ and
in Table 2 [29]. axial compression ratio N/Ny. According to the range of structural
The studied structural parameters of circular piers and their corre- parameter values of practical projects, 0.1 ≤ N/Ny ≤ 0.3,
sponding acquired limit state point values are listed in Table 3. In the 0.047 ≤ Rt ≤ 0.095, and 0.26 ≤ λ ≤ 0.46 were selected. The resulting
table, the first letter “C” of “No.” denotes the section type of the circular hysteretic curves of two piers are shown in Fig. 13 as examples.

309
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

2.0 (δm / δy ,Hm / Hy) (δ95 / δy ,0.95Hm / Hy) 2.0

=(4.0,1.627) =(4.768,1.545)
1.5
=(4.0,1.429) =(4.310,1.357) 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5

H / Hy
0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.0 -2.0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Fig. 15. Hysteretic curve of box section steel piers: (A) B5-15; (B) B7-30.

Fig. 16. Fitting results of the regression formula for the limit state values of box section steel piers: (A) Hm/ Hy ; (B) m/ y ; (C) 95/ y .

H 1.2
(δy, Hy) (δr(1), Hr(1))
(δ0(2), H0(2)) Kd
0.9
(H-Hr) / (H0-Hr)

Ke 0.6
R=20
δ R=6
0.3 R=2
R=1
(1) (1)
(δ0 , H0 ) 0
(δr(2), Hr(2)) 0 2 4 6 8 10
(-δy, -Hy)
Fig. 17. Hysteretic curve of MP model: (A) load-displacement curve; (B) influence of R on the shape of the curve of MP model.

The nonlinear multivariate regression analysis of the limit state

γ=50 H
point values was performed by using statistical analysis software IBM
γ=250 SPSS Statistics [30]. The fitted empirical formulae are given in Eq. (6).
γ=450

( )
0.536
Hm N
Hy
= 0.765 1 + Ny
Rt 0.188 0.100 , (R¯ 2 = 0.925)

= 0.239 (1 + )
0.267
N
m
Ny
Rt 0.928 0.252 , (R¯ 2 = 0.961)
δ y

= 0.333 (1 + )
0.543
N
95
Rt 0.895 0.271, (R¯ 2 = 0.980)
y Ny
(6)

where R̄2 is the determinant coefficient of a formula. The closer the

value of R̄2 is to 1, the better the fitting effect. Fig. 14 compares the
empirical curve and the discrete data. The dots in the figure indicate the
analyzed data points. It can be seen that in general the data points fall
Fig. 18. Influence of degradation parameter γ on the hysteretic curve.
on the regression curve, which demonstrates a high credibility of the

310
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

- , H- )
(δr,i-1 Table 5
Envelope H r,i-1
Degradation parameter of circular section steel piers.
Hysteretic curve (δ - , H -
r,i r,i
No. Structural parameter Degradation parameter
-
Ke,i-1 Rt λ N/Ny γ
-
Ke,i
C-1-1-1 0.095 0.2625 0.1 122
δ C-1-1-2 0.095 0.2625 0.2 105
C-1-1-3 0.095 0.2625 0.3 76
C-1-2-1 0.095 0.3937 0.1 88
C-1-2-2 0.095 0.3937 0.2 66
C-1-2-3 0.095 0.3937 0.3 56
-) C-1-3-1 0.095 0.4593 0.1 86
(δ0,i- , H0,i C-1-3-2 0.095 0.4593 0.2 60
Kd,i- - -
(δ0,i-1 , H0,i-1) C-1-3-3 0.095 0.4593 0.3 48
C-2-1-1 0.079 0.2625 0.1 204
C-2-1-2 0.079 0.2625 0.2 140
Fig. 19. Hysteretic deformation rule of the negative hysteresis loop in stage III C-2-1-3 0.079 0.2625 0.3 114
for the proposed hysteretic model. C-2-2-1 0.079 0.3937 0.1 139
C-2-2-2 0.079 0.3937 0.2 117
C-2-2-3 0.079 0.3937 0.3 92
(δm, Hm) C-2-3-1 0.079 0.4593 0.1 115
H C-2-3-2 0.079 0.4593 0.2 96
(δ80, 0.8H C-2-3-3 0.079 0.4593 0.3 95
C-3-1-1 0.063 0.2624 0.1 276
p -1 C-3-1-2 0.063 0.2624 0.2 259
C-3-1-3 0.063 0.2624 0.3 229
C-3-2-1 0.063 0.3937 0.1 228
p C-3-2-2 0.063 0.3937 0.2 257
C-3-2-3 0.063 0.3937 0.3 154
p +1 δ C-3-3-1 0.063 0.4593 0.1 218
C-3-3-2 0.063 0.4593 0.2 171
C-3-3-3 0.063 0.4593 0.3 165
C-4-1-1 0.047 0.2624 0.1 650
H(δ) C-4-1-2 0.047 0.2624 0.2 505
C-4-1-3 0.047 0.2624 0.3 505
H*(δ)
C-4-2-1 0.047 0.3936 0.1 497
C-4-2-2 0.047 0.3936 0.2 497
C-4-2-3 0.047 0.3936 0.3 400
Fig. 20. Schematic diagram of adaptive genetic algorithm. C-4-3-1 0.047 0.4591 0.1 514
C-4-3-2 0.047 0.4591 0.2 510
C-4-3-3 0.047 0.4591 0.3 426
regression formulae obtained through the software employed for data
analysis.
The structural parameters and the limit state point values belonging
to box piers are listed in Table 4. In the table, the first letter “B” of “No.” hysteretic model of structures: the hysteresis curve equation, the
denotes the section type of the box pier; “B5-10”, “B5-15”, “B5-20”, bearing capacity degradation and the stiffness degradation. In the
“B5-30” represent piers with different axial compression ratio but proposed model, the widely used hysteresis model of reinforced steel-
identical other structural parameters. 0.1 ≤ N/Ny ≤ 0.3, MP hysteresis model, is regarded as the hysteresis curve equation, and
0.39 ≤ RR ≤ 0.52, and 0.22 ≤ λ ≤ 0.40 were chosen according to the the degradation rule of bearing capacity and stiffness is considered in
same principle as circular piers. The relative stiffness ratio of long- virtue of IK degeneration rule with strong applicability and generality.
itudinal stiffeners γl/γl* was set as 3 owing to the practical engineering The application of MP model and IK rule in the hysteretic model of steel
experience. Fig. 15 shows the hysteretic curves of two modeled piers as piers are further discussed below.
examples.
The empirical formulae of limit state point values by the regression 3.1. Hysteresis curve equation
analysis are shown in the following Eq. (7).
The elasto-plastic deformation properties of the steel can be well
( )
0.685
Hm N
Hy
= 0.876 1 + Ny
RR0.009 0.073 (
s)
0.242 , (R¯ 2 = 0.984) reflected by the MP model, where the stress-strain relationship is re-
presented by a single explicit expression [18]. When the stress σ-strain ε
= 0.729(1 + )
0.213
N
m
Ny
RR0.034 0.265 (
s)
1.025 , (R¯ 2 = 0.911) relationship of the original MP model was substituted by the load H-
y
displacement δ, the corresponding hysteresis curve obtained is shown
= 0.548(1 + )
0.727
in Fig. 17(A), and the derived Eq. (8) is expressed as follows:
N
95
RR0.296 0.388 (
s)
1.477 , (R¯ 2 = 0.987)
y Ny
(7)
(1 b) *
The verification on the accuracy of fitting of the empirical formulae H* = b * +
(1 + *R )1/ R (8)
is shown in Fig. 16, where the dots indicate the obtained data points.
The reliability of the nonlinear regression formulae was verified from where
the agreement between the data distribution point and the regression
curve. =( r )/( 0 r)
H = (H Hr )/(H0 Hr )
b = K d /K e
3. Hysteretic model for steel piers
R = R0 [1 a1 × /(a2 + )]
= |( e 0 )/ y| (9)
Generally three aspects need to be taken into consideration for the

311
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

1200 600
FEM Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model
800 300 FEM Hysteretic model
900
600 400
200
400 600
100 200
200 300
0

H (kN)
H (kN)
0

H (kN)
0 0
-100
-200
-200 -300
-400 -200
-600 -300 -600
-800 -400 -900 -400

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -100 -75 -25 50
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -50 0 25
δ (mm) δ (mm) δ (mm) δ (mm)

(A) (B) (C) (D)

1500 800 2500 1200
FEM Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model
600 2000 900
1000
1500
400 600
500 1000
200 500 300

H (kN)

H (kN)
0
H (kN)

0 0 0

-500 -500
-200 -300
-1000
-1000 -400 -600
-1500
-600 -2000 -900
-1500
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90
δ (mm) δ (mm) δ (mm) δ (mm)

Fig. 21. Fitting effect of hysteretic model for circular section steel piers: (A) C-1-1-1 (γ = 122), (B) C-1-3-3 (γ = 48), (C) C-2-1-1 (γ = 204), (D) C-2-3-3 (γ = 95), (E)
C-3-1-1 (γ = 276), (F) C-3-3-3 (γ = 165), (G) C-4-1-1 (γ = 650), (H) C-4-3-3 (γ = 400).

Table 6
Equation (17) Degradation parameter of box section steel piers.
1000
Data point No. Structural parameter Degradation parameter
800
RR λ λs′ α γl/γl* N/Ny γ

600 B1 0.5155 0.3945 0.3586 0.5 3 0.15 56

B2 0.3924 0.2255 0.2625 0.5 3 0.15 253
400 B3 0.3924 0.3945 0.2300 1 3 0.15 203
B4 0.3924 0.3945 0.2625 0.5 3 0.15 132
200 B5-10 0.3924 0.3944 0.2482 0.7 3 0.1 172
B5-15 0.3924 0.3944 0.2482 0.7 3 0.15 154
B5-20 0.3924 0.3944 0.2482 0.7 3 0.2 123
0
B5-30 0.3924 0.3944 0.2482 0.7 3 0.3 135
B6 0.3924 0.3039 0.2625 0.5 3 0.15 154
B7-10 0.3924 0.2254 0.2482 0.7 3 0.1 414
B7-15 0.3924 0.2254 0.2482 0.7 3 0.15 242
Fig. 22. Fitting results of empirical formula for the degradation parameter γ for B7-20 0.3924 0.2254 0.2482 0.7 3 0.2 206
circular section piers. B7-30 0.3924 0.2254 0.2482 0.7 3 0.3 213
B8-10 0.3924 0.3079 0.2482 0.7 3 0.1 244
B8-15 0.3924 0.3079 0.2482 0.7 3 0.15 177
where B8-20 0.3924 0.3079 0.2482 0.7 3 0.2 154
B8-30 0.3924 0.3079 0.2482 0.7 3 0.3 137
H0 = K e ( 0 r) + Hr (10) B9 0.3924 0.2254 0.2300 1 3 0.15 463
B10 0.3924 0.3071 0.2300 1 3 0.15 402
Hy Hr + K e ( r b y) B11 0.5155 0.3945 0.3391 0.7 3 0.15 62
K e (1 b)
,( 0) B12 0.5155 0.3945 0.3175 1 3 0.15 82
0 = Hy Hr + K e ( r + b y ) B13 0.4542 0.3945 0.3101 0.5 3 0.15 81
, ( <0) B14 0.4542 0.3946 0.2932 0.7 3 0.15 95
K e (1 b) (11)
B15 0.4542 0.3944 0.2722 1 3 0.15 121
where (δr, Hr) is the reverse loading point of the load-displacement
curve; (δ0, H0) is the intersection of the elastic asymptote and the
yielding asymptote; Kd is the post-yield stiffness; Ke is the initial stiff-
ness; δe is the maximum or minimum value of the deformation in the respectively, and the stiffness ratio b in Eq. (8) could be divided into the
loading history (depending on the positive and negative displacement following two phases:
increments at the given moment); R0, a1 and a2 are the parameters that
determine the shape of the curve, and R depends on these shape-related (1) When δ < δm, the steel plate has not yet undergone a significant
parameters comprehensively. The effect of the shape parameter R on local deformation, and it is still in the elastic or post-yield hard-
the shape of the curve is shown in Fig. 17(B), and its value directly ening stage. Therefore, there is no descending section in the hys-
affects the precision of the hysteresis model. Because the original MP teresis curve and the value of b can be taken as 0.
model develops an overestimation in the stress under circumstances of (2) When δ > δm, a distinct local deformation of the steel plate ap-
reloading subsequent to a small-amplitude unloading history [31], an pears, and there is a negative stiffness section in the hysteresis
improved MP model was applied in this study [32]. curve. Correspondingly, the value of b for circular and box piers
Based on the characteristics of hysteresis curve of steel piers, the refers to the empirical formula as presented by Liu et al. [33] and
shape parameters R0, a1 and a2 were set as 25, 0.925 and 0.15, Suzuki et al. [13], respectively, in the following Eq. (12).

312
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

(A) (B) (C)

5000 6000 6000
Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model FEM
4000
4000 4000
3000
2000 2000 2000
1000
H (kN)

H (kN)
0 0 0
-1000
-2000 -2000
-2000
-3000 -4000 -4000
-4000
-6000 -6000
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
δ (mm) δ (mm) δ (mm)

Fig. 23. Fitting effect of hysteretic model for box section steel piers: (A) B1 (γ = 56); (B) B4 (γ = 132); (C) B5-15 ((γ = 154); (D) B8-20 (γ = 154); (E) B7-30
(γ = 213); (F) B7-10 (γ = 414).

3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3

Fig. 25. Loading pattern 2.

Fig. 24. Fitting effect of degradation parameter γ using the empirical formula
for box section steel piers.

Table 7
The characteristic values of hysteretic model for the verified steel piers.
Section type Loading pattern No. Rt (RR) λ λs′ N/Ny Hm/Hy δm/δy δ95/δy γ

Circular 1 A-1 0.095 0.2625 – 0.15 1.467 2.866 3.646 87

A-2 0.079 0.3281 – 0.2 1.520 3.179 3.956 126
A-3 0.073 0.4593 – 0.1 1.423 3.216 4.063 157
2 B-1 0.079 0.2625 – 0.3 1.622 3.291 4.024 121
B-2 0.063 0.2624 – 0.3 1.693 4.061 4.927 226
B-3 0.047 0.2624 – 0.1 1.635 5.572 7.013 642

Box 1 C-1 0.3924 0.3945 0.2625 0.2 1.481 3.424 3.764 94

C-2 0.3924 0.3493 0.2300 0.15 1.498 4.086 4.947 279
C-3 0.4296 0.3945 0.2564 0.2 1.488 3.518 4.003 141
2 D-1 0.3924 0.3945 0.2625 0.15 1.519 4.244 5.240 304
D-2 0.3924 0.3493 0.2300 0.15 1.458 3.659 4.217 155
D-3 0.4542 0.3945 0.3101 0.15 1.379 2.927 3.169 66

313
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

FEM Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model

800
600
600 600
400 400 400

200 200 200

H (kN)

H (kN)
0 0 0
-200 -200
-200
-400 -400
A-1 A-2 -400
-600 -600 A-3
-800 -800 -600
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
δ (mm) δ (mm) δ (mm)

1000 1500 2400

FEM Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model FEM Hysteretic model
800 1200 1800
600 900
1200
400 600
200 300 600

H (kN)
H (kN)

0 0 0
-200 -300 -600
-400 -600
-600
B-1 -900 B-2 -1200 B-3
-800 -1200 -1800

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
δ (mm) δ (mm) δ (mm)

(A)

Fig. 26. Verification on the effectiveness of the proposed hysteretic model for steel piers: (A) Circular section; (B) Box section.

cyclic deterioration modes of bi-linear, peak-oriented and pinching

b= ( ) (circular pier)
1.41Rt 1 +
N
Ny
1.3
models. And it has been widely used in the analysis of seismic response
of reinforced-concrete and steel structures [34–36] due to the simple
0.278(10 )R (0.1 + ) (box pier)
l 2 N
b=
l
R Ny
(12) form and strong applicability. In this study, the IK rule was used to
describe the bearing capacity and stiffness degradation of steel piers,
which could be expressed by the following equations.
3.2. Bearing capacity and stiffness degradation
Hi+ / = (1 +/
s, i ) Hi 1
With energy-based deterioration parameters, the IK degradation
K i+ / = (1 +/
c, i ) K i 1 (13)
rule proposed by Ibarra et al. [19,20] could be applied to illustrate the

314
S. Chen et al.
Fig. 27. Application of the proposed hysteretic model for a steel pier.
where Hi+ / and Hi+ /1 , K i+ / and K i+ /1 represent the bearing capacity
and stiffness after and before the excursion i, respectively; the super-
script “+/−” indicates that the positive and negative semi-hysteresis
loops are updated separately. That is, Hi+ and K i+ are updated after
every positive inelastic excursion; Hi and K i are updated after every
negative inelastic excursion. s, i and c , i are the degradation coefficient
of bearing capacity and stiffness, respectively, which can be uniformly
expressed by the following Eq. (14).
c
Ei
i = i hysteresis curve equation, as shown in Fig. 17(A). The identification of
Et j = 1 Ej
Et = Hy
y
where Ei is the loss energy of excursion i, ∑Ej is the cumulative energy
losses of the preceding j semi-hysteresis loops, Et is a parameter pro-
portional to the elastic energy consumption; γ and c are two decisive
parameters controlling the degradation process. c represents the de-
gradation rate, the suggested value of which is in between 1 and 2; γ
represents the hysteretic energy consumption capacity, i.e. the larger
the value of γ, the worse the energy consumption capacity. In this
study, the method for taking values of γ and c refers to the findings as
reported in the literature [37]. As a result, the degeneration parameter
γ of the bearing capacity and stiffness degradation was set to be the
same value and c was kept as 1 to simplify the calculation process and
to ensure precision.
To illustrate the effect of degradation parameter γ on the hysteresis
curve, Fig. 18 compares the results of curves with different values of γ.
It can be seen that with an increase in the value of γ, the degradation of
the structure gradually weakens.
3.3. Hysteretic model
By combining MP model with IK rule, the horizontal deformation
hysteretic model for steel piers was established. As shown in Fig. 1 in
the Section 2.1, the hysteresis curves of steel piers can be divided into
three stages: in stage I (δ < δm) the degradation is not significant; in
stage II (δm < δ < δ95) only bearing capacity degradation is con-
sidered; in stage III (δ > δ95) both bearing capacity and stiffness de-
gradation were taken into account. Since stages I and II considered to be
the two special forms of stage III which consider simultaneously two
degradation modes, stage III was chosen to interpret the utilization of
MP hysteresis model and IK degeneration rule in the hysteretic model of
steel piers.
The hysteretic deformation rules for positive and negative hysteresis
loops are similar. Fig. 19 shows the deformation rule of negative hys-
teresis loops in stage III for the proposed hysteretic model. In this
figure, K e, i , K e, i 1 and K d, i , K d, i 1 are the elastic stiffness and the post-
yield stiffness after and before the negative excursion i, respectively;
( r , i 1, Hr , i 1) , ( r , i, Hr , i ) and ( 0, i 1, H0, i 1) , ( 0, i, H0, i ) are the reverse
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318
m H
K(δ)
δ
K(δ)
loading point and the asymptote intersection after and before negative
excursion i, respectively.
The bearing capacity and stiffness degradation before and after
excursion i for the proposed model can be expressed as follows:
H y, i = [1 i( )] H y, i
1
K e, i = [1 i ( )] K e, i 1 (15)
where H y, i , H y, i 1 and K e, i , K e, i 1 are the yield capacity and elastic
stiffness after and before negative excursion i respectively in the MP
the structural degradation parameter γ for steel piers is further dis-
(14)
cussed in the following Section 4.
4. Identification of degradation parameter
It is clear from the above analyses that the degradation parameter γ
of the IK rule is the key parameter for the proposed hysteretic model,
the value of which is directly related to the hysteretic energy con-
sumption capacity of steel piers, and thus could be affected by the
structural parameters. In order to investigate the effect of structural
parameters on degradation parameter γ, an adaptive genetic algorithm
was carried out. The optimization goal is given as follows:
m
[H ( p) H ( p )]2 min
p=1 (16)
where m represents the discrete points of a hysteresis loop; H and H*
denote the results obtained by the hysteretic model and target hyster-
esis curves respectively, and δp represents the deformation of the point
P. As large plastic deformation is not allowed in the seismic design, only
the points of the hysteresis curve before the horizontal bearing capacity
down to 80% of peak were fitted, as shown in Fig. 20. In this figure, δ80
is the horizontal displacement corresponding to 80% of the peak value
of the structural bearing capacity. It is to be noted the proved numerical
results obtained by the finite element method are considered to be the
target hysteresis curves in this study. The piers in Tables 3 and 4 were
used to identify the degradation parameters γ in the hysteretic model
for circular and box piers.
Table 5 lists the degeneration parameters optimized for every cir-
cular pier, and Fig. 21 exhibits several fitting results. As seen from this
figure, the results obtained through the hysteretic model are in good
agreement with those of finite element models, which verifies the ef-
fectiveness of the hysteretic model for circular piers as well as the
calculation method for the degradation parameters.
In order to quantitatively analyze the relationship between the de-
gradation parameter γ and the structural parameters in the hysteretic
model for circular piers, nonlinear regression analysis was performed
on the acquired degradation parameter data in Table 5 and an empirical
formula was obtained using the statistical analysis software mentioned
315
S. Chen et al. Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318

Start

Inputing N/Ny material

and structral parameters

Circular Section type Box

Circular or Box?
Calculating Rt λ Calculating RR RF λ λs

Calculating Hm/Hy δm/δy δ95/δy and γ

Hysteretic model rule δ0=0

YES
j=1?
NO
δ=δ0+ δ1 δ=δ0+ δj

NO
δj× δj-1<0?
YES
YES NO
δe <δm ?

YES
δe <δ95 ?
/- /-
H y ,i 1- i H y ,i -1 NO

H y ,/i - 1- H y ,/i --1

i
j=2 , n
K e,i/ 1- i K e,i/ 1

(1 b )δ
H bδ
(1 δ R )1/ R

δ0=δ

NO
j=n
YES

Plotting hysteretic curve

based on the data of H* and δ*

End
Fig. 28. Calculation flow chart of the proposed hysteretic model.

previously [30]. Table 6 lists the degradation parameter γ acquired by optimization

for every box pier, and a part of the fitting results is presented in
( )
1.447
= 0.103 1 + N Ny (Rt ) 2.744 ( ) 0.363, (R¯ 2 = 0.981) Fig. 23. From Fig. 23(A)–(F), the value of degradation parameter γ
(17)
gradually increases, whereas the bearing capacity and stiffness de-
The scopes of application of the above formula are: 0.1 ≤ N/ gradation of the steel pier weakens. As seen from this figure, the results
Ny ≤ 0.3, 0.047 ≤ Rt ≤ 0.095, 0.26 ≤ λ ≤ 0.46. Fig. 22 shows the of the proposed hysteretic model are in good agreement with the target
fitting results of the empirical formula. In this figure, Eq. (17) can ac- curve, and therefore the reliability of the hysteretic model for box piers
curately reflect the changes in the regularity of the degradation para- is verified successfully.
meters. The multivariate regression analysis of the resulting degeneration

316
S. Chen et al.
parameter γ for box piers in Table 6 was carried out. The formula of
fitting is expressed by Eq. (18), and the fitting effect is shown in Fig. 24.
( )
4.138
= 0.446 1 + N Ny (RR ) 2.943 ( ) 1.204 (
s)
5.786,
The applicable ranges of the equation are, 0.1 ≤ N/Ny ≤ 0.3,
0.039 ≤ RR ≤ 0.052, 0.22 ≤ λ ≤ 0.40.
5. Verification on the effectiveness of hysteretic model
Two verification methods were employed to check the validity of
the established model for the steel piers: changing the structural para-
meter and changing the loading condition. Table 7 lists the structural
parameter and the loading condition of every tested steel pier. The
loading pattern 1 in this table is shown in Fig. 12, where the amplitude
increment is 0.5 δy, and every amplitude is loaded in a cyclic manner.
The loading pattern 2 is shown in Fig. 25, where the amplitude incre-
ment is 1.0 δy with two cycles in every amplitude. “A-1”, “A-2”, “A-3”
and “C-1”, “C-2”, “C-3” are the steel piers whose structural parameters
different from the piers in Tables 3–6, while “B-1”, “B-2”, “B-3” and “D-
1”, “D-2” and “D-3” are the piers which were applied with the loading
pattern 2.
The comparative results of the proposed hysteretic model and those
acquired by finite element method are shown in Fig. 26. From this
figure, it can be concluded that regardless of the structural parameter or
the loading condition, the proposed model can simulate the hysteretic
behaviors of the steel pier under horizontal cyclic loading, thereby
verifying the effectiveness of the hysteretic model.
6. Application of hysteretic model
Fig. 27 is presented to illustrate the application of the proposed
hysteretic model in the seismic calculation of a steel pier. In this figure,
“m” and “K(δ)” denote the mass transmitted from the superstructure
and the ever-changing horizontal stiffness of the pier respectively, and
the steel pier under the case of unidirectional seismic wave input, was
equivalent to a single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system. In this way,
structural hysteretic performance and seismic response could be ob-
tained via the proposed hysteretic model efficiently.
Fig. 28 shows the flow chart of calculation of the established hys-
teretic model. As shown in the chart, the limit state points of structural
seismic performance—Hm/Hy, δm/δy, δ95/δy, and the degeneration
parameter, γ were at first calculated from the empirical formulae as
fitted above based on the known structural parameters, and then the
hysteretic curves of a steel pier which is equivalent to a SDOF system,
were obtained through the calculation process as shown in Fig. 28.
In this chart, δ0 and δ represent initial and current displacement
respectively, and △δj represent the jth displacement increment. In the
process of calculation, the displacement extremum δe needs to be
judged at the time of each update of the loading displacement, and the
bearing capacity and the stiffness degradation are considered according
to the relationship between δe and δm or the one between δe and δ95.
Note that the degradation coefficient of the ith half hysteresis loop is
counted by the energy loss of the (i − 1)th half hysteresis loop corre-
sponding to the direction of the cycle (positive or negative).
7. Conclusions
Based on the evaluation of seismic performance of steel piers, a
horizontal deformation hysteretic model considering the local buckling
of steel plates is presented. According to the hysteretic behavior of steel
piers, the deterioration rule of bearing capacity and stiffness is roughly
divided into three stages: irrespective of degradation; consideration of
the bearing capacity degradation only; consideration of both the
bearing capacity and stiffness degradation. In the proposed hysteretic
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318
model, the MP hysteresis model is employed to describe the hysteresis
curve equation, and the energy-based IK degradation rule is applied to
consider the effect of the deformation of steel plates on the structural
(R¯ 2 = 0.915) bearing capacity and stiffness. The main conclusions from this study
which could be drawn are as follows:
(18)
(1) The MP hysteresis model can describe the load-displacement re-
lationship of the steel piers under horizontal cyclic loads, and the
empirical formulae of stiffness ratio, b in the MP hysteresis curve for
steel piers as reported in the literature [13,33] are reliable.
(2) With the degeneration parameter γ of the bearing capacity and
stiffness degradation is set to be the same value and c is kept as 1,
the IK degeneration rule can be applied to reflect the effect of local
deformation of steel plates on the hysteretic behaviors of the steel
pier.
(3) The empirical formulae with high reliability of the degradation
parameter in the proposed hysteretic model for the circular and box
section single-column Q345qC constructed steel pier are estab-
lished.
Owing to the hysteretic behavior of steel piers, especially box piers,
is greatly affected by the material properties of steel used, the empirical
formulae of limit state points for assessing the structural seismic per-
formance and the degradation parameter in the hysteretic model needs
to be obtained through tests or finite element methods with regard to
the pier structure made of different steels.
Funding
The study was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China
(grant number 51878606)
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.101.
References
[1] Dang J, Yuan HH, Igarashi A, Aoki T. Curve-approximated hysteresis model for steel
bridge columns. J Struct Eng ASCE 2014;140(9):04014058.
[2] Usami T (Ed.). Guidelines for seismic and damage control design of steel bridges.
Tokyo: GihodoShuppan Co. Ltd; 2007 [in Japanese].
[3] Ge HB, Gao SB, Usami T, Matsumura T. Numerical study on cyclic elasto-plastic
behavior of steel bridge piers of pipe-sections without stiffeners. Proc JSCE
1997;577:181–90. [in Japanese].
[4] Ge HB, Gao SB, Usami T. Stiffened steel box columns. Part 1: Cyclic behaviour.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29(11):1691–706.
[5] Usami T, Gao SB, Ge HB. Stiffened steel box columns. Part 2: Ductility evaluation.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29(11):1707–22.
[6] Usami T, Gao SB, Ge HB. Elastoplastic analysis of steel members and frames sub-
jected to cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2000;22(2):135–45.
[7] Goto Y, Jiang KS, Obata M. Stability and ductility of thin-walled circular steel
columns under cyclic bidirectional loading. J Struct Eng ASCE
2006;132(10):1621–31.
[8] Goto Y, Jiang KS, Obata M. Hysteretic behavior of thin-walled stiffened rectangular
steel columns under cyclic bi-directional loading. Proc JSCE A 2007;63(1):122–41.
[in Japanese].
[9] Aoki T, Ohnishi A, Suzuki M. Experimental study on the seismic resistance perfor-
mance of rectangular cross section steel bridge piers subjected to bi-directional
horizontal loads. Proc JSCE A 2007;63(4):716–26. [in Japanese].
[10] Kulkarni NG, Kasai A, Tsuboi H. Displacement based seismic verification method for
thin-walled circular steel columns subjected to bi-directional cyclic loading. Eng
Struct 2009;31(11):2779–86.
[11] Kulkarni N, Kasai A. Seismic verification method for steel bridge piers with pipe
section under two directional earthquake components. J JSCE Ser A1 (SE/EE)
2012;68(3):597–609.
[12] Wang M, Shi YJ, Wang YQ. Equivalent constitutive model of steel with cumulative
degradation and damage. J Constr Steel Res 2012;79:101–14.
[13] Suzuki M, Usami T, Terada M, et al. Hysteresis models for steel bridge piers and
their application to elasto-plastic seismic response analysis. Proc JSCE
1996;549:191–204. [in Japanese].
[14] Liu QY, Kasai A, Usami T. Parameter identification of damage based hysteretic
model for pipe-section steel bridge piers. J Struct Eng JSCE 1999;45A:1005–16.
317
S. Chen et al.
[15] Liu QY, Akira K, Tsutomu U. Two hysteretic models for thin-walled pipe-section
steel bridge piers. Eng Struct 2001;23(2):186–97.
[16] Kumar S, Usami T. An evolutionary-degrading hysteretic model for thin-walled steel
structures. Eng Struct 1996;18(7):504–14.
[17] Usami T, Kumar S. Inelastic seismic design verification method for steel bridge piers
using a damage index based hysteretic model. Eng Struct 1998;20(4–6):472–80.
[18] Menegotto M. 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. In: Proc of IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate
Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, Lisbon,
Portugal; 1973. p. 15–22.
[19] Ibarra LF, Krawinkler HA. Global collapse of frame structures under seismic ex-
citations PhD. Thesis Stanford University; 2004.
[20] Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler HA. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength
and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34(12):1489–511.
[21] Krawinkler H, Zareian F, Lignos DG, Ibarra LF. Significance of modeling dete-
rioration in structural components for predicting the collapse potential of structures
under earthquake excitations. Adv Performance-Based Earthq Eng: Performance-
Based Seismic Des Retrofitting – Methodologies 2010:173–81.
[22] Ge HB, Usami T. Cyclic tests of concrete-filled steel box columns. J Struct Eng ASCE
1996;122(10):1169–77.
[23] Gao SB, Usami T, Ge HB. Ductility evaluation of steel bridge piers with pipe sec-
tions. J Eng Mech 1998;124(3):260–7.
[24] Liu NF, Gao SB. Ductility prediction of stiffened steel pipe-section bridge piers. J
Harbin Inst Technol 2017;49(3):138–43. [in Chinese].
[25] Gao SB, Usami T, Ge HB. Ductility of steel short cylinders in compression and
bending. J Eng Mech 1998;124(2):176–83.
[26] Kishi N, Komuro M, Koeda H, Goto Y. Experimental and numerical study on elastic-
318
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 303–318
plastic behavior of steel-pipe pier models. Mem Muroran Inst Technol
1999;49:175–86.
[27] Japan Road Association. Specifications for highway bridges, Part V: Seismic Design.
Tokyo, Japan; 2017.
[28] Tang ZZ, Xie X, Wang T, et al. Study on FE models in elasto-plastic seismic per-
formance evaluation of steel arch bridge. J Constr Steel Res 2015;113:209–20.
[29] Wang T. Improvement of the hysteretic constitutive model for bridge structural
steels and its application. Ph.D. Thesis: Zhejiang University; 2016 [in Chinese].
[30] Pallant J. SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
windows version 15. U.K.: Open University Press; 2007.
[31] Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic
behavior of reinforced concrete joints. In: Report EERC No. 83-19. Berkeley,
California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1983.
[32] Lei YY, Xie X. Improved method of Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto hysteretic constitutive
model. J Zhejiang Univ (Eng Sci) 2018;52(10):1926–34. [in Chinese].
[33] Liu QY, Kasai A, Usami T. Comparative study of four hysteretic models for pipe-
section steel bridge piers. J Struct Mech Earthq Eng JSCE 1999;633:11–24.
[34] Chenouda M, Ayoub A. Inelastic displacement ratios of degrading systems. J Struct
Eng ASCE 2008;134(6):1030–45.
[35] Lignos DG, Krawinkler H, Whittaker AS. Prediction and validation of sidesway
collapse of two scale models of a 4-story steel moment frame. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2011;40(7):807–25.
[36] Tothong P, Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground
motion intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2010;36(13):1837–60.
[37] Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of
collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng
2011;137(11):1291–302.