See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346658726

Effect of corrosion in reinforced concrete frame components on pushover

behavior and ductility of frame

Article · December 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 17

2 authors:

Behrouz Kordtabar M. Dehestani

Babol Noshirvani University of Technology Babol Noshirvani University of Technology
5 PUBLICATIONS   74 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   857 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mechanical Properties of Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate Concrete Exposed to Elevated Temperatures due to Fire View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Behrouz Kordtabar on 11 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 25 May 2020 Revised: 21 October 2020 Accepted: 18 November 2020
DOI: 10.1002/suco.202000309

TECHNICAL PAPER

Effect of corrosion in reinforced concrete frame

components on pushover behavior and ductility of frame

Behrouz Kordtabar | Mehdi Dehestani

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Babol

Noshirvani University of Technology,
Babol, Iran
Correspondence
Mehdi Dehestani, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University
of Technology, Babol, PO Box 484, Babol
47148-71167, Iran.
Email: dehestani@nit.ac.ir
Abstract
Chloride-induced corrosion of reinforced concrete (RC) is one of the main rea-
sons for decreasing the seismic performance level of RC structures over their
lifetime. In the present study, base shear capacity and ductility were consid-
ered as criteria for evaluating seismic performance of the RC frame. The
impact of corrosion on the ductility and base shear capacity of a two-
dimensional single-story single-span RC frame was investigated using
nonlinear static analysis considering the deterioration of the mechanical prop-
erties of the rebar and concrete. The corrosion damage model was
implemented using fiber sections and nonlinear elements, and then pushover
analysis over 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60 years of life was performed. The strain pene-
tration effect was considered in the fiber model at the column-footing joints.
The accuracy of modeling was validated with experimental data of the RC
frame subject to cycle loading. The final results showed that by decreasing the
water-to-cement ratio and increasing the cover thickness, the seismic perfor-
mance of the RC frame is preserved over a lifetime. The time-dependent ductil-
ity of the RC frame was evaluated at two structural and cross-sectional levels.
The results revealed that the corroded RC frame has a lower base shear capac-
ity, ultimate drift, and ductility than the intact RC frame. Also, the corrosion-
induced deterioration of rebar and concrete significantly decreases the seismic
performance of the corroded RC frame.

KEYWORDS
corrosion, deterioration, ductility, pushover analysis, reinforced concrete frame, seismic
performance

1 | INTRODUCTION docks, infrastructures, and concrete components of

One of the issues for the structural engineering
researchers in the last two decades is the deterioration of
reinforced concrete (RC) structures including bridges,
Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the
print publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along
with the authors’ closure, if any, approximately nine months after the
print publication.
onshore and offshore structures, and so forth in the face
of corrosive environmental conditions.1–4 The existence
of different climatic conditions and seismic hazards in
the vast country of Iran on the one hand and the need for
RC infrastructures for economic and social purposes, on
the other hand, made it important to examine the seismic
performance level of RC structures over the lifetime. In
cold regions, salt and sand mixture is poured to protect
the road surface against icing. The chloride ion from

Structural Concrete. 2020;1–23. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco © 2020 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete 1
2 KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
sodium chloride will damage the concrete components of
the road technical building. On the coasts of the Caspian
Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Oman Sea, the presence of
water-soluble chloride ions or environmental humidity
causes serious damage to RC structures, including deck
and pier of bridges, piled deck jetties, and offshore plat-
forms. Damage caused by corrosion on bridges closes
roads, docks delay export and import, and platforms stop
production. Possible seismic damage to these structures,
in addition to the cost of repair, has a significant indirect
cost due to the consequence of delay in operation com-
pared to the initial construction budget. Therefore, one of
the most important causes of deterioration of RC struc-
tures is the corrosion of rebar due to the penetration of
environmental chloride ion5,6 and it requires minor or
major repairs over the lifetime to maintain its seismic
performance level. Figure 1 shows an example of corro-
sion effects on deck and pile of jetty No. 2 in Imam Port,
Mahshahr.
The deterioration of RC structures due to the attack
of chloride ions occurs gradually. In this process, the
chloride ions penetrate the concrete over time and reach
the rebar surface due to environmental conditions. The
chloride ions are deposited on the rebar protective layer
(the layer formed after concrete due to the alkaline envi-
ronment around the rebar). The corrosion of the rebars
begins by reaching the critical chloride level and combin-
ing it with oxygen and carbon dioxide as well as remov-
ing the protective layer. The volume of products caused
by the rust of corroded rebars will be far greater than the
original iron volume. The increased volume due to corro-
sion products induces a pressure on the surrounding con-
crete. If the resulting tensile stress exceeds the modulus
of rupture of the concrete, cracks are created in the cover
concrete. These cracks accelerate the process of chloride
F I G U R E 1 An example of the corrosion of jetty (Imam
Khomeini port in Iran-Mahshahr)
ions diffusion, increase the corrosion of the rebars in the
RC member and the spalling of the concrete cover that,
continuing this process reduces the cross-sectional area
of the rebars, decreases the capacity of RC members and
ultimately reduces the seismic performance of the RC
structure.
Nowadays, RC structures are designed according to
the requirements of common regulations for a specified
life. However, these regulations do not address the effects
of deterioration and the consequence of corrosion on the
performance level of such structures over the lifetime,
while RC structures are subject to serious environmental
damages after construction in corrosive environments
such as the seaside. The corrosion causes the cracking
and delamination of the concrete cover due to the expan-
sion of the corrosion products around the corroded
rebars7 and the reduction of the rebar cross section in the
RC members. It also reduces the mechanical properties
of steel rebars, concrete, and the bond strength at the
steel–concrete interface.8 Damaged RC structures are
more vulnerable to service and environmental loads,
including seismic loads. Therefore, the fracture of the RC
structure may change from ductile to brittle and the RC
structure may experience a much shorter lifetime. Struc-
tural deterioration due to corrosion factors is very impor-
tant to determine the repair time and allocate the budget
required for repairs of RC structures. Existing published
papers on corrosion effects are mostly devoted to struc-
tural members and overall structural performance has
been rarely investigated so far. Therefore, in this study,
the full effect of chloride ion-induced rebar corrosion on
seismic performance of RC frame is investigated using
nonlinear static analysis (pushover). Also, structural and
cross-sectional ductility is calculated as a measure of
energy absorption in the pushover analysis of damaged
RC frames over time. OpenSees software is used because
it has a complete set of different types of elements, mate-
rials, and analysis methods as well as the ability to model
and analyze in the micro and macro fields.
2 | CHLORIDE ION CORROSION
AND I TS EFFECT ON THE SERVICE
LIFE OF RC STRUCTURES
Figure 2 describes the service life model of the RC struc-
ture. According to this figure, concrete cracks in the early
age of its life due to shrinkage, which accelerates the pen-
etration of chloride ions into the concrete. The corrosion
starts when the chloride ions accumulate on the periph-
eral surface of the rebar and its alkali protective layer to
disappear. In other words, from now on, the rebars begin
to corrode. Corrosion rate depends on various factors
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI 3

F I G U R E 2 Schematic
diagram of the service life model
of the reinforced concrete
(RC) structure

such as environmental conditions (atmospheric,

∂Cðx,t Þ ∂ 2 C ðx, tÞ
spraying, tidal, and submerged), the type of steel, type, =D ð1Þ
∂t ∂x 2
and strength of concrete, water-to-cement ratio, ambient
moisture, and concrete permeability. Environmental con-
ditions are very effective in the service life of RC struc- where D is the chloride diffusion coefficient and C(x, t)
tures. The corrosion of the RC structure is divided into represents the concentration of chloride ion diffusion at
two stages. The first stage is the initiation of reinforce- depth x and time t. Assuming boundary conditions of C
ment corrosion, which lasts from the pouring of concrete (x > 0, t > 0) = Cs and C(x > 0, t = 0) = 0, the solution of
to the elimination of the alkali protective layer on the the differential equation can be expressed as
rebar. The second stage is the corrosion progression, Equation (2):
which involves four fracture levels including internal
  
cracking of the concrete around the rebar, surface crack- x
C ðx, t Þ = C s 1 −erf pffiffiffiffiffi ð2Þ
ing, spalling, or delamination of the cover concrete, and 2 Dt
finally failure of RC structure. Therefore, the service life
of the RC structure is the sum of the above two-stage where erf (.) is the Gaussian error function. When the
duration.9 concentration of chloride in the concrete cover depth Cb
The effect of corrosion in RC structures in the follow- and on the surface of the rebar reaches the critical chlo-
ing subsections is described. First, the direct effect of cor- ride concentration Ccr the corrosion initiation time Tinit
rosion on concrete and rebar is discussed, and then the can be expressed as Equation (3):
fundamental relationships of rebar buckling, the most
(    )
important and prominent behavior of corroded rebar at C2b −1 Ccr − 2
seismic loads, and then rebar slip at the foundation con- T init = erf 1− ð3Þ
4D Cs
nection to the column are represented.

The propagation phase, it begins when the rebar

2.1 | Effect of corrosion on concrete and
rebar
2.1.1 | Chloride-ingress and corrosion
initiation
In general, the process of chloride ion diffusion in concrete
is based on Fick's second law that the differential equation
of fluid diffusion in a semi-infinite body in the one-
dimensional environment is expressed as Equation (1)10:
starts to corrode, depends on the corrosion rate. The cor-
rosion rate decreases over time. It should be noted that
the corrosion rate is calculated through electrochemical
experiments. The service life of the RC structure can be
obtained by using surface chloride concentration parame-
ters, critical chloride concentration, and chloride diffu-
sion coefficient at the site.11,12 Corrosion parameters Cs,
Ccr, and D, in addition to environmental conditions such
as temperature, humidity, chlorine binding and aging of
concrete, also depend on the water-to-cement ratio, w/c,
4 KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
which is one of the important parameters in the proper-
ties of concrete.13
2.1.2 | Corrosion damage on concrete
and rebar steel
Chloride-induced corrosion over the lifetime reduces the
mechanical properties of rebar and concrete. The reduction
of the rebar cross section, the cracking of the cover concrete
and consequently the reduction of the compressive strength
of the concrete, the yield strength, and ultimate strain of
the rebar are the main consequences of corrosion in the RC
structure.14,15 Reducing the mechanical properties of rebar
and concrete over the lifetime reduces the level of perfor-
mance of the structure and its vulnerability to loads, espe-
cially seismic loads. The reduction in the cross-sectional As
and the diameter of the rebar caused by corrosion is calcu-
lated using Equations (4)–(6)16:
 
πd2o X corr
As ðX corr Þ = 1−
4 100
where d0 is the initial diameter of the rebar and Xcorr is
the corrosion level of the rebar in terms of mass loss per-
centage calculated using Equation (5).
d20 −d2c
X corr = × 100
d20
where dc is the diameter of the corroded rebar and is in a
function of time, as indicated in Equation (6).17,18
1:0508ð1 −w=cÞ − 1:64
dc = do − ðt −T init Þ − 0:71
cb
where w/c is the water-to-cement ratio; cb is the cover
thickness, and t is the time after the initiation of corro-
sion. The following relationships, Equation (7)–Equa-
tion (9), describe the effects of corrosion on the
mechanical properties of steel rebars.19
 
f y = 1 −αy X corr f yo
f u = ð1 −αu X corr Þ f uo
εu = ð1 −α1 X corr Þ εuo
In the above relationships, fyo, fuo, and εuo are, respec-
tively, the yield strength, ultimate strength, and ultimate
strain of the intact rebar. Respectively, fy, fu, and εu are
the yield strength, ultimate strength, and ultimate strain
of the corroded rebar. As to the coefficients αy, αu, and
α1, many researchers have conducted the experimental
tests on plain and ribbed rebar and calibrated that these
parameters are related to the exposure conditions and the
type of corrosion, including uniform and pitting.15,20–29
In this paper, we assumed the experimental coeffi-
cients αy, αu, and α1, respectively, 0.005, 0.005, and
0.035,27 as other researchers have used these coefficients
to study the effect of corrosion on RC structures.16,30,31
Corrosion-induced rust has a smaller density than
that of uncorroded rebar. Therefore, the rusted rebar vol-
ume will expand during corrosion. The extra splitting
stresses caused by the corrosion product in the concrete
surrounding the corroded rebar can cause cracking,
spalling, and delamination of the cover concrete. The
deterioration of the cover concrete leads to a decrease in
the compressive strength of the concrete, which can be
expressed as Equation (10)32:
ð4Þ f co
f cc,cor = ð10Þ
1 + Kε1 =εco
where K is a coefficient related to the roughness and
diameter of rebar, which K = 0.1 is recommended for
medium diameter ribbed rebar.33 ε1 is the average tensile
strain of cracked cover concrete obtained with regard to
the crack width of concrete due to corrosion, which can
ð5Þ
be expressed as Equation (11)32 and εco is the strain
corresponding to the maximum compressive strength of
uncorroded concrete, which assumed to be 0.003. Also,
fco is the compressive strength of the uncracked concrete.
x cp
ð6Þ ε1 = 2πnbar ðνrs −1Þ ð11Þ
b0
where nbar is the number of rebar located in the compres-
sive zone of the cross section, νrs is the ratio of volume
expansion of the corroded rebar to the uncorroded rebar
that the value of 2 has been proposed34 and b0 is the
width of the uncracked RC section.
Corrosion of transverse bars causes deterioration of
mechanical properties of the confined concrete, espe-
ð7Þ cially maximum compressive strength and ultimate
strain. The crushing strain of core concrete is associated
ð8Þ with the initiation of transverse bars failure and the ulti-
mate strain of the confined concrete is estimated as
ð9Þ Equation (12)35:
 
ρs,corr f yh,corr εuh,corr
εcu,corr = 0:004 + 1:4 ð12Þ
f cc,corr
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI 5

where εuh,corr is the ultimate strain of the corroded trans-

verse rebar; fyh,corr is the yield strength of the corroded
transverse rebar; ρs,corr is the volume ratio of transverse
rebar, and fcc,corr is the compressive strength of the con-
fined concrete due to corrosion. The confined strength of
concrete is estimated as Equations (13) and (14):

f cc,corr = kc f c ð13Þ

ρs,corr f yh,corr
kc = 1 + ð14Þ
fc

FIGURE 3 Postbuckling model of steel rebar39

2.2 | Effect of corrosion on rebar ( ξ ξ≤1

behavior η2 −1
ξ2 −1ðξ − 1Þ + 1 1<ξ≤2
η= η2 − 0:002ðξ − ξ2 Þ ξ2 ≤ ξ&η ≤ 0:2 ð15Þ
0:2 otherwise
2.2.1 | Buckling behavior of rebar

Rebar buckling is undoubtedly one of the most important where η = f σ and ξ = εyc,cor
ε
are the nondimensional stress
yc,cor
rebar behavior in RC elements under seismic loads which and strain, respectively. Also, fyc,cor and εyc,cor are the
leads to dangerous local strain. Regardless, the cyclic analy- yield stress and strain of corroded rebar, respectively. The
sis does not lead to correct results. This behavior is espe- stress σ corresponds to the strain ε of corroded rebar. η2
cially important in calculating the dissipated energy of the and ξ2 are determined using Equations (16) and (17)41:
structure in the cyclic analysis. Buckling depends on the
 

slenderness ratio, the effective length (transverse reinforce- η2 = max α 1:1 −0:016λp η2 ; 0:2 ð16Þ
ment distance) to the diameter, corrosion reduces the diam-
eter and increases the slenderness ratio, so corrosion has a
ξ2 = max 55 −2:3λp ; 7g ð17Þ
significant effect on the behavior of the RC element whose
rebar has deteriorated. Also, experimental tests have been
conducted to better understand the buckling of corroded where η2 is the corresponding nondimensional stress at
rebar in the behavior of RC columns under cyclic load to the nondimensional strain ξ2 , regardless of the effect of
clarify this phenomenon.36,37 buckling on the rebar. α and λp are obtained from Equa-
Concrete cover and transverse rebar intervals are very tions (18) and (19), respectively:
important in buckling RC longitudinal rebar. Corrosion
8 s
of transverse rebar reduces the stiffness of lateral sup- >
< 1; < 10
ports in buckling of longitudinal rebar. The longitudinal do
α= ð18Þ
rebar is exposed to buckling due to reduced cross section, > s
: 0:75; ≥10
reduced lateral support stiffness, and concrete cracking. do
In the field of numerical modeling of buckling and post-
buckling behavior of rebars, various models have been where α is a softening coefficient, do is the initial diame-
proposed,38,39 the effect of corrosion is not considered in ter of the rebar, and s is the distance of the trans-
these models. However, some recent articles have verse bars.
addressed this important issue by presenting analytical
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and experimental models.40,41 f yc,cor s
Figure 3 shows the normalized stress–strain model of λp = ð19Þ
100 do −2 x cp
the buckling behavior of corroded rebar. Kashani et al.41
developed the buckling model proposed by Dhakal–
Meakawa39 for corroded rebar. As illustrated in Figure 3, where λp is a nondimensional buckling parameter, and
the postbuckling model is proposed for the degrading of fyc,cor is the compressive yield strength of the corroded
compressive rebar due to buckling behavior. η and ξ are rebar calculated via Equation (20), and xcp is the corro-
expressed as Equation (15)39: sion penetration depth obtained using Equation (21):
6 KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI

f yc,corr = ð1 −β X corr Þ f yc ð20Þ

where fyc is the compressive yield strength of uncorroded

rebar and β is determined by the ratio of the distance of
the transverse rebar to the diameter of the longitudinal
rebar, For ratios below 5, its value is 0.005, for the range
of 5–10, its value is 0.0065, and greater than 10 its value
is 0.0125.39,42–44

do h pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii
x cp = 1 − 1 −X corr ð21Þ
2

2.2.2 | Slipping behavior of rebar F I G U R E 4 Bond stress and slip distribution over the
development length of rebar
The slippage of the longitudinal rebars at the interface
of the beam-to-column and the footing-to-column cau-
ses additional rotation of the member end or the sup-
port of the RC frame under lateral loading. On the
other hand, in seismic design based on the perfor-
mance of the RC structure, generally, the plastic hinge
is formed at the end of the beam or column. Therefore,
the effect of the bond–slip behavior of rebar on this
phenomenon is of great importance and regardless of
that, the calculation of lateral displacement (drift) of
the RC frame will be overestimated. Figure 4 schemati-
cally shows the distribution of bond stress and slip due
to strain penetration of a fully anchored rebar at yield-
ing. Due to the slip of rebar, a crack is formed at the
footing-to-column interface and results in the rotation
will occur. The lateral displacement of the column,
Δslip, caused by the rotation of the end of the column at
the foundation joint due to the slip of the rebar shown
in Figure 5, is determined using Equations (22)
and (23).45

Δslip = θy L ð22Þ FIGURE 5 Rotation of column due to the slip of the rebar

sy
θy = ð23Þ
d −c
where θy is the rotation of the fixed end of the column
due to slip of the rebar when the longitudinal rebar is
yielded; sy is the loaded-end slip when rebar stress is
yield strength fy; d and c are, respectively, the effective
depth and the depth of the neutral axis of the RC sec-
tion; L is the column height. The Equation (24) esti-
mates the value of sy from the results of the
experimental studies.46
!α
db f y
sy = 2:54 pffiffiffiffi ð2α + 1Þ + 0:34 ð24Þ
8437 f c
In the above relation fy is the yield strength of longitu-
dinal rebar; fc is the concrete compressive strength of the
adjoining connection member; db is the rebar diameter.
The three parameters mentioned will change over time
due to corrosion. α is a parameter used in the local bond–
slip relation and can be taken as 0.4 by CEB-FIP Model
Code 90.47 Figure 6 shows rebar stress versus loaded-end
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
FIGURE 6 Rebar stress-slip diagram
slip. The ultimate slip, su, is loaded-end slip when rebar
stress is ultimate strength fu. The value of su is 30 to
40 times the yield slip sy and the reduced stiffness coeffi-
cient value, β, is about 0.3–0.4.46 In this study, the ulti-
mate slip has been assumed to be 35 times the yield slip.
3 | FAILURE M ECHANICS OF
REINFORCED FRAME U NDER
L A T E R A L LO A D S
Failure of the RC frame due to lateral load may be flex-
ural, shear-flexural, shear, splice, anchorage, or failure
due to the combination of several failures. Failure mech-
anisms depend on the details of the reinforcement and
the aspect ratio of the concrete frame components as well
as the mechanical properties of the concrete and steel. In
this study, the effect of corrosion on three primary mech-
anisms of concrete frame failure was investigated. The
presented analytical model considers the flexural,
flexural-shear, and shear failure mechanisms. After the
validation of the model with experimental results, it was
used to investigate the corrosion effect of concrete
frames.
Flexural failure is associated with yielding of longitu-
dinal reinforcement due to damage related to flexural
deformation such as cover concrete delamination, core
concrete crushing, transverse rebar fracture, buckling,
and fracture of longitudinal reinforcement, and then the
degradation of the lateral load capacity occurs. Shear fail-
ure occurs when the shear demand exceeds the shear
capacity of the RC member and the member does not
7
experience flexural deformation. Diagonal cracks are
associated with this failure, which is usually at the end of
the column. Degradation of the lateral load capacity
occurs without the yielding of longitudinal reinforce-
ment. Flexural-shear failure initiates with the yielding of
longitudinal reinforcement and then with the shear dis-
tress causes degradation in the lateral load capacity.
In this paper, we used the proposed conceptual model
in ATC-648 to determine the failure mechanisms of the
damaged RC frame. Figure 7 shows the conceptual model
of flexural, flexural-shear, and shear failures by compar-
ing the shear strength model with the capacity curve
obtained from static pushover analysis. Several models
are available to estimate shear.49–51 All models degrade
shear strength with increasing ductility demand. The
shear strength is reduced in the range of displacement
ductility, μΔ, from 2 to 6. This is because increasing the
lateral displacement causes the expansion of shear-
flexural cracks and the reduction of shear transfer in con-
crete due to the loss of aggregate interlock.
4 | NUM ER I CAL M ODEL OF RC
F R A M E WI T H TH E C O R R O S I O N
DA MA GE M ODEL
4.1 | Modeling
In this section, the seismic behavior of corrosion-
damaged RC frame is investigated using nonlinear static
analysis (pushover) over time with a numerical model.
Pushover analysis is the traditional analysis approach for
capacity assessment in earthquake engineering since it
assesses the ability of the structure to reach a target dis-
placement demand. To evaluate the seismic behavior, the
analyses in this paper are intended to address lateral dis-
placement (drift) and ductility ratio.
Figure 8 shows an analytical model for simulating
failure mechanisms such as flexural, flexural-shear, and
shear failures, as well as the effect of rebar slip at the end
of the column that connects to the foundation. The col-
umn and beam in the numerical model were modeled
with a dispBeamColumn element using the fiber-
discretized cross sections. As indicated in Figure 9a, fiber
sections of the columns consist of longitudinal rebar
(modeled as ReinforcingSteel), unconfined concrete (Con-
crete01), and confined concrete (ConfinedConcrete01
(. Fiber sections of the beam consist of longitudinal rebar
(modeled as ReinforcingSteel) and unconfined concrete
(Concrete01) that is shown in Figure 9b.
To use the zero-length elements, a duplicate node
must be defined. In the numerical model shown in
Figure 8, Nodes 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 22, 33, and 44 were defined
8 KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
FIGURE 8 A fiber-based reinforced concrete (RC) frame
model
for this purpose. Because the shear strength is not
included in the zero-length elements, Nodes 1 and 2 are
defined a roller support and Nodes 3 and 4 are
F I G U R E 7 Model of
concepts of fracture modes of
reinforced concrete frame under
lateral load based on ATC-6
constrained with Nodes 33 and 44, respectively, in the
Y-direction and rotational freedoms.
The uniaxial material models above-mentioned are in
the OpenSees library. The Concrete01 material model is
based on the Kent–Scott–Park model.52 The concrete ten-
sile zone behavior is not considered in this material. The
ConfineConcrete01 material model based on the Berga
model considers concrete confinement. In this material,
the concrete tensile behavior is not considered and the
confinement behavior is based on the type arrangements
and volume of transverse rebar, and external strengthen-
ing. The behavior of ReinforcingSteel material is based on
the Chang and Mander model.53 The buckling behavior
of rebars is based on Gomes-Appleton38 and Dhakal–
Meakawa39 models. Kashani et al.41 developed the
Dhakal–Meakawa model for rebar corrosion, as men-
tioned earlier in Section 2. In this study, the developed
model of Kashani et al. has been used to model the buck-
ling behavior of corroded rebar.
The Bond_SP01 material was modeled according to
the Zhao–Sritharan model46 for capturing strain penetra-
tion effects at the column-to-footing. The rebar slip
instead of strain for given rebar stress is considered, in
this material model, as shown in Figure 6. Also, Equa-
tion (24) is implemented in the Zhao–Sritharan model.
The zero-length section element is defined to consider
the effect of rebar slipping. The concrete and steel fibers
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
F I G U R E 9 (a) Fiber section of column element; (b) fiber section of beam element; (c) fiber section of zero-length (Bond-SP01);
(d) flexural-shear failure mode of zero-length shear spring; and (e) pure shear failure mode of zero-length shear spring
in the zero-length section element are defined with Con-
crete02 material and Bond_SP01 material, respectively.
To capture column shear strength degradation during
the lateral displacement, two shear springs are placed at
the upper end of columns as experimental results demon-
strated that shear failure occurred at the top of the col-
umn.54 The shear spring is used in series with the
flexural element of the column to simulate the flexural,
flexural-shear, and pure shear failure, as shown in
Figure 8. Shear spring is defined with a uniaxial material
model, called LimitState, and the shear curve, called Lim-
itCurve Shear, is assigned to it. This material was devel-
oped by Elwood54 which is implemented in OpenSees.
If the shear strength of the column is greater than the
flexural yield strength, the column experiences flexure
failure. The model will not capture any shear degrada-
tion. In the case that the yielding flexural of the column
occurs and the flexural deformation reaches the shear
capacity of the column or the shear lateral displacement
capacity, then the shear limit curve is activated and shear
9
failure is initiated. It is known as flexure-shear failure
which reduces inelastic displacement, as shown in
Figure 9d. Once the shear strength is less than the flex-
ural yield strength of the column, known as shear failure,
the model will be able to capture the degrading shear
behavior, as shown in Figure 9e.
The degrading slope of the total response in
Figure 9d,e, K tdeg , is calculated using the shear-friction
model proposed by Baradaran Shoraka and Elwood.55
Kunload, is the unloading stiffness of flexural response. It
depend on the boundary condition of the column
(e.g., for cantilever column is 3EIL3
and both ends fixed of
column is 12EI
L3
, where EI is effective flexural stiffness and
L is the height of column). Since shear spring and col-
umn element are in series, the degrading stiffness of
 −1
shear spring, Kdeg, is equal to K1t + K unload
1
.
deg
The residual shear strength, Vres, is defined as 20% of
the nominal shear strength, Vn, to alleviate the
10
FIGURE 10 Dimensions and reinforcement details of the test frame58
convergence issue in the nonlinear static analysis.56
Because in this study, the effect of corrosion over time
causes the deterioration of rebar and concrete materials,
therefore, to calculate the nominal shear strength of the
column, the ASCE 41-17 shear strength model57 is used
to improve the accuracy estimate.
4.2 | Validation of numerical model
To validate the assumptions made in the above-
mentioned fiber-based model, the numerical model and
experimental test results of a RC frame were compared.
Figure 10 shows the dimensions and details of the test
frame, and the loading protocol used in the test is shown
in Figure 11. Characteristic compressive strength and
elasticity modulus of concrete was determined as 25.14
and 28,670 MPa, respectively. Table 1 shows the mechan-
ical properties of the rebar used in the test specimen.58
Figure 12 compares the numerical response with the
experimental result. The numerical model indicated the
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
maximum shear force, degradation of capacity strength,
and maximum lateral displacement with the experimen-
tal measurements. The percentage differences in maxi-
mum shear force, maximum lateral displacement were
8.2 and 3.4%, respectively. Also, the percentage differ-
ences in the shear force and the lateral displacement at
flexural-shear failure were 7.63 and 8.5%, respectively.
Figure 12 clearly shows that the effect of pinching on
the results of the numerical model is different from the
experimental model. According to experimental studies,
the pinching effect is associated with crack closure, shear
lock, slippage of longitudinal reinforcement, and so
on.59,60 Because in this paper, we are looking for maxi-
mum displacement and base shear by using pushover
analysis, the effect of pinching which reduces the amount
of dissipated energy during the cyclic response of the
member, will not have such an effect on our work.
These percentage differences are within the accept-
able error; therefore, the numerical modeling technique
used can capture the different failure modes for a RC
frame in the nonlinear static analysis.
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI 11

F I G U R E 1 1 Loading
protocol used in the test58

TABLE 1 Loading protocol used in the test58

Rebar Average yield Average tensile Average yield Yield Rapture

diameter (mm) strength (MPa) strength (MPa) strength (MPa) strain (%) strain (%)
8 510 570 490 0.23 23
12 480 555 465 0.23 22
14 470 550 455 0.22 22

Code (IS 2800-05). Figure 13 depicts geometry, dimen-

FIGURE 12 Experimental and analytical responses
4.3 | Case study of the effect of corrosion
on RC frame
The effect of corrosion is investigated on a one-bay, one-
story RC frame that is designed according to the Iranian
National Code (INBC-part 9) and the Iranian Seismic
sions, and details of reinforcement of the RC frame. The
mechanical properties of the materials used in the finite
element model are listed in Table 2 when the structure is
originally intact. The modulus of elasticity of the steel
rebar and concrete is 200 and 20 GPa, respectively.
In this study, both longitudinal rebar and transverse
rebar corrosion were considered. it is necessary to men-
tion that in determining the corrosion initiation of the
transverse rebar, Equation (3), the concrete cover on the
transverse rebar was considered. However, in determin-
ing the corrosion initiation of longitudinal rebar, the con-
crete cover on the transverse rebar plus the diameter of
the transverse rebar was considered as the cover.
To estimate the corrosion initiation and propagation
we assume that the RC frame is constructed in an Atmo-
spheric zone with the water-to-cement ratio 0.4 and 0.5
with difference concrete cover. The RC frame is located
to distance of 0.1 km from the coastline and that the zone
is subjected to many humid-dry cycles. In this study, it is
assumed that corrosion is uniform. The corrosion param-
eters Cs, Ccr, and D are listed in Table 3. We investigated
corrosion on the RC frames with four scenarios in
this study: (a) water-to-cement ratio 0.4 and cover thick-
ness 40 mm, (b) water-to-cement ratio 0.4 and
cover thickness 50 mm, (c) water-to-cement ratio 0.5 and
12 KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI

F I G U R E 1 3 Elevation
view of the case study reinforced
concrete (RC) frame and
section details

TABLE 2 properties of the steel rebar and concrete69

Unconfined concrete Confined concrete Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement

fcc εcc εcu fcc εcc εcu fy/fu εsy εsu fy/fu εsy εsu
Element type (MPa)a (%)b (%)c (MPa) (%) (%) (MPa)d/(MPa)e (%) (%) (MPa)/(MPa) (%) (%)
Column 20 0.3 0.35 20 0.3 0.45 400/500 1.5 15 400/500 1.5 15
Beam 20 0.3 0.35 400/500 1.5 15 400/500 1.5 15
a
The compression strength of concrete.
b
The peak strain of concrete.
c
The ultimate strain of concrete.
d
The yield strength of steel rebar.
e
The ultimate strength of steel rebar.

T A B L E 3 chloride exposure
Parameter Condition Value Unit
condition parameters for the RC
mm2
Chloride diffusion coefficient (D) w/c = 0.4 220.9 year frame13
mm2
w/c = 0.5 473 year

Surface chloride concentrationa (Cs) w/c = 0.4 1.314 (mass% of binder)

w/c = 0.5 1.643 (mass% of binder)
Critical chloride concentration (Ccr) w/c = 0.4 7.758 (mass% of binder)
w/c = 0.5 6.44 (mass% of binder)

Abbreviation: RC, reinforced concrete.

a
Atmospheric (distance from the coastline 0.1 km.

cover thickness 40 mm, and (d) water-to-cement ratio 0.5
and cover thickness 50 mm.
The parameters used in the Bond_SP01 material
obtained from Equation (24) for water-to-cement ratios
of 0.5 and the cover thickness of 40 mm are listed in
Table 4, taking into account the corrosion conditions of
Table 3.
In this study, the combination of MATLAB and
OpenSees software is used to implement the corrosion
effect in the finite element model. The deterioration of
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
TABLE 4 The parameters used in the Bond_SP01 material
Service life (years) fy (MPa)
0 400
15 391
30 384
45 378
60 373
mechanical properties of rebar and concrete is carried
out in the MATLAB platform which invokes OpenSees
for the pushover analysis in each 15-year intervals.
5 | R ES U L T S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
First, the effects of corrosion on concrete and rebar mate-
rials at the cross section of the column of the RC frame
with different values of water-to-cement ratio and con-
crete cover thickness were investigated. Figure 14 shows
the effects of corrosion on the deterioration of the
mechanical properties of the rebar and concrete of the
column section over a 100-year lifetime as described in
Section 2. For the column in the RC frame, we assume
that the corrosion conditions are as in Table 3. The col-
umn has a cover thickness of 40, 50, and 70 mm and
water-to-cement ratios of 0.4 and 0.5. The diameter of the
rebar is 20 mm. The compressive strength of cover con-
crete fcc and the yield strength of rebar fsy are assumed
20 and 400 MPa, respectively.
The gradient of the graphs is decreased with decreas-
ing of steel bar diameter in Figure 14a, the ultimate strain
of the rebar εsu in Figure 14b, the yield strength of the
rebar fsy in Figure 14c, and the compressive strength of
the cover concrete fcc in Figure 14d. Figure 14a is shown
that corrosion, with different values of water-to-cement
ratio and cover thickness, reduced the rebar diameter by
3–10.5%; The corrosion reduced the ultimate strain of the
rebar by 21–68% in Figure 14b; respectively. The com-
pressive strength of cover concrete and the yield strength
of rebar are reduced due to corrosion by 41–71% and
3–10% in Figure 14c,d.
As mentioned above, the maximum effect of corro-
sion was on the compressive strength of cover concrete
and the ultimate strain of the rebar. The reduction of
rebar cross section due to corrosion was 6–19% in
Figure 14a. In fact, the delamination and spalling of the
unconfined concrete due to corrosion of the rebar has sig-
nificantly reduced the compressive strength of the uncon-
fined concrete, as shown in Figure 14d. Significant
reduction of the ultimate strain of the rebar, reduction of
13
sy(mm) fu (MPa) su(mm)
0.522 600 18.27
0.505 586 17.68
0.491 576 17.18
0.480 567 16.75
0.470 559 16.44
the diameter and cross section of the rebar, and lack of
compressive strength of the unconfined concrete will
cause a decrease in the strength of the member and its
ductility. In the next section, we will discuss the effect of
corrosion on ductility.
The effects of corrosion on the mechanical proper-
ties of 20-mm-diameter rebar, the compressive strength
of unconfined concrete, and confined concrete in
15-year intervals up the lifetime of 60 years under cor-
rosion conditions (Table 3) for water-to-cement ratio
0.5 and concrete cover thickness 40 mm are listed in
Table 5.
5.1 | Pushover analysis of RC frame
model
The RC frame is shown in Figure 13 is subject to a uni-
formly distributed loading of 25 kN/m over beam ele-
ment and two vertical point loads of 100 kN at Nodes
3 and 4. The gravity loads are applied, and a pushover
analysis is then carried out in 15-year intervals (0, 15,
30, 45, and 60 years) by considering the corrosion effect.
The P-Delta effect is also considered in the analysis. For
the pushover analysis, we used a displacement control
strategy. The target displacement is horizontal displace-
ment of Node 4.
Figure 15 shows the capacity curves obtained from
the push over analysis of RC frame with different values
of water-to-cement ratio and concrete cover thickness.
The results of the analysis showed that the failure mecha-
nism of the structure was a column failure mechanism
and the beam did not fail. First, the longitudinal rebars of
the columns are yielded and then with the drift ratio
increasing, flexure-shear failure occurs due to the shear
capacity of the column cross section. The distance
between the drift ratios of rebar yielding and the drift
ratio related to the flexure-shear failure of the RC frame
varies depending on the corrosion level, which decreases
with increasing corrosion level ψ. It should be noted that
the type of structural failure due to lateral load depends
on the geometrical aspect ratio of the frame.61 The effects
14 KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI

F I G U R E 1 4 Effect of corrosion on (a) diameter of rebar; (b) ultimate elongation of rebar; (c) yield strength of rebar; and
(d) compressive strength of cover concrete over 100 years

TABLE 5 Material properties of the corroded column of the RC frame

Steel rebar Concrete

Service time (years) Cross-sectional loss rate (%) fsy (MPa) a

fsu (MPa) b
εsu c
fcc,cover (MPa) d fcc,core (MPa) e
0 0.0 400 500 0.15 20 20
15 3.56 393 491 0.13 17.53 19.05
30 7.45 385 418 0.11 13.18 18.78
45 10.60 378 473 0.09 10.97 18.58
60 13.23 373 466 0.08 9.55 18.40

Abbreviation: RC, reinforced concrete.

a
The yield strength of steel rebar.
b
The ultimate strength of steel rebar (fsu = 1.25fsy).
c
The yield strain of steel rebar.
d
The compression strength of cover concrete (unconfined).
e
The compression strength of core concrete (confined).

of corrosion, such as atmospheric corrosion conditions,
often do not change the type of structural failure.
Using the stress–strain curves of the cross-sectional
fibers at the ends of the columns obtained from the anal-
ysis, the points related to rebar slipping, rebar yielding,
unconfined concrete spalling, confined concrete
crushing, and rebar buckling on the capacity curves are
shown in Figure 15. In this study, rebar slipping, rebar
yielding, unconfined concrete spalling, confined concrete
crushing, and rebar buckling were considered as key
criteria in investigating the deterioration due to corrosion
effect on the RC frame.31 Therefore, we defined these
points on the capacity curve as index points. Capacity
curves are zoomed in at the point of the slippage of the
rebars. As can be seen from zooming a portion, the slip-
page of the rebar causes the additional drift of the frame.
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
F I G U R E 1 5 The capacity curves of the reinforced concrete frame due to corrosion: (a) water to cement ratio 0.4 and cover thickness
40 mm; (b) water to cement ratio 0.4 and cover thickness 50 mm; (c) water to cement ratio 0.5 and cover thickness 40 mm; and (d) water to
cement ratio 0.5 and cover thickness 50 mm
This is indicated on the capacity curve by shifting the
curve only in the direction of the displacement axis.
Figure 15a shows the effects of corrosion on the RC
frame capacity curve with the conditions of water-to-
cement ratio and concrete cover thickness of 0.4 and
40 mm, respectively. The corrosion levels of rebar 0, 0.68,
4.3, 6.8, and 9.1% are related to Years 0, 15, 30, 45, and
60, respectively. The maximum shear base of the RC
frame in the intact condition is 159 kN and in the 60th
year with a rebar corrosion level of 9.01% is reduced to
135 kN. The drift ratio for flexure-shear failure in the
condition of the intact RC frame is 6.43% and has
decreased to 3.67% in the 60th year.
Figure 15b shows the effects of corrosion on the RC
frame capacity curve with the conditions of water-to-
cement ratio and concrete cover thickness of 0.4 and
50 mm, respectively. The corrosion levels of rebar 0, 0,
2.2, 4.5, and 6.4% are related to Years 0, 15, 30, 45, and
60, respectively. The maximum shear base of the RC
frame in the intact condition is 159 kN and in the 60th
year is reduced to 143 kN. The drift ratio for flexure-shear
failure in the condition of the intact RC frame is 6.43%
and has decreased to 4.11% in the 60th year.
15
Figure 15c shows the effects of corrosion on the RC
frame capacity curve with the conditions of water-to-
cement ratio and concrete cover thickness of 0.5 and
40 mm, respectively. The corrosion levels of rebar 0, 4.25,
7.95, 11.0, and 13.64% are related to years 0, 15, 30, 45,
and 60, respectively. The maximum shear base of the RC
frame in the intact condition is 159 kN and in the 60th
year is reduced to 126 kN. The drift ratio for flexure-shear
failure in the condition of the intact RC frame is 6.43%
and has decreased to 3.47% in the 60th year.
Figure 15d shows the effects of corrosion on the RC
frame capacity curve with the conditions of water-to-
cement ratio and concrete cover thickness of 0.5 and
50 mm, respectively. The corrosion levels of rebar 0, 2.77,
5.92, 8.43, and 10.63% are related to Years 0, 15, 30, 45,
and 60, respectively. The maximum shear base of the RC
frame in the intact condition is 159 kN and in the 60th
year is reduced to 133 kN. The drift ratio for flexure-shear
failure in the condition of the intact RC frame is 6.43%
and has decreased to 3.62% in the 60th year.
The above results showed that the maximum effect of
corrosion on the RC frame is related to the ratio water-
to-cement 0.5 and the cover thickness is 40 mm. The
16
TABLE 6 Effects of corrosion on drift ratio of the RC frame (w/c = 0.5 and Cb = 40 mm)
Drift ratio (%)
Service time Corrosion level Bar Bar
(years) (ψ) (%) slipping yielding
0 0 0.683 1.062
15 4.25 0.597 1.045
30 7.95 0.565 1.020
45 11.0 0.551 1.010
60 13.64 0.543 0.995
Abbreviation: RC, reinforced concrete.
deterioration of the mechanical properties of rebar and
concrete during 60 years has caused the shear capacity
and drift ratio at the flexure-shear failure of the frame to
decrease by 18 and 46%, respectively. Tables 6 and 7 show
drift ratio and base shear at rebar slipping, rebar yielding,
unconfined concrete spalling, confined concrete
crushing, and rebar buckling from the results of pushover
analysis.
Figure 16 shows the base shear at the index points
(rebar slipping, rebar yielding, unconfined concrete
spalling, confined concrete crushing, flexure-shear fail-
ure, and rebar buckling) of the capacity curve of the RC
frame obtained from the results of pushover analysis for
periods of 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60 years with different values
of water-to-cement ratio and cover thickness. Figure 16a
shows a comparison of the base shear of the RC frame
when the water-to-cement ratio and the cover thickness
are 0.4 and 40 mm, respectively. As the figure shows, the
base shear at the rebar slipping decreases from 86 kN in
the intact RC frame state to 61 kN in the 60th year with a
corrosion level of 9.01%. The base shear at the longitudi-
nal rebar yielding of the column is reduced from 118 kN
in the intact RC frame state to 92 kN in the 60th year.
The base shear at the unconfined concrete spalling is
reduced from 159 to 135 kN in the intact RC frame state
and corroded RC frame in the 60th year, respectively.
The base shear at the confined concrete crushing
decreases from 151 kN in the intact frame state to
131.2 kN in the 60th year. The results of the analysis
showed that the column compression rebars do not expe-
rience buckling up to the corrosion level of 4.3% and
these rebars buckle at the corrosion level of 6.8 and 9.01%
after the flexure-shear failure of the column. The drift in
which the buckling of the first rebar occurs in the cross
section of the column is indicated on the capacity curve
as the buckling point.
Figure 16b shows a comparison of the base shear of
the RC frame with the water-to-cement ratio of 0.4 and
the cover thickness of 50 mm. Due to the initiation time
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
Unconfined concrete Confined concrete Bar
spalling crushing buckling
4.057 6.450 —
3.317 4.542 —
2.906 3.897 —
2.735 3.630 5.38
2.611 3.470 5.290
of corrosion, this frame does not have any deterioration
of materials until the 23rd year. After that, the base shear
is reduced at rebar slipping, rebar yielding, unconfined
concrete spalling, and confined concrete crushing, which
is less than in Figure 16a. The results of the analysis, in
this case, showed that the column compression rebars do
not experience buckling up to 4.5% corrosion level (45th
year) and these rebars buckle at 6.4% corrosion level
(60th year) after the flexure-shear failure of the column.
Figure 16c shows a comparison of the base shear of
the RC concrete frame with the water-to-cement ratio of
0.5 and the cover thickness of 40 mm. In this case of cor-
rosion, the reduction of the base shear of the RC frame
with different levels of corrosion at the rebar slipping,
rebar yielding, unconfined concrete spalling, and con-
fined concrete crushing on the capacity curve is more
than the other cases shown in Figure 16a,b,d. In this
case, the column compression rebars buckle in the 30, 45,
and 60th years after the flexure-shear failure of the col-
umn as shown in Figure 15c. Figure 16d shows a compar-
ison of the base shear of the RC concrete frame with the
water-to-cement ratio of 0.5 and the cover thickness of
50 mm. In this case of corrosion, the reduction of the
base shear at the rebar slipping, rebar yielding, uncon-
fined concrete spalling, and confined concrete crushing
with different levels of corrosion over a lifetime are very
close to the corrosion condition described in Figure 16a.
In this case, the column compression rebars buckle in
the 45, and 60th years after the flexure-shear failure of
the column as shown in Figure 15d.
Figure 17 indicates the drift ratio of the RC frame at
the index points from the results of the push analysis.
Figure 17a shows the drift ratio at the index points on the
RC frame capacity curve when the water-to-cement ratio
and the cover thickness are 0.4 and 40 mm, respectively.
Corrosion reduced the drift ratio at rebar slipping and
yielding by about 19 and 10% for the corrosion level of
9.01% (60th year), respectively. The reduction of drift
ratio at unconfined concrete spalling, and confined
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI 17

TABLE 7 Effects of corrosion on base shear of the RC frame (w/c = 0.5 and Cb = 40 mm)

Base shear (kN)

Service time Corrosion level Bar Bar Unconfined concrete Confined concrete Bar
(years) (ψ) (%) Slipping yielding spalling crushing buckling
0 0 86.22 112.80 159.90 151.00 —
15 4.25 70.19 103.20 148.10 141.60 —
30 7.95 63.27 95.98 139.30 134.90 —
45 11.0 59.62 92.09 132.70 129.30 112.48
60 13.64 56.85 88.14 126.50 123.20 105.776

Abbreviation: RC, reinforced concrete.

F I G U R E 1 6 Comparison of base shear of reinforced concrete (RC) frame at the index points: (a) water-to-cement 0.4 and cover
thickness 40 mm; (b)) water-to-cement 0.4 and cover thickness 50 mm; (c) water-to-cement 0.5 and cover thickness 40 mm; and (d) water-to-
cement 0.5 and cover thickness 40 mm

concrete crushing for intact RC frame and the corroded
frame (60th year) is 25 and 43%, respectively. For a corro-
sion level of 6.8% (45th year) and 9.01% (60th year), the
compression rebar of the column buckle after flexural-
shear failure and the drift ratio in the buckling of the
rebar is 5.77 and 5.53%, respectively.
Figure 17b shows the drift ratio of the RC frame at
the index points when the water-to-cement ratio and the
cover thickness are 0.4 and 50 mm, respectively. In Years
0 and 15, no decrease in drift ratio has been seen at the
index points because the initiation of corrosion is in the
21st year. The drift ratio at rebar slipping and rebar yield-
ing decreased by 6 and 16% for corrosion level of 6.4%
(60th year), respectively, and also at unconfined concrete
spalling, and confined concrete crushing decreased by
25 and 35% for a corrosion level of 6.4% (60th year),
respectively. The compression rebar of the column buckle
after flexural-shear failure and the drift ratio in the buck-
ling of the rebar is 5.88% for a corrosion level of 6.4%
(60th year).
Figure 17c shows the drift ratio of the RC frame at
the index points when the water-to-cement ratio and the
cover thickness are 0.5 and 40 mm, respectively. The
reduction of drift ratio of the corroded RC frame with
13.64% corrosion level to the intact RC frame at rebar
slipping, rebar yielding, unconfined concrete spalling,
confined concrete crushing, flexure-shear failure, and
rebar buckling is 21, 10, 35, and 45%, respectively. The
18
F I G U R E 1 7 Comparison of drift ratio of reinforced concrete (RC) frame at the index points: (a) water-to-cement 0.4 and cover
thickness 40 mm; (b)) water-to-cement 0.4 and cover thickness 50 mm; (c) water-to-cement 0.5 and cover thickness 40 mm; and (d) water-to-
cement 0.5 and cover thickness 40 mm
drift ratio at rebar bucking is 5.67 (30th year), 5.38 (45th
year), and 5.29% (60th year).
Figure 17d shows the drift ratio of the RC frame at
the index points when the water-to-cement ratio and the
cover thickness are 0.5 and 50 mm, respectively. The
reduction of drift ratio of the corroded RC frame with
10.63% corrosion level to the intact RC frame at rebar
slipping, rebar yielding, unconfined concrete spalling,
confined concrete crushing, flexure-shear failure, and
rebar buckling is 19, 6, 32, and 43%, respectively. The
drift ratio at rebar bucking is 5.58 (45th year), and 5.38%
(60th year).
The stress–strain curve of steel and concrete fibers at
the column section from the results of pushover analysis
showed that the compression rebars yield after crushing
the unconfined concrete and the confined concrete and
buckle before rehardening. By increasing the corrosion
effect on the deterioration of rebar and concrete, causes
the confined concrete fibers to crush more during failure.
In this study, it has been seen in the aging stages of RC
in the Years 45 and 60.
5.2 | Effect of corrosion on ductility
Most seismic design codes in the world consider ductility
as an appropriate criterion for evaluating the seismic
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
performance of structures. The behavior of materials and
the type of structural system are the two main factors in
the estimation of the ductility of structures. This study
has investigated the effect of corrosion on column cross-
sectional ductility (section level) and global ductility
(structural level) of the RC frame shown in Figure 13 as a
performance criterion. The ductility of the RC cross
section is defined as the ratio of the ultimate curvature to
the yield curvature, this relationship is expressed as
Equation (25)62–66:
u
μ = ð25Þ
y
where Øu is the cross-sectional curvature at the ultimate
moment capacity and Øy is the cross-sectional curvature
at the yield moment on the moment-curvature diagram.
In the present study, the ultimate curvature, Øu, is the
maximum curvature when the concrete compressive
strain, εcc, reaches at the outer face (compression face) to
0.0035 and the compressive rebar will be in the buckling
threshold. Øy is the yield curvature of section when
the tension rebar first reaches the yield strength. The
moment-curvature diagrams of the cross section of the
RC column shown in Figure 18, which is subject to corro-
sion conditions according to Table 3, at 15-year intervals
over a 60-year time under an axial compressive load of
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI 19

F I G U R E 1 8 Moment-
curvature diagrams of the
reinforced concrete (RC) section

175 kN are shown in Figure 16. As the curvature- T A B L E 8 the cross-sectional ductility of the RC frame column
moment diagrams indicate, corrosion reduces sectional subject to corrosion
ductility. The sectional ductility is presented in Table 8 at μØ Øu (%) Øy (%) Service time (years)
15-year intervals. The values of Øy, Øu for the intact
11.21 8.770 0.782 0
section were determined to be 0.009 and 0.0782, respec-
tively, using the relations proposed by Monti and 9.76 7.690 0.788 15
εyd 1
Petrone67 (y = d y 1 − ξy ,  u = εdcuu n0:8 + 4βμsu
Sdu + μ
). According to 8.82 6.980 0.791 30
su,tot
8.33 6.600 0.792 45
Table 8, the values of Øy, Øu obtained using the analytical
model of the intact cross section are 0.00782 and 0.0877, 8.01 6.370 0.795 60
respectively, which are approximately identical to the Abbreviation: RC, reinforced concrete.
values obtained from the above relationships. Figure 19
shows the normalized column chart from the moment-
Figure 20 indicates the column chart to show changes
curvature analysis of cross-sectional to compare the
over the global ductility of the RC frame for the four
effects of corrosion on ductility, ultimate curvature, and
assumed corrosion modes over time. It is extracted from
yield curvature. Corrosion has little effect on yield curva-
the column chart which significantly reduces the global
ture, but ductility and ultimate curvature have decreased
ductility of the RC frame over time due to corrosion. It
by 25% over 60 years.
is worth mentioning that the occurrence of flexural-
Global ductility μΔ, structural level, is defined as the shear failure of the RC frame has also been involved in
ratio of the ultimate displacement at the higher story reducing the ductility. For example, the time-dependent
level Δu to the yield displacement Δy at the same level, global ductility results of the RC frame when exposed to
which is expressed in Equation (26)68: the corrosion conditions of Scenario A are shown in
Table 9. The maximum global ductility is equal to 5.9
Δu when the RC frame is originally intact and the mini-
μΔ = ð26Þ
Δy mum global ductility of RC frame reaches to 3.50 when
the RC frame is 60 years old. As can be seen from
In this study, it is assumed that, Δu, the maximum Figure 18 and Table 9, with increasing corrosion over
displacement of Node 4 of the RC frame when the struc- time, the distance between Δy and Δu on the capacity
ture reaches flexure-shear failure, and Δy, the displace- curve is reduced. This means that the structure has less
ment of Node 4 of the horizontal frame when the rebar opportunity to absorb energy and so-called global ductil-
first in the beam or column reaches the yield strain. ity has diminished.
20 KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI

experimental results of the intact RC column subjected

to cyclic loading and the analytical results of the
nonlinear fiber element model of the column using
OpenSees indicated that the fiber model has a good
accuracy. The main conclusions of this study are sum-
marized as follows:

1. The results of a case study of the corrosion effect of

the RC frame showed that the compression rebars of
the column experience buckling due to deterioration
of mechanical properties at the corrosion level
F I G U R E 1 9 The column chart of sectional ductility, ultimate
ψ = 6.4% in all of the corrosion condition scenarios.
curvature, and yield curvature normalized
2. The results of this study showed that the water-to-
cement ratio is a more effective parameter than the
cover thickness in the deterioration of mechanical
properties of rebar and concrete.
3. The analytical results of the RC frame with different
corrosion scenarios showed that corrosion has a
greater effect on drift ratio degradation than shear
capacity degradation. Percentage degradation of shear
capacity and drift ratio for Scenarios (a), (b), (c), and
(d) are: 15 and 42%, 20 and 36%, 20 and 46%, and
16 and 43%, respectively.
4. The results from pushover analysis revealed that the
evaluation of the corrosion effect regardless of the fail-
F I G U R E 2 0 Column chart of reinforced concrete (RC) frame ure mode causes the results to be overestimation in
ductility in four assumed corrosion modes estimating the drift ratio of the RC frame, which is
less important in previous research on corrosion of
RC structures.
TABLE 9 Global ductility (μΔ) of the RC frame (w/c = 0.5,
5. The results of the analysis showed that the mode of
Cb = 40 mm)
structural failure in the assumed corrosion scenarios
Service time (years) Δy (%) Δu (%) μΔ is a flexure-shear failure and corrosion has no effect
0 1.090 6.430 5.90 on the failure mode of the RC frame under study. It
15 1.045 4.542 9.05 depends on the geometric aspect ratio of the frame,
30 1.020 3.890 4.35
including the ratio of column height to column cross-
sectional dimension.
45 1.010 3.630 3.59
6. The results from the curvature-moment analysis of
60 0.995 3.470 3.50
the RC cross section and the capacity curve of the RC
Abbreviation: RC, reinforced concrete. frame showed that corrosion significantly reduces the
cross-sectional ductility and global ductility depending
on the corrosion environment conditions by 30 and
6 | S UM MA R Y A ND C ON CL US I ON 40% over time, respectively. Because ductility plays a
key role in the seismic behavior of the structure,
In this study, the effects of chloride-induced corrosion of reducing it causes a defect in the seismic behavior of
reinforcement and concrete on the capacity curve and the structure.
ductility of a two-dimensional RC frame were investi-
gated using pushover analysis in the OpenSees software Finally, it should be noted that since the water-to-
platform considering the nonlinear fiber element model. cement ratio and concrete cover are two important deter-
The complete model of corrosion of materials including minants of corrosion in concrete structures, which the
rebar and concrete was considered. The deterioration of appropriate selection of these parameters will achieve the
the strength and ductility of rebar and concrete due to expected lifetime of the structure and preserve the seis-
corrosion over time was implemented in the analytical mic capacity during service life in corrosive environmen-
model of the RC frame. The comparison between the tal conditions.
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T
This research did not receive any specific grant from
funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new
data were created or analyzed in this study.
ORCID
Mehdi Dehestani https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9609-4512
R EF E RE N C E S
1. Alipour A, Shafei B, Shinozuka MS. Capacity loss evaluation of
reinforced concrete bridges located in extreme chloride-laden
environments. Struct Infrastruct Eng. 2013;9(1):8–27.
2. Sanchez-Silva M, Klutke G-A, Rosowsky DV. Life-cycle perfor-
mance of structures subject to multiple deterioration mecha-
nisms. Struct Saf. 2011;33(3):206–217.
3. Padgett JE, Dennemann K, Ghosh J. Risk-based seismic life-
cycle cost–benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assess-
ment. Struct Saf. 2010;32(3):165–173.
4. Biondini F, Frangopol DM. Time-variant robustness of aging
structures. Maintenance and safety of aging infrastructure:
Structures and infrastructures book series. Volume 10, Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 2014; p. 163–200.
5. Koch GH, Brongers MP, Thompson NG, Virmani YP, Payer
JH. Corrosion costs and preventive strategies in the United
States (No. FHWA-RD-01-156, R315-01). United States: Federal
Highway Administration. 2002.
6. Hida S, Ibrahim FIS, Capers HA et al. Assuring bridge safety
and serviceability in Europe. New Jersey: Federal Highway
Administration, 2010.
7. Chernin L, Val DV. Prediction of corrosion-induced cover
cracking in reinforced concrete structures. Construct Build
Mater. 2011;25(4):1854–1869.
8. Zhou H et al. Variation and degradation of steel and concrete
bond performance with corroded stirrups. Construct Build
Mater. 2017;138:56–68.
9. Cusson D, Lounis Z, Daigle L. Benefits of internal curing on
service life and life-cycle cost of high-performance concrete
bridge decks—A case study. Cem Concr Compos. 2010;32(5):
339–350.
10. Dousti A, Rashetnia R, Ahmadi B, Shekarchi M. Influence of
exposure temperature on chloride diffusion in concretes incor-
porating silica fume or natural zeolite. Construct Build Mater.
2013;49:393–399.
11. Biondini F, Frangopol DM. Life-cycle performance of deterio-
rating structural systems under uncertainty. J Struct Eng. 2016;
142(9):F4016001.
12. Ellingwood BR. Risk-informed condition assessment of civil
infrastructure: State of practice and research issues. Struct
Infrastruct Eng. 2005;1(1):7–18.
21
13. DuraCrete. Statistical quantification of the variables in the
limit state functions. The European Union-Brite EuRam III-
Contract BRPR-CT95-0132-Project BE95-1347/R9. 2000.
14. Apostolopoulos CA, Papadakis V. Consequences of steel corro-
sion on the ductility properties of reinforcement bar. Construct
Build Mater. 2008;22(12):2316–2324.
15. Du Y, Clark LA, Chan AH. Impact of reinforcement corrosion
on ductile behavior of reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J.
2007;104(3):285.
16. Vu NS, Yu B, Li B. Prediction of strength and drift capacity of
corroded reinforced concrete columns. Construct Build Mater.
2016;115:304–318.
17. Choe D-E, Gardoni P, Rosowsky D, Haukaas T. Probabilistic
capacity models and seismic fragility estimates for RC col-
umns subject to corrosion. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2008;93(3):
383–393.
18. Vu KAT, Stewart MG. Structural reliability of concrete bridges
including improved chloride-induced corrosion models. Struct
Saf. 2000;22(4):313–333.
19. Cairns J et al. Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged
reinforcement. ACI Mater J. 2005;102(4):256.
20. Palsson R, Mirza MS. Mechanical response of corroded steel
reinforcement of abandoned concrete bridge. Struct J. 2002;99
(2):157–162.
21. Castel A, François R, Arliguie G. Mechanical behaviour of cor-
roded reinforced concrete beams—Part 1: Experimental study
of corroded beams. Mater Struct. 2000;33(9):539–544.
22. Du Y. Effect of reinforcement corrosion on structural concrete
ductility. University of Birmingham: PhD thesis, 2001.
23. Maslehuddin M et al. Effect of rusting of reinforcing steel on its
mechanical properties and bond with concrete. Mater J. 1990;
87(5):496–502.
24. Allam IM, Maslehuddin M, Saricimen H, Al-Mana AI. Influ-
ence of atmospheric corrosion on the mechanical properties of
reinforcing steel. Construct Build Mater. 1994;8(1):35–41.
25. Zhang P, Lu M, Li X. The mechanical behaviour of corroded
bar. J Ind Build. 1995;25(257):41–44.
26. Andrade C, Alonso C, Garcia D, Rodriguez J. Remaining life-
time of reinforced concrete structures: Effect of corrosion on
the mechanical properties of the steel. International Confer-
ence on Life Prediction of Corrodible Structures, Cambridge,
UK, 1991, pp. 12/1–12/11.
27. Du Y, Clark L, Chan A. Residual capacity of corroded rein-
forcing bars. Mag Concr Res. 2005;57(3):135–147.
28. Imperatore S, Rinaldi Z, Drago C. Degradation relationships
for the mechanical properties of corroded steel rebars. Con-
struct Build Mater. 2017;148:219–230.
29. Lee H-S, Cho Y-S. Evaluation of the mechanical properties of
steel reinforcement embedded in concrete specimen as a func-
tion of the degree of reinforcement corrosion. Int J Fract. 2009;
157(1–2):81–88.
30. Kashani MM, Lowes LN, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA. Computa-
tional modelling strategies for nonlinear response prediction of
corroded circular RC bridge piers. Adv Mater Sci Eng. 2016;
2016:1–15.
31. 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.
22
32. Coronelli D, Gambarova P. Structural assessment of corroded
reinforced concrete beams: Modeling guidelines. J Struct Eng.
2004;130(8):1214–1224.
33. Capé M. Residual service-life assessment of existing R/C struc-
tures [MS thesis]. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University
of Technology, and Milan, Italy: Milan University of Technol-
ogy. 1999.
34. Molina F, Alonso C, Andrade C. Cover cracking as a function
of rebar corrosion: Part 2—Numerical model. Mater Struct.
1993;26(9):532–548.
35. Scott B, Park R, & Priestley M. Stress-strain behavior of con-
crete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain
rates. ACI Journal Proceedings. 1982;79(1):13–27.
36. di Carlo F, Meda A, Rinaldi Z. Numerical evaluation of the cor-
rosion influence on the cyclic behaviour of RC columns. Eng
Struct. 2017;153:264–278.
37. Meda A, Mostosi S, Rinaldi Z, Riva P. Experimental evaluation
of the corrosion influence on the cyclic behaviour of RC col-
umns. Eng Struct. 2014;76:112–123.
38. Gomes A, Appleton J. Nonlinear cyclic stress-strain relation-
ship of reinforcing bars including buckling. Eng Struct. 1997;19
(10):822–826.
39. Dhakal RP, Maekawa K. Modeling for postyield buckling of
reinforcement. J Struct Eng. 2002;128(9):1139–1147.
40. Imperatore S, Rinaldi Z. Experimental behavior and analytical
modeling of corroded steel rebars under compression. Con-
struct Build Mater. 2019;226:126–138.
41. Kashani MM, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA. Nonlinear stress–
strain behaviour of corrosion-damaged reinforcing bars includ-
ing inelastic buckling. Eng Struct. 2013;48:417–429.
42. Bae S, Mieses AM, Bayrak O. Inelastic buckling of reinforcing
bars. J Struct Eng. 2005;131(2):314–321.
43. Cosenza E, Prota A. Experimental behaviour and numerical
modelling of smooth steel bars under compression. J Earthq
Eng. 2006;10(03):313–329.
44. Monti G, Nuti C. Nonlinear cyclic behavior of reinforcing bars
including buckling. J Struct Eng. 1992;118(12):3268–3284.
45. Zhang Y, Bicici E, Sezen H, Zheng S. Reinforcement slip model
considering corrosion effects. Construct Build Mater. 2020;235:
117348.
46. Zhao J, Sritharan S. Modeling of strain penetration effects in
fiber-based analysis of reinforced concrete structures. ACI
Struct J. 2007;104(2):133.
47. FIB C. Bond of reinforcement in concrete. Vol 10, Switzerland:
Bulletin d'Information de la Federation Internationale du
Beton, 2000.
48. Applied Technology Council. Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines
for Highway Bridges. ATC, Redwood City, CA, 1983, ATC 6-2.
49. Sezen H, Moehle JP. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced
concrete columns. J Struct Eng. 2004;130(11):1692–1703.
50. Aschheim M, Moehle JP. Shear strength and deformability of
RC bridge columns subjected to inelastic cyclic displacements.
UCB/EERC-92/04, University of California, Berkeley:
Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 1992.
51. Priestley MN, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of
reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng. 1994;120(8):
2310–2329.
52. Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete. J.
Struct Eng. 1971;97(ST7):1969–1990.
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
53. Chang GA, Mander JB. Seismic energy based fatigue damage
analysis of bridge columns: Part I—Evaluation of seismic
capacity. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engi-
neering Research, 1994.
54. Elwood KJ. Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete
columns. Can J Civil Eng. 2004;31(5):846–859.
55. Baradaran Shoraka M, Elwood K. Mechanical model for non
ductile reinforced concrete columns. J Earthq Eng. 2013;17(7):
937–957.
56. Jeon J-S, Lowes LN, DesRoches R, Brilakis I. Fragility curves
for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames that exhibit different
component response mechanisms. Eng Struct. 2015;85:
127–143.
57. American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic evaluation and
retrofit of existing buildings: ASCE/SEI, 41-17. Reston, Vir-
ginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017.
58. Arslan ME, Durmuş A, Hüsem M. Cyclic behavior of GFRP
strengthened infilled RC frames with low and normal strength
concrete. Sci Eng Compos Mater. 2019;26(1):30–42.
59. Yu J, Yu K, Shang X, et al. New extended finite element
method for pinching effect in reinforced concrete columns.
ACI Struct J. 2016;113(4):689–699.
60. Blasi G, de Luca F, Aiello MA. Hybrid micro-modeling
approach for the analysis of the cyclic behavior of RC frames.
Front Built Environ. 2018;4:75.
61. Wan H-T, Han X-I, Ji J. Analyses of reinforced concrete col-
umns by performance-based design method. J Central South
Univ. 2010;41(4):1584–1589.
62. MacGregor J. Ductility of structural elements. Handbook of con-
crete engineering. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989.
63. Nakamura H, Niwa J, Tanabe T-A. An analytical evaluation of
the ductility of reinforced concrete members. Doboku Gakkai
Ronbunshu. 1992;1992(442):127–135.
64. Ziara MM, Haldane D, Kuttab AS. Flexural behavior of beams
with confinement. Struct J. 1995;92(1):103–114.
65. Al-Haddad MS. Curvature ductility of RC beams under low
and high strain rates. Struct J. 1995;92(5):526–534.
66. Park R, Ruitong D. Ductility of doubly reinforced concrete
beam sections. Struct J. 1988;85(2):217–225.
67. Monti G, Petrone F. Yield and ultimate moment and curvature
closed-form equations for reinforced concrete sections. ACI
Struct J. 2015;112(4):463.
68. Llanes-Tizoc MD, Reyes-Salazar A, Bojorquez E, et al. Local,
story, and global ductility evaluation for complex 2D steel build-
ings: Pushover and dynamic analysis. Appl Sci. 2019;9(1):200.
69. Ghosh J, Padgett JE. Aging considerations in the development
of time-dependent seismic fragility curves. J Struct Eng. 2010;
136(12):1497–1511.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Behrouz Kordtabar
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Babol Noshirvani University of
Technology
Babol, Iran
behrouzkordtabar@yahoo.com
KORDTABAR AND DEHESTANI
Mehdi Dehestani
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Babol Noshirvani University
Technology
Babol, Iran
dehestani@nit.ac.ir
View publication stats
23
How to cite this article: Kordtabar B,
Dehestani M. Effect of corrosion in reinforced
of concrete frame components on pushover behavior
and ductility of frame. Structural Concrete. 2020;
1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202000309