buildings
Article
Flexo-Compressive Strength of Reinforced Concrete Frame
Elements Considering Corrosion Process
Franco Carpio 1 , Sergio Márquez-Domínguez 1, * , Andres Carmona 1 , Rolando Salgado 2 ,
Alejandro Vargas 1, * , José Barradas 1 and Dariniel Barrera 2
Citation: Carpio, F.;
Márquez-Domínguez, S.; Carmona,
A.; Salgado, R.; Vargas, A.; Barradas,
J.; Barrera, D. Flexo-Compressive
Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Frame Elements Considering
Corrosion Process. Buildings 2022, 12,
2203. https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12122203
Academic Editor: Alireza Bahrami
Received: 27 October 2022
Accepted: 29 November 2022
Published: 13 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122203
1 Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Veracruzana, S. S. Juan Pablo II, Zona Universitaria,
Boca del Río 94294, VER, Mexico
2 Facultad de Ingeniería de la Construcción y el Hábitat, Universidad Veracruzana,
Adolfo Ruiz Cortines No. 455, Fracc. Costa Verde, Boca del Río 94294, VER, Mexico
* Correspondence: semarquez@uv.mx (S.M.-D.); alejvargas@uv.mx (A.V.)
Abstract: Frame buildings are prone to cracking because of their deformation by normal and extreme
events such as temperature and earthquakes. Even though the crack widths are limited in the
structural design, a cracked cover reduces the corrosion protection of reinforcing steel. Therefore,
the load capacity of structures can be compromised prematurely. This paper aims to evaluate the
flexo-compressive strength of deteriorated reinforced concrete (RC) elements in the corrosion process.
To that end, a methodology to calculate the residual strength capacity was proposed, considering
the influences of crack widths and cover width on the corrosion level—structure age relation of
RC elements. The strength deteriorations caused by the concrete cracking and the steel corrosion
were incorporated according to structure age. The residual strength was studied using parametric
analyses, whose variables were the crack width, the cover width, the rebar diameter, and the structure
age. The results showed that the cracked frame elements reduced their serviceability life by up
to 62%, although their crack widths were within range recommended by the design codes (lesser
than 0.30 mm). In 25 years, the corrosion effects reduce the element strength by up to 44%. This is
due to the corrosion protection provided by the cracked cover becomes insignificant, reducing the
initiation time. Thus, considering the corrosion deterioration can prevent strength overestimations
up to 1.46 times. Additionally, according to their current state, the proposed methodology provides a
practical estimation of flexo-compressive strength in corroded RC elements.
Keywords: corrosion in reinforced concrete; frame elements; deteriorated flexo-compressive strength;
theoretical modeling
1. Introduction
The environment contains aggressive species that can deteriorate structures [1–3].
In this context, coastal zones are attractive to human development due to the economic
resources. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1), the coastal zone is prone to
high amounts of chloride ions and high humidity, the former being the main cause of
corrosion in reinforced concrete (RC) structures [4,5]. Additionally, the corrosion rate of the
reinforcing steel depends on the structure properties such as cover width and water–cement
ratio (w/c).
In all human settlements, RC frame buildings are common structures. The structural
frames are composed of beams and columns. Flexo-compressive strength capacity can be
determined by the axial load-bending moment diagram and the axial load-rotation diagram
(Figure 2). The uncracked limit represents the structural capacity without cracking. The
cracked cover limit is the element capacity when the cracking reaches the reinforcing rebar.
Because of their behavior and the low tensile capacity of concrete, the frame elements tend
to crack, even by the gravitational load and by volumetric changes [6]. Even when the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16

Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 rebar. Because of their behavior and the low tensile capacity of concrete, the frame2 ofele‐ 15
rebar. Because of their behavior and the low tensile capacity of concrete, the frame ele‐
ments tend to crack, even by the gravitational load and by volumetric changes [6]. Even
ments tend to crack, even by the gravitational load and by volumetric changes [6]. Even
when the crack widths of RC elements are limited by design codes [7,8], this cracking
when the crack widths of RC elements are limited by design codes [7,8], this cracking
crack
reduceswidths of RC elements
the corrosion are limited
protection by design
of reinforcing steelcodes [7,8], thisthe
that provides cracking reduces
concrete cover the
[9].
reduces the corrosion protection of reinforcing steel that provides the concrete cover [9].
corrosion protection
Consequently, of reinforcing
deterioration of thesteel that provides
structural the can
elements concrete cover [9]. Consequently,
be incremented within their
Consequently, deterioration
deterioration
of the structural elements can be incremented within their
serviceabilityof the states
limit structural elements can be incremented within their serviceability limit
(SLS).
serviceability
states (SLS). limit states (SLS).

Figure 1. Environmental aggressiveness [10,11].

Figure 1. Environmental
Figure 1. Environmental aggressiveness
aggressiveness [10,11].
[10,11].

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Flexo‐compressive strength:
Flexo-compressive (a) Axial
strength: load—bending
(a) Axial moment
load—bending diagram;
moment (b) Axial
diagram; (b) load—
Axial
Figure 2. Flexo‐compressive strength: (a) Axial load—bending moment diagram; (b) Axial load—
rotation diagram.
load—rotation diagram.
rotation diagram.
In the
the literature,
literature, the
the performance
performance deterioration
deterioration of different
different RC
RC structural
structural elements
elements
In the literature, the performance deterioration of different RC structural elements
and their joints in the corrosion process was studied, such as: piers [12,13], beams [14–16],
and
and their joints in the corrosion process was studied, such as: piers [12,13], beams [14–16],
shear walls
columns [17], shear walls [18],
[18], and
and beam-column
beam‐column jointsjoints [19].
[19]. In the frame
frame elements,
elements, thethe
columns [17], shear walls [18], and beam‐column joints [19]. In the frame elements, the
degradation of the bond strength [20,21] and the flexural strength are capacities generally
degradation
degradation of the bond strength [20,21] and the flexural strength are capacities generally
studied
studied [22,23].
[22,23].InIncontrast,
contrast,there are few
there are studies about about
few studies the degradation of concrete
the degradation strength
of concrete
studied [22,23]. In contrast, there are few studies about the degradation of concrete
and flexo-compressive
strength strength instrength
and flexo‐compressive elements in[24,25].
elements These degradation
[24,25]. strengths have
These degradation been
strengths
strength and flexo‐compressive strength in elements [24,25]. These degradation strengths
analyzed in the corrosion level domain (η) [20]. is defined by Equation
have been analyzed in the corrosion level domain (η) [20]. η is defined by Equation (1),
η (1), where m0
have
and been
m are analyzed in the corrosion level domain (η) [20]. η is defined by Equation (1),
where m0 the
andmass
m areofthe
longitudinal reinforcement
mass of longitudinal before and after
reinforcement corrosion,
before and after respectively.
corrosion,
where m0 and
Moreover, some mofare
thethe mass of longitudinal
studies reinforcement tobefore and after corrosion,
respectively. Moreover, some mentioned above
of the studies do not relate
mentioned above the corrosion
do not relate level
to theand the
corro‐
respectively.
structure Moreover, some of the studies mentioned above do not relate to the corro‐
sion levelage.
and the structure age.
sion level and the structure age. m0 − m
η= (1)
m0
 Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 3 of 15

𝑚 𝑚
𝜂 (1)
𝑚
AAstudy
studyconsidered
considered3939university
universitybuildings
buildingsbuilt
builtininthe
thecoastal
coastalenvironment
environmentof ofBoca
Boca
delRío
del Río[26].
[26].Figure
Figure33shows
showsthe
theRC
RCframe
framebuildings
buildingsthat
thathas
hasmore
moredeterioration
deteriorationthan
thanthe
the
expected.The
expected. Theauthors
authorsconcluded
concludedininthe
thenecessity
necessityto
toevaluate
evaluateand
andtotocalculate
calculatethe
theresidual
residual
capacityof
capacity ofRC
RCframe
frameelements,
elements,taking
takinginto
intoaccount
accounttheir
theircurrent
currentstate.
state.This
Thisexperience
experience
encouragedthe
encouraged thepresent
presentpaper.
paper.

Building locations
Figure 3. University buildings from Boca del Río, Veracruz.
Figure 3. University buildings from Boca del Río, Veracruz.
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the flexo‐compressive strength capacity of dete‐
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the flexo-compressive strength capacity of deterio-
riorated RC elements according to its structural age. To that end, an analytical methodol‐
rated RC elements according to its structural age. To that end, an analytical methodology
ogy to calculate the residual strength was defined. This allowed consideration of the ef‐
to calculate the residual strength was defined. This allowed consideration of the effects
fects due to cracking in the cover and environmental aggressiveness. To validate the pro‐
due to cracking in the cover and environmental aggressiveness. To validate the proposed
posed methodology, its analytical results were compared with experimental tests. The
methodology, its analytical results were compared with experimental tests. The strength de-
strength deterioration was studied using parametric analyses in the structural age do‐
terioration was studied using parametric analyses in the structural age domain. The crack
main. The crack
width, width width,
cover, width cover, ratio
and reinforcement and reinforcement ratio
were considered were considered
variables. variables.
The evaluation was
The evaluation
focused was focused short columns.
short columns.

2.2.Background
Background
2.1.
2.1.Corrosion
CorrosionEffects
Effectsininthe
theMaterial
MaterialStrength
StrengthCapacity
Capacity
Tensile
Tensilestrength
strengthdegradation
degradationofofthe
thereinforcing
reinforcingrebar
rebarwas
wasstudied
studiedbybyWang
Wangetetal.al.[22]
[22]
and
andKashani
Kashanietetal.al.[27].
[27].This
Thisdegradation
degradationisisthe
themain
mainresult
resultof
ofthe
thetransverse
transversearea
areareduction
reduction
in
insteel
steelrebar.
rebar.InInthisthisway,
way,there
thereare
areanalytical
analyticalmodels
models(Figure
(Figure4)4)totoestimate
estimatethe
theresidual
residual
yielding
yieldingforce
force (F Thesemodels
(Fycyc). These modelswerewereproposed
proposedbybyLee
LeeandandChoCho [28]
[28] (Equation
(Equation (2)),
(2)), by
by Wang et at. [22] (Equations (3) and (4)) and by Guo et al. [23] (Equation
Wang et at. [22] (Equations (3) and (4)) and by Guo et al. [23] (Equation (5)). The yielding (5)). The
yielding force
force were were normalized
normalized to forces to forces corrosion.
without without corrosion.
These modelsThese models described
described a similar be‐ a
similar
havior.behavior.
Fyc = 1 − 1.24η (2)
Fyc = 1−1.24η (2)
Fyc = 1 − 1.608η (0 < η ≤ 0.05) (3)
= 1−1.608η
Fyc F=yc0.962 − 0.848η(0(η< >
η ≤0.05)
0.05) (3)
(4)

FycF=yc0.962
= 0.985 − 1.103η
−0.848η (η > 0.05) (5)
(4)
Lin et al. [20] analyzed the corrosion effects in longitudinal and transverse reinforce-
ment on bound behavior and cracking F patterns. −1.103η
yc = 0.985Their (5)
experiment studied the crack width–
corrosion level relation considering the separation between stirrups (Figure 5). Their
experimental specimens had two stirrups separation 100 (LBS2) and 50 cm (LBS4). Mass
loss of transverse reinforcement was almost 3.5 times more than the longitudinal reinforce-
ment, due to its closeness to the boundary. Thus, the transverse reinforcement developed
a local cross-section loss of around 2.68 times the average mass loss. On the other hand,
 0.80

Yield strengt
0.60
0.40 Equation
Eq. (2) 2
Equation
Eq. 3 (4)
(3) and
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 0.20 4 of 15
Equation
Eq. (5) 4
0.00
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
in the transverse reinforcement, the corrosion reduced the confining ability, increased the
Corrosion
crack widths, and changed level pattern.
the cracking
Figure 4. Yielding strength of reinforcing rebar.
1.00
0.80
Lin et al. [20] analyzed the corrosion effects in longitudinal and transverse re
Yield strength
ment
0.60on bound behavior and cracking patterns. Their experiment studied th
width–corrosion level relation considering the separation between stirrups (Fi
0.40 Equation
Eq. (2) 2 had two stirrups separation 100 (LBS2) and 50 cm
Their experimental specimens
Equation
Eq. 3 (4)
(3) and
0.20loss of transverse reinforcement was almost 3.5 times more than the long
Mass Equation
Eq. (5) 4
reinforcement,
0.00 due to its closeness to the boundary. Thus, the transverse reinfo
0% a local
developed 5% cross‐section
10% 15% loss
20%
of around 2.68 times the average mass loss
other hand, in the transverse
Corrosion level reinforcement, the corrosion reduced the confining
increased the crack widths, and changed the cracking pattern.
Figure
Figure 4.4.Yielding
Yielding strength
strength of reinforcing
of reinforcing rebar. rebar.

Lin et al. [20] analyzed the corrosion effects in longitudinal and transverse re
ment on bound behavior and cracking patterns. Their experiment studied th
width–corrosion level relation considering the separation between stirrups (Fi
Their experimental specimens had two stirrups separation 100 (LBS2) and 50 cm
Mass loss of transverse reinforcement was almost 3.5 times more than the long
reinforcement, due to its closeness to the boundary. Thus, the transverse reinfor
developed a local cross‐section loss of around 2.68 times the average mass loss.
other hand, in the transverse reinforcement, the corrosion reduced the confining
increased the crack widths, and changed the cracking pattern.
Figure
Figure 5. 5. Comparison
Comparison of crack
of crack width, width,
varying varying the separation
the separation between
between stirrups [20]. stirrups [20].

From the main results found in experiments by [20], it can determinate that the
From the main results found in experiments by [20], it can determinate that th
transverse reinforcement lost its continuity after 0.2 of η. Therefore, the authors considered
verse
that an reinforcement lost itsstrength
evaluation of residual continuity afteris0.2
capacity of η.to
limited Therefore, the authors
0.2 of η. Moreover, theconside
an evaluation of residual strength capacity is limited to 0.2 of η. Moreover, the
concrete cracking can increment around 1.4 times due to the influences of the transverse
reinforcement
cracking can(Figure 5). Thisaround
increment is because1.4the LBS2due
times specimens
to thehad stirrup separations
influences that
of the transverse re
were double than LBS4 specimens.
ment (Figure 5). This is because the LBS2 specimens had stirrup separations th
Corrosion degrades the compressive strength capacity that withstands the concrete
double
due than LBS4
to produced specimens.
cracking. Shayanfar et al. [29] evaluated the reduced compressive strength
(Fcc ) inCorrosion
concretes with degrades the compressive
different water–cement strength
ratios (w/c capacity
= 0.4, 0.45 and 0.5,that withstands
Figure 6). Their the
evaluated specimen only had longitudinal rebars. From these
due to produced cracking. Shayanfar et al. [29] evaluated the reduced com results, an analytical model
was proposed to calculate the residual strength of concrete (Equation (6)) considering the
strength (Fcc) in concretes with different water–cement ratios (w/c = 0.4, 0.45 and 0.5
Figure
corrosion 5. level
Comparison of crack width,
and water–cement ratio ofvarying
concretethe separation
(Equations between stirrups [20].
(7)–(9)).
6). Their evaluated specimen only had longitudinal rebars. From these results, an
ical model wasmain
From the proposed
resultstofound
calculate the
Fcc = (1 − λ)Fresidual
c
in experiments bystrength of concrete
[20], it can (Equation
(6)
determinate that th
sidering the corrosion level and water–cement ratio of concrete (Equations
verse reinforcement lost its continuity after 0.2 of η. Therefore, the authors conside (7)–(9
where:
an evaluation of residual λ =strength
2.576(η) −capacity
1.876 F cc =is=
(w/c −λ)Fc to 0.2 of η. Moreover,
(1limited
0.50) (7) the c
cracking can increment λaround 1.4−times
= 2.288(η) due =to0.45)
1.733 (w/c the influences of the transverse
(8) re
where:
ment (Figure 5). This is because the LBS2 specimens had stirrup separations th
λ = 2.72(η) − 1.98 (w/c = 0.40) (9)
double than LBS4 specimens. λ = 2.576(η)−1.876 (w/c = 0.50)
Corrosion degrades the compressive strength capacity that withstands the c
2.288(η)−1.733
due to produced cracking.λ =Shayanfar et al. (w/c[29] =evaluated
0.45) the reduced comp
strength (Fcc) in concretes with different water–cement ratios (w/c = 0.4, 0.45 and 0.5
6). Their evaluated specimenλonly had −longitudinal
= 2.72(η) 1.98 (w/c = 0.40) rebars. From these results, an
ical model was proposed to calculate the residual strength of concrete (Equation (
sidering the corrosion level and water–cement ratio of concrete (Equations (7)–(9)
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 5 of 15

1.00

Compressive strength
0.80
0.60
0.40
w/c = 0.50
0.20 w/c = 0.45
w/c = 0.40
0.00
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Corrosion level
Figure 6. Compressive strength of concrete cover [29].
Figure 6. Compressive strength of concrete cover [29].
2.2. Residual Element Strength Capacity
2.2. Residual Element
The residual Strength
strength Capacity
of corroded elements has been studied by experimental test
using specimens corroded by accelerated methods. The flexo-compressive strength was
The residual strength of corroded elements has been studied by experiment
obtained by applying incremental loads with contact eccentricity [22,30]. In contrast, flexure
using specimens
strength is found bycorroded
incremental byload
accelerated
in beams with methods. The flexo‐compressive
simple supports [22,23]. strengt
obtained by applying incremental loads with contact eccentricity [22,30].
In the literature, there are different recommendations to calculate the flexo-compressive In contras
strength
ure strength of corroded
is foundelements. Tapan and
by incremental Aboutaha
load in beams [31] with
did not consider
simple the contri-
supports [22,23].
bution of the concrete cover in one or more element faces according to
In the literature, there are different recommendations to calculate the flexo‐com element states.
Campione et al. [32,33] related to the corrosion effects, the confinement loss and the crit-
sive strength of corroded elements. Tapan and Aboutaha [31] did not consider the c
ical load axial. On the other hand, this strength was studied in the context of hysteretic
bution of These
behavior. the concrete
proposals cover in one
were focused onorthemore element
effect of facesdegradation
reinforcement according[25,34].
to element
Campione
Yu et al. [25]etanalyzed
al. [32,33]
the related tointhe
variability corrosion
corrosion damageeffects theand
models confinement loss and the c
its effect on seismic
collapse fragility. They concluded that in the deterioration mechanism
load axial. On the other hand, this strength was studied in the context of hysteretic b due to corrosion,
the maximum influence was caused by the yield strength and ultimate deformation. In
ior. These proposals were focused on the effect of reinforcement degradation [25,3
all these studies, to estimate the residual strength, corrosion level needed to be known.
etThus,
al. [25] analyzed
in order the existing
to evaluate variability in corrosion
buildings, the corrosiondamage
level ismodels
the mainand its effect
parameter to on s
collapse fragility. They concluded that in the deterioration mechanism due to corr
be defined.
the maximum influence was caused by the yield strength and ultimate deformation
2.3. The Estimation of Corrosion Level
these studies, to estimate the residual strength, corrosion level needed to be known.
In the design codes [35,36], a certain level of deterioration in the RC elements are
inallowable,
order towhile
evaluate existing buildings, the corrosion level is the main parameter
the reduction in structural capacity is insignificant. This period where the
defined.
deterioration is allowable is named ‘serviceability life’. The serviceability life of the RC
element (TL , defined by Equation (10)) considers the initiation time (ti , Equation (11)) and
theThe
2.3. propagation
Estimationtimeof(tpCorrosion
, Equation Level
(12)). The first time is related to the period where rebar
corrosion begins, and the second time is to the additional period for significant degradation
Instructural
of the the design codes
element [35,36],
occurs. a certain
In contrast, in thelevel ofofdeterioration
design RC elements, the incracks
the RCare elemen
allowable,
allowable, while the crack widths do not exceed its limit. In a coastal environment, the limitperiod
while the reduction in structural capacity is insignificant. This
crack
the width is between
deterioration 0.15 and 0.30
is allowable mm [7,8].‘serviceability
is named In this way, the serviceability life in cracked life of t
life’. The serviceability
element (tL, defined by Equation (10)) considers the initiation time (ti, design.
elements decreases significantly [9]. This effect must be considered in the structural Equation (11
the propagation time (tp, EquationT(12)). The first time is related to the period
L = ti + t p (10) where
corrosion begins, and the second time is to the additional period for significant deg
where:
tion of the structural element occurs. In contrast, in the design of RC elements, the
C 2

t = (11)
are allowable, while the crack widths doK not exceed its limit. In a coastal environme
i

limit crack width is between 0.15 and 0.30 80C

mm [7,8]. In this way, the serviceability
tp =
cracked elements decreases significantly (12) in the
[9]. This effect must be considered
φVcor
tural design.
In the case of chloride-induced corrosion, the serviceability life (Equations (7) and (13))
𝑇
depends on the corrosion rate (Vcor ), the chloride 𝑡 𝑡
penetration coefficient (K), the rebar

where:
𝐶
𝑡
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 6 of 15

diameter (φ), and its depth (dr , in mm). To estimate the cover width (C), the exposure time
(t in years) is required.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW The penetration coefficient (K, Equation (14)) is related to the critical
6 of 16
chloride concentration, (Cth , % weight of cement), the surface chloride concentration (Cs ,
% weight of cement), the content of chlorides in raw materials (Cb , % weight of cement),
and the diffusion coefficient (D). This coefficient is influenced by the crack width (w, in
(t in years)
Equation is required.
(15), [9]). The penetration coefficient (K, Equation (14)) is related to the crit‐
ical chloride concentration, (Cth, % weight √
ofKcement), the surface chloride concentration
dr = t (13)
(Cs, % weight of cement), the content q of chlorides rin raw materials (Cb, % weight of ce‐
cth −
 
ment), and the diffusion coefficient
K = 56157 (D).
12DThis
(t) coefficient
1− is cinfluenced
b by the crack width
(14)
(w, in Equation (15), [9]). c s − cb
−8 13.1w
×√10
D = 𝑑8.25 𝐾 𝑡 e (15)
(13)
3. Description of Parametric Analyses 𝑐 𝑐
In order to evaluate 𝐾 the 56157 12𝐷strength
residual 𝑡 1 in the domain of the structure age,(14) an
𝑐 𝑐
analytical methodology is defined. Two parametric analyses are developed (Table 1): in the
first, the effect of crack width and 𝐷 rebar diameter𝑒 on. the initiation time and the propagation
8.25𝑥10 (15)
time are studied. In the second, these effects on the residual strength of structural sections
that has different arrangement of reinforcement (Figure 7) is evaluated. For parametric
3. Description
analyses, of Parametric
a square cross section Analyses
of 60 cm was considered.
In order to evaluate the residual strength in the domain of the structure age, an ana‐
Table 1. Parameters and their ranges considered by the parametric analyses.
lytical methodology is defined. Two parametric analyses are developed (Table 1): in the
first,
Cover Width the effect of crackCrack
width and rebar diameter
Width Rebar onDiameter
the initiation timeStructure
and the Agepropaga‐
Analysis tion time are studied. In the second, these effects on the residual strength of structural
mm mm mm Years
sections that has different arrangement of reinforcement (Figure 7) is evaluated. For par‐
1st 30, 50 and 70 0, 0.075 0.15, 0.225 and 0.30 12.7 and 25.4 0, 25 and 50
2nd ametric
30, 50 and 70analyses, a square0, 0.15 cross section of 60 12.7,
and 0.30 cm was 19.1 considered.
and 25.4 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50

Figure 7. Structural
Figure 7. Structural sections
sections evaluated
evaluated in
in the
the second
second analysis.
analysis.

The studied parameters considered as variables are: the crack width (w), the cover
Table 1. Parameters and their ranges considered by the parametric analyses.
width (C), the rebar diameter (φ), and the structure age (as ). The structure age is evaluated
between 0 Cover
and 50Width
years: that is Crack Width life range
a serviceability RebarofDiameter
conventional Structure
structuresAge[35,36].
Analysis
The crack width mmrange and the concrete
mm properties are defined,
mm taking intoYears
account the
recommendations for coastal environment
0, 0.075 [35]
0.15, 0.225 (Table 2). The reinforcement arrangements
and
1st represent
proposed 30, 50 and 70 of the reinforcement ratio (9 arrangements,
1.1% 12.7 and 25.4 from S1 0,to
25S9,
and 50 7).
Figure
0.30
Due to change in the rebar diameter, the effective cover12.7,
and19.1
the effective
and 0,depth
10, 20,are
30,modified
40 and
2nd3). The
(Table 30, 50 and 70of both0,parameters
location 0.15 and 0.30is considered at the rebar centroid. The other
25.4 50
properties are determined, taking into account typically column sections [11,25]. To evaluate
the residual strength capacity, corrosion at all bars was assumed as a deterioration case [31].
The studied parameters considered as variables are: the crack width (w), the cover
width (C), the rebar diameter (ϕ), and the structure age (as). The structure age is evaluated
between 0 and 50 years: that is a serviceability life range of conventional structures [35,36].
The crack width range and the concrete properties are defined, taking into account the
recommendations for coastal environment [35] (Table 2). The reinforcement arrangements
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 7 of 15

Table 2. Material properties.

Materials Parameters Values Units

Elasticity modulus, E 26,031 MPa
Poisson coefficient, n 0.2
Concrete Concrete tensile strength, ft 2.3 MPa
Concrete compressive strength, fc 35 MPa
water-cement ratio, w/c 0.40
Elasticity modulus, E 200,000 MPa
Reinforcing steel Yield strength, fy 420 MPa
Reinforcement ratio, r 1.1 %

Table 3. Section properties.

Cover Width Rebar Diameter Effective Depth Effective Cover

Section
mm mm mm mm
C30-D12.7 30 12.7 501.9 98.1
C30-D19.1 30 19.1 495.5 104.5
C30-D2.54 30 25.4 489.2 110.8
C50-D12.7 50 12.7 461.9 138.1
C50-D19.1 50 19.1 455.5 144.5
C50-D2.54 50 25.4 449.2 150.8
C70-D12.7 70 12.7 421.9 178.1
C70-D19.1 70 19.1 415.5 184.5
C70-D2.54 70 25.4 409.2 190.8
C30-D12.7 30 12.7 501.9 98.1
C30-D19.1 30 19.1 495.5 104.5
C30-D2.54 30 25.4 489.2 110.8

4. Determination of Residual Strength

4.1. Proposed Methodolgy
In order to determine the residual strength, the methodology was proposed:
• The initiation time (ti , Equation (11)) is defined according to EHE-08 [35]. In the
penetration coefficient (K, Equation (14)), the crack width effects on the diffusion
coefficient (D, Equation (15), [9]) is incorporated.
• The exposition time (te , Equation (16)) is the differences between the initiation time
and the structure age (as ).
• The corroded volume of rebar (Rc , Equation (17)) is determined by means of the
exposition time (te ) and the corrosion rate (Vcorr ) and the rebar surface (Sb ).
• The corrosion level is calculated assuming that uniform corrosion in the length of each
bar. Thus, this can be defined by the ratio between the corroded (Ac ) and initial areas
(A0 ) of rebar (η, Equation (18)).
• The residual strength of the rebar (FYc , Equation (5), [23]) and the concrete cover
(Fcc , Equation (6), [29]) are defined according to the corrosion level. In contrast, the
corrosion effects are insignificant in the concrete core.
• The residual flexo-compressive strength is determined by the interaction diagram of
the axial load and bending moment. The incorporation of the material strengths is
assumed according to the method of corrosion effect factors [25].

t e = ti + a s (16)
Rc = te Sb Vcor (17)
A0 − A c
η= (18)
A0
 assumed according to the method of corrosion effect factors [25].

𝑡 𝑡 𝑎 (16)

𝑅 𝑡 𝑆 𝑉 (17)
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 8 of 15
𝐴 𝐴
𝜂 (18)
𝐴
The proposed methodology considered the column properties (C and w/c) and the
The proposed methodology considered the column properties (C and w/c) and the
information relative to its current state (as and w) that influence the corrosion process.
information relative to its current state (as and w) that influence the corrosion process.
Additionally, the deterioration case of the structural elements [31] can be evaluated
Additionally, the deterioration case of the structural elements [31] can be evaluated through
through the difference between the core and the cover concrete.
the difference between the core and the cover concrete.
4.2. Validation
4.2. Validation
The proposed
The proposedmethodology
methodologyisisvalidated
validatedusing
usingexperimental
experimentalresults.
results.
ToTo that
that effect,
effect, it
it is
is considered experiments of eccentric compression in columns (D1 [37]; D2
considered experiments of eccentric compression in columns (D1 [37]; D2 and D3 [30], seeand D3 [30],
see Figure
Figure 8) and
8) and bending
bending experiments
experiments (D4 (D4
[23],[23], see Figure
see Figure 8). resistance
8). The The resistance
was was calcu‐
calculated
lated by the means of the proposed methodology considering the design
by the means of the proposed methodology considering the design specifications and the specifications
and the corrosion
corrosion level.
level. The The experimental
experimental and calculated
and calculated strengthsstrengths are normalized
are normalized accordingaccord‐
to the
ing to thewithout
elements elements without corrosion.
corrosion. Thedegradation
The strength strength degradation
is compared is compared oncorrosion
on the level the level
corrosion
domain domain
(Figure 9).(Figure 9).

(a) (b)
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Structural
Structuralsections
sectionsofofspecimens
specimenstested: (a)(a)
tested: Sections tested
Sections in flexo‐compression
tested [30,37];
in flexo-compression (b)
[30,37];
section tested in bending moment [23].
(b) section tested in bending moment [23].
1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0
0.9 0.9
strength

strength

0.9 0.9
Normalizedstrength

Normalizedstrength

0.8
0.8 0.8
0.8
0.7 0.7
Normalized

Normalized

0.7 0.7
0.6
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5 0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4 0.4
0.4
00 22 44 66 88 10
10 00 55 10
10 15
15
Corrosion
Corrosion level
level (%)
(%) Corrosion
Corrosion level
level (%)
(%)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)

Figure 9. The validation of strength degradation: (a) Flexo-compressive strength; (b) bending strength.

Section D1, whose eccentricity is 90 mm, does not compare due to its uncertain
tendency since the 2% corrosion level reduces the strength by 67%. From the validation,
a significant difference (up to 20%) obtains in flexo-compressive strength (Figure 9a); in
contrast, in the bending strength capacity, this is neglectable (lower than 10%, Figure 9b).
This difference is because the corrosion level was the average of rebars in the experiments.
 strength.

Section D1, whose eccentricity is 90 mm, does not compare due to its uncertain ten‐
dency since the 2% corrosion level reduces the strength by 67%. From the validation, a
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203
significant difference (up to 20%) obtains in flexo‐compressive strength (Figure 9a); in
9 of 15
contrast, in the bending strength capacity, this is neglectable (lower than 10%, Figure 9b).
This difference is because the corrosion level was the average of rebars in the experiments.
Moreover, the spalling of the concrete cover caused by stirrup corrosion was not consid‐
Moreover, the spalling of the concrete cover caused by stirrup corrosion was not considered
ered in the proposed methodology. In the flexural domain, the difference was lower than
in the proposed methodology. In the flexural domain, the difference was lower than in
in the flexo‐compression domain. Where the concrete contribution to the bending strength
the flexo-compression domain. Where the concrete contribution to the bending strength
capacity is insignificant. Thus, the proposed methodology is suitable for estimating the
capacity is insignificant. Thus, the proposed methodology is suitable for estimating the
residual flexo‐compressive strength of elements whose corrosion level is lower than 20%.
residual flexo-compressive strength of elements whose corrosion level is lower than 20%.
5. Effects
5. on RC
Effects on RC Durability
Durability
The durability
The durability was was studied
studied through
through the the serviceability
serviceability life
life (T
(TL)) that was divided by
L that was divided by
initiation time (t i) and propagation time (tp). To that effect, the relations of the initiation
initiation time (ti ) and propagation time (tp ). To that effect, the relations of the initiation
time‐crack width
time-crack width and andpropagation
propagationtime—rebar
time—rebardiameterdiameterwere were analyzed.
analyzed. TheThe influences
influences of
of crack width (w), cover width (C), and the rebar diameter (ϕ) on the
crack width (w), cover width (C), and the rebar diameter (φ) on the durability of reinforced durability of rein‐
forced concrete
concrete were considered.
were considered.
The influence
The influenceofofcrackcrackwidth
widthonon thethe initiation
initiation time time
andand propagation
propagation timetime
was was ana‐
analyzed
lyzed (Figure 10). The initiation time is significant influenced by the cover
(Figure 10). The initiation time is significant influenced by the cover width. In the uncracked width. In the
uncracked elements, the increment of cover width (C = 3—7 cm)
elements, the increment of cover width (C = 3–7 cm) increases the initiation time up toincreases the initiation
4time up In
times. to the
4 times.
crackedIn the crackedregardless
elements, elements,of regardless
the coverof the cover
width, width,from
the change the change from
crack width
crack
(w widthmm)
= 0–0.30 (w =significantly
0—0.30 mm) significantly
reduces reduces
the initiation timethe(up
initiation
to 98%, time
Figure(up to 98%,
10a). Figure
In addition,
10a).propagation
the In addition,time the propagation
reduces 50%time duereduces
to change50% thedue to change
rebar diameter the(φ
rebar diameter
= 12.7–25.4 (ϕ
mm,
= 12.7—25.4
Figure 10b). mm,
On the Figure 10b).
other On the
hand, as theother hand,
cover as the
width cover width
increment increment
20 mm, 20 mm,
increases the
increases thetime
propagation propagation
by 34%. time by 34%.

25 25
C = 30 mm C = 30mm
C = 50 mm C = 50mm
Propagation time (yr)

20 C = 70 mm
20
C = 70mm
Initial time (yr)

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 10 15 20 25 30
Crack width (mm) Bar diameter (mm)
(a) (b)
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Initiation
Initiationand
andpropagation
propagationtimes
timesinin
reinforced concrete
reinforced sections:
concrete (a) (a)
sections: Initiation time;
Initiation (b)
time;
propagation time.
(b) propagation time.

The influences
The influences of
of cover
cover width
width (C)
(C) and
and crack
crack width
width (w)(w) on
on the
the service
service life
life of
of the
the struc‐
struc-
tural element are studied (Figure 11). In uncracked sections, a cover increment
tural element are studied (Figure 11). In uncracked sections, a cover increment of 20 of 20 mm
mm
increases the
increases theservice
servicelife
lifeby
byaround
around 50%.
50%. InIn contrast,
contrast, in cracked
in cracked sections
sections (w =(w0.30
= 0.30 mm),
mm), the
service life increment is up to 34%. Therefore, the service life is reduced up to 36% due to
crack width effect.
The corrosion level–crack width relation is evaluated in elements with different structure
ages (Figure 12). For the same section, the increment of rebar diameter (φ = 12.7–25.4 mm)
reduces the corrosion level up to 50% during its serviceability life. On the other hand, the
corrosion level presents significant differences between uncracked and cracked sections
by the increment of the cover width and the crack width. This is due to the relation
between these parameters and initiation time. In 25 years, the uncracked sections reduce
their corrosion level by up to 86%. In contrast, in the cracked sections with a crack width
of 0.30 mm, the corrosion level is similar (differences lower than 2%). This difference
is reduced to reach structure age of 30 years (differences lower than 8% with w = 0.15).
This is due to the corrosion protection provided by the cracked cover being negligible.
Therefore, the maximum corrosion level is reached in the section with the lower rebar
diameter (φ = 12.7 mm) and a higher crack width (w = 0.30 mm).
 Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 10 of 15

the service life increment is up to 34%. Therefore, the service life is reduced up to 36% due
to crack width effect.

50 50 50
C = 30 mm C = 30 mm C = 30 mm
Serviceability life (yr)

Serviceability life (yr)

Serviceability life (yr)

40 C = 50 mm 40 C = 50 mm 40 C = 50 mm
C = 70 mm C = 70 mm C = 70 mm
30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Crack width (mm) Crack width (mm) Crack width (mm)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 11. Serviceability life in reinforced concrete sections: (a) ϕ = 12.7 mm; (b) ϕ = 19.1 mm; (c) ϕ
Figure
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR Serviceability
11. PEER REVIEW
= 25.4 mm. life in reinforced concrete sections: (a) φ = 12.7 mm; (b) φ = 19.1 mm; 11 of 16

(c) φ = 25.4 mm.

The corrosion level–crack width relation is evaluated in elements with different
35 structure ages (Figure 12). For35 the same section, the increment 35 of rebar diameter (ϕ =
30 12.7—25.4 mm) reduces the corrosion
30 level up to 50% during 30its serviceability life. On the
Corrosion level (%)

Corrosion level (%)

Corrosion level (%)

other hand, the corrosion level presents significant differences between uncracked and
25 25 25
cracked sections by the increment of the cover width and the crack width. This is due to
20
20 the relation between these parameters and initiation time. In 20
25 years, the uncracked sec‐
15 by up to 86%. In contrast, in15the cracked sections with a
15 tions reduce their corrosion level
10 crack width of 0.30 mm, the10 corrosion level is similar (differences
10 lower than 2%). This
difference is reduced to reach structure age of 30 years (differences lower than 8% with w
5 5 5
= 0.15). This is due to the corrosion protection provided by the cracked cover being negli‐
0 gible. Therefore, the maximum 0 corrosion level is reached in 0the section with the lower
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
0.00
rebar0.10
diameter
Crack
0.20(ϕ = 12.7
width (mm)
0.30 mm) and aCrack
higher crack
width width (w = 0.300.00
(mm) mm). 0.10 0.20
Crack width (mm)
0.30
C = 30 mm C = 50 mm C = 70 mm
(a)
35 35 35
30 30 30
Corrosion level (%)

Corrosion level (%)

Corrosion level (%)

25 25 25
20 20 20
15 15 15
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Crack width (mm) Crack width (mm) Crack width (mm)
C = 30 mm C = 50 mm C = 70 mm
(b)
35 35 35
30 30 30
Corrosion level (%)

Corrosion level (%)

Corrosion level (%)

25 25 25
20 20 20
15 15 15
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Crack width (mm) Crack width (mm) Crack width (mm)
C = 30 mm C = 50 mm C = 70 mm
(c)
as= 0 yr as= 20 yr as= 30 yr as= 50 yr
as= 10 yr as= 25 yr as= 40 yr

Figure
Figure 12. Corrosion 12.(a)
level: Corrosion level:
φ = 12.7 mm; (a)(b)
ϕ =φ12.7 mm;mm;
= 19.1 (b) ϕ (c)
= 19.1
φ =mm; (c)mm.
25.4 ϕ = 25.4 mm.

The initiation time depends on the concrete cover. Regardless of the width cover, the
initiation time is significantly reduced (up to 98%) because of the crack with effect, event
within its recommended range. It is due to the initiation time which was significantly re‐
duced (up to 98%) because of the cracked cover. As a result, the serviceability life can
reduce up to 62% (C = 7 cm).

6. Corrosion Effects on Flexo‐Compressive Strength

Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 11 of 15

The initiation time depends on the concrete cover. Regardless of the width cover, the
initiation time is significantly reduced (up to 98%) because of the crack with effect, event
within its recommended range. It is due to the initiation time which was significantly
reduced (up to 98%) because of the cracked cover. As a result, the serviceability life can
reduce up to 62% (C = 7 cm).
Buildings
Buildings2022,
2022,12,
12,xx FOR
FORPEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 12
12 of
of16
16
6. Corrosion Effects on Flexo-Compressive Strength
The strength degradation is analyzed within flexo-compression behavior: bending
(B), flexo-compression with failure in tension (FCI), balanced flexo-compression (BFC),
flexo‐compression
flexo‐compression in in compression
compression (FCC),
(FCC), and
and compression
compression (C, (C, Figure
Figure 13).
13). To
To define
define the
the
flexo-compression in compression (FCC), and compression (C, Figure 13). To define the
flexo‐compressive
flexo‐compressive strength
strength inin tension
tension and
and compression,
compression, constant
constant axial
axial loads
loads ofof 2000
2000 (0.15
(0.15
flexo-compressive strength in tension and compression, constant axial loads of 2000 (0.15
of
of compressive
compressive strength)
strength) and
and 7500
7500 kNkN (0.60
(0.60 of
of compressive
compressive strength)
strength) areare considered.
considered.
of compressive strength) and 7500 kN (0.60 of compressive strength) are considered. These
These
These axial
axial loads
loads produce
produce that
that strengths
strengths were
were defined
defined by
by the
the failure
failure in
in tension
tension oror com‐
com‐
axial loads produce that strengths were defined by the failure in tension or compression,
pression,
pression, respectively.
respectively. The
The strength
strength was
was not
not calculated
calculated when
when the
the corrosion
corrosion level
level exceeds
exceeds
respectively. The strength was not calculated when the corrosion level exceeds 20% which
20% which is the limit
limit by
by the proposed
proposed methodology. The influences of structure age,
is20%
the which
limit by is the
theproposed the
methodology. methodology.
The influencesThe influences
of structure age, ofconcrete
structure age,
cover,
concrete
concrete cover,
cover, and
and rebar
rebar diameter
diameter are
are taken
taken into
into account.
account. The
The strengths
strengths were
were normalized
normalized
and rebar diameter are taken into account. The strengths were normalized according to the
according
according
element
to
to the
without the element
element without
corrosion. without corrosion.
corrosion.

Figure13.
Figure 13. Analyzed
Analyzed strengths
strengthscapacities.
capacities.

In
In all
allthe
thesections
sections with
sections withthe
thelowest
lowestcover
coverwidth
width(30
(30mm),
mm),the
mm), thecorrosion
corrosionlevel
corrosion levelexceeds
level exceeds
exceeds
20%
20% atat ages
ages of
of30
30years
30 years(Figure
years (Figure14).
(Figure 14). In
14). In the
the sections
sections with
with crack
crack widths
widths between
between 0.15 0.15 and
and
0.30
0.30 mm,
mm, thethe degradation
degradation strength
strength shows
shows aa similar
similar deterioration, since itit has
deterioration, since has aa similar
similar
corrosion
corrosionlevel
leveldue
duetotoinsignificant
to insignificantprotection
insignificant protectionprovided
protection providedby
provided bycracked
by crackedcover.
cracked cover.
cover.

35
35 35
35 35
35
30
30 30
30 30
30
(%)
level (%)
(%)

(%)
level (%)

level (%)

25
25 25
25 25
25
Corrosion level
Corrosion level

Corrosion level

20
20 20
20 20
20
Corrosion
Corrosion

Corrosion

15
15 15
15 15
15
10
10 10
10 10
10
55 55 55
00 00 00
00 10
10 20
20 3030 40
40 50
50 00 10
10 20
20 3030 40
40 50
50 00 10
10 20
20 3030 40
40 50
50
Age
Age (yr)
(yr) Age
Age (yr)
(yr) Age
Age (yr)
(yr)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
CC==30
30mm
mmww==00mm
mm CC==50
50mm
mmww==00mm
mm CC==70
70mm
mmww==00mm
mm
CC==30
30mm
mmww==0.15
0.15mm
mm CC==50
50mm
mmww==0.15
0.15mm
mm CC==70
70mm
mmww==0.15
0.15mm
mm
CC==30
30mm
mmww==0.30
0.30mm
mm CC==50
50mm
mmww==0.30
0.30mm
mm CC==70
70mm
mmww==0.30
0.30mm
mm

Figure 14.
Figure14.
Figure Corrosion
14. Corrosion level
Corrosionlevel of
levelof evaluated
ofevaluated sections:
evaluatedsections: (a)
sections:(a) ϕϕ=
(a)φ == 12.7
12.7 mm;
12.7 mm; (b)
mm; (b) ϕ
(b) == 19.1
φϕ= 19.1 mm;
19.1 mm; (c)
mm; (c) ϕ
(c) == 25.4
φϕ= 25.4 mm.
25.4 mm.
mm.

In cracked
Incracked
In crackedRC RC elements,
RC elements, the
elements, thethe flexo‐compressive strength
flexo‐compressivestrength
flexo-compressive decreases
strengthdecreases
decreasesas as soon
assoon
soonas as they
asthey are
they are
are
exposed to
exposed to the
the environment,
environment, crackcrack width
width and
and cover
cover width
width (w(w === 0.15–0.30
0.15–0.30 mm)mm) havehave nono
significant
significanteffect
effectononthe
thestrength
strengthdeterioration
deterioration(Figure
(Figure15).
15).This
Thisis
isbecause
becausethe thedeterioration
deterioration
of
of the
the reinforcement
reinforcement is is activated
activated as as soon
soon as
as the
the element
element is
is exposed
exposed (Figure
(Figure 14).
14). In
In contrast,
contrast,
increasing
increasing the rebar diameter (ϕ =12.7–25.4 mm) reduces the strength deterioration up
the rebar diameter (ϕ =12.7–25.4 mm) reduces the strength deterioration up to
to
28%.
28%. This
This is
is aa consequence
consequence of of the
the reduction
reduction inin the
the corrosion
corrosion level
level upup to
to 20%
20% inin larger
larger rebar
rebar
diameters.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 12 of 15

significant effect on the strength deterioration (Figure 15). This is because the deterioration
of the reinforcement is activated as soon as the element is exposed (Figure 14). In contrast,
increasing the rebar diameter (φ = 12.7–25.4 mm) reduces the strength deterioration up
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
to 28%. This is a consequence of the reduction in the corrosion level up to 13 of 16
20% in larger
rebar diameters.
1.10 1.10 1.10
1.00 1.00
Normalized strength

1.00

Normalized strength
Normalized strength
0.90 0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80 0.80

0.70 0.70 0.70

0.60 0.60 0.60

ϕ = 12.7 mm ϕ = 19.1 mm 0.50 ϕ = 25.4 mm
0.50 0.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Age (yr) Age (yr) Age (yr)
(a)
1.10 1.10 1.10
1.00 1.00 1.00
Normalized strength

Normalized strength

Normalized strength
0.90 0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60 0.60
ϕ = 12.7 mm ϕ = 19.1 mm ϕ = 25.4 mm
0.50 0.50 0.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Age (yr) Age (yr) Age (yr)
(b)
1.10 1.10 1.10
1.00 1.00 1.00
Normalized strength

Normalized strength

Normalized strength

0.90 0.90 0.90

0.80 0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70 0.70

0.60 0.60 0.60

ϕ = 12.7 mm ϕ = 19.1 mm ϕ = 25.4 mm
0.50 0.50 0.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Age (yr) Age (yr) Age (yr)
(c)
1.10 1.10 1.10
1.00 1.00 1.00
Normalized strength

Normalized strength
Normalized strength

0.90 0.90 0.90

0.80 0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60 0.60
0.50 0.50 0.50
0.40 0.40 0.40
ϕ = 12.7 mm ϕ = 19.1 mm ϕ = 25.4 mm
0.30 0.30 0.30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Age (yr) Age (yr) Age (yr)
(d)
1.10 1.10 1.10
1.00 1.00 1.00
Normalized strength

Normalized strength

Normalized strength

0.90 0.90 0.90

0.80 0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60 0.60
ϕ = 12.7 mm ϕ = 19.1 mm ϕ = 25.4 mm
0.50 0.50 0.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Age (yr) Age (yr) Age (yr)
(e)
C = 30 mm w = 0 mm C = 50 mm w = 0 mm C = 70 mm w = 0 mm
C = 30 mm w = 0.15 mm C = 50 mm w = 0.15 mm C = 70 mm w = 0.15 mm
C = 30 mm w = 0.30 mm C = 50 mm w = 0.30 mm C = 70 mm w = 0.30 mm

Figure 15. The normalized strength–structure age relation: (a) Bending strength; (b) flexo‐compres‐
Figure strength The
sive15. normalized
in bending domain; (c) strength–structure age strength;
balanced flexo‐compressive relation:(d) flexo‐compressive
(a) Bending strength;
(b) flexo-compressive strength
strength in compression domain;in(e) tension domain;
compressive strength. (c) balanced flexo-compressive strength;
(d) flexo-compressive strength in compression domain; (e) compressive strength.

In 25 years, the corrosion effects reduce the strength by up to 44 and 20% in cracked
and uncracked sections, respectively. The crack width effect reduces the flexo-compressive
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 13 of 15

strength up to 38% more, even though they are within the recommended limit to design
(Table 4). The deterioration effects can reduce up to 55% by incrementing of the rebar
diameter or the cover width. Within flexo-compressive strength, when strength is defined
by the compression, the decrement was worse (up to 1.46 times more). This is due to
concrete cracking that is produced by the corrosion of reinforcing steel. On the other hand,
the bending strength can decrease up to 12% by the effect of crack width. The increment of
rebar diameter or the cover width can reduce up to 30% of the strength deterioration.

Table 4. Reduction in flexo-compressive strength in 25 years.

Strength Reduction (%)

Maximus Value Parameter
B FCT BFC FCC C
w = 0 mm 13 10 14 20 13
Combined effect
w = 0.3 mm 19 19 31 44 26
Crack width 15 15 27 38 22
Individual effect Concrete cover 9 7 14 17 10
Bar diameter 9 7 14 22 12

The crack widths recommended accelerate the deterioration of flexo-compressive

strength. This is between 2 and 8% per year, depending on the rebar. The use of larger
rebar diameters (φ from 12.7 to 25.4 mm) can reduce strength deterioration by up to 9% per
year. In contrast, the cracked cover (w = 0.15 mm) showed an increase of less than 2% per
year, despite increasing the cover width from 3 to 5 cm. This is due to the cracked cover
showing a similar corrosion level for the same diameter, with no effect on the cover width.
Ignoring the crack width effects can result in strength overestimation up to 44%.

7. Conclusions
In frame elements, the crack width (lesser than 0.30 mm) recommended for structural
design can reduce their serviceability life by up to 62%. It was due to the initiation time
depending on the concrete cover. Regardless of the width cover (3–7 cm), the initiation
time was significantly reduced (up to 98%) because of the cracking effect.
In 25 years, the corrosion effects reduced the strength by up to 44 and 20% in cracked
and uncracked elements, respectively. The maximum reduction in strength was within the
flexo-compression in the compression domain (up to 1.46 times more), due to the concrete
cracking that produced the corrosion. On the other hand, the residual strength was reduced
up to 1.20 times more in cracked elements that were uncracked; even when the crack width
was within the recommended range.
The crack widths recommended produced an accelerated deterioration in flexo-
compressive strength by up to 8% per year. This deterioration presented insignificant
changes in the cover width when the cover was cracked. The worst strength deterioration
was reached in the section with the lower rebar diameter (12.7 mm).
Finally, the proposed methodology is a practical tool for calculating the residual
strength of the frame element in the corrosion process. It considered the properties (cover
width and concrete) of the column and its information relative to its current state (structure
age and crack width) that influence the strength deterioration.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.C. and D.B.; methodology, F.C. and D.B.; validation,
S.M.-D.; formal analysis, A.C.; investigation, R.S.; data curation, A.V.; writing—original draft prepa-
ration, J.B.; writing—review and editing, S.M.-D.; visualization, R.S.; supervision, A.C. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available from the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 14 of 15

References
1. Sun, H.; Zou, H.; Li, X.; Memon, S.A.; Yuan, B.; Xing, F.; Zhang, X.; Ren, J. Combined Effects of Sulfate and Chloride Attack on
Steel Reinforced Mortar under Drying–Immersion Cycles. Buildings 2022, 12, 1252. [CrossRef]
2. Fuhaid, A.F.A.; Niaz, A. Carbonation and Corrosion Problems in Reinforced Concrete Structures. Buildings 2022, 12, 586.
[CrossRef]
3. Saetta, A.V.; Vitaliani, R.V. Experimental Investigation and Numerical Modeling of Carbonation Process in Reinforced Concrete
Structures Part I: Theoretical Formulation. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 571–579. [CrossRef]
4. Firouzi, A.; Abdolhosseini, M.; Ayazian, R. Service Life Prediction of Corrosion-Affected Reinforced Concrete Columns Based on
Time-Dependent Reliability Analysis. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2020, 117, 104944. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Tang, L.; Xing, F. Time-Dependent Probability Assessment for Chloride Induced Corrosion of RC
Structures Using the Third-Moment Method. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 76, 232–244. [CrossRef]
6. Balázs, G.L.; Bisch, P.; Borosnyõi, A.; Burdet, O.; Burns, C.; Ceroni, F.; Cervenka, V.; Chiorino, M.A.; Debernardi, P.; Eckfeldt, L.;
et al. Design for SLS According to Fib Model Code 2010. Struct. Concr. 2013, 14, 99–123. [CrossRef]
7. ACI 224R 224R-01; Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures. ACI, American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI,
USA, 2001.
8. UNE-EN 1992-1-1; Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. UNE, Asociación
Española de Normalización: Madrid, Spain, 2013.
9. Torres, J.; Sánchez, J. Initiation Period of Corrosion by Chloride Ion in Cracked Concrete Structures. In Proceedings of the
International RILEM Conference on Early-Age and Long-Term Cracking in RC Structures, Paris, France, 9 April 2021; Kanavaris,
F., Benboudjema, F., Azenha, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 115–126.
10. van Orden, A.C.; Balasubramanian, R.; Carpio, J.J.; Cook, D.C.; Oh, S.J.; Reyes, J.; Townsend, H.E. Atmospheric Corrosion in Marine
Environments along the Gulf of México; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2000.
11. Bojórquez, J.; Ponce, S.; Ruiz, S.E.; Bojórquez, E.; Reyes-Salazar, A.; Barraza, M.; Chávez, R.; Valenzuela, F.; Leyva, H.; Baca, V.
Structural Reliability of Reinforced Concrete Buildings under Earthquakes and Corrosion Effects. Eng. Struct. 2021, 237, 112161.
[CrossRef]
12. Crespi, P.; Zucca, M.; Valente, M. On the Collapse Evaluation of Existing RC Bridges Exposed to Corrosion under Horizontal
Loads. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2020, 116, 104727. [CrossRef]
13. Crespi, P.; Zucca, M.; Valente, M.; Longarini, N. Influence of Corrosion Effects on the Seismic Capacity of Existing RC Bridges.
Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 140, 106546. [CrossRef]
14. Hu, B.; Zhou, Y.; Xing, F.; Sui, L.; Luo, M. Experimental and Theoretical Investigation on the Hybrid CFRP-ECC Flexural
Strengthening of RC Beams with Corroded Longitudinal Reinforcement. Eng. Struct. 2019, 200, 109717. [CrossRef]
15. Zhou, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Sui, L.; Hu, B.; Huang, X. Study on the Flexural Performance of Hybrid-Reinforced Concrete Beams with a
New Cathodic Protection System Subjected to Corrosion. Materials 2020, 13, 234. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Zhou, Y.; Gao, H.; Hu, Z.; Qiu, Y.; Guo, M.; Huang, X.; Hu, B. Ductile, Durable, and Reliable Alternative to FRP Bars for
Reinforcing Seawater Sea-Sand Recycled Concrete Beams: Steel/FRP Composite Bars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 269, 121264.
[CrossRef]
17. Zhou, Y.; Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Sui, L.; Huang, X.; Guo, M.; Hu, B. Seismic Performance of Large Rupture Strain FRP Retrofitted RC
Columns with Corroded Steel Reinforcement. Eng. Struct. 2020, 216, 110744. [CrossRef]
18. Shen, D.; Yang, Q.; Huang, C.; Cui, Z.; Zhang, J. Tests on Seismic Performance of Corroded Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Repaired with Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Polymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 209, 508–521. [CrossRef]
19. Shen, D.; Li, M.; Liu, C.; Kang, J.; Li, C.; Yang, J. Seismic Performance of Corroded Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints
Repaired with BFRP Sheets. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 307, 124731. [CrossRef]
20. Lin, H.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, J.Q.; Feng, P.; Ozbolt, J.; Ye, H. Effects of the Corrosion of Main Bar and Stirrups on the Bond Behavior of
Reinforcing Steel Bar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 225, 13–28. [CrossRef]
21. Moodi, Y.; Sohrabi, M.R.; Mousavi, S.R. Corrosion Effect of the Main Rebar and Stirrups on the Bond Strength of RC Beams.
Structures 2021, 32, 1444–1454. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, Q.; Xu, G.; Liang, G.L.; Wei, J. Research on Bending Resistance of Corroded RC Beams. Adv. Mat. Res. 2010, 163–167,
3292–3296. [CrossRef]
23. Guo, X.; Wang, H.; Xie, K.; Shi, T.; Yu, D. Experimental and Numerical Study on the Influence of Corrosion Rate and Shear Span
Ratio on Reinforced Concrete Beam. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 2020, 4718960. [CrossRef]
24. Yang, S.Y.; Song, X.B.; Jia, H.X.; Chen, X.; Liu, X. Experimental Research on Hysteretic Behaviors of Corroded Reinforced Concrete
Columns with Different Maximum Amounts of Corrosion of Rebar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 121, 319–327. [CrossRef]
25. Yu, X.H.; Dai, K.Y.; Li, Y.S. Variability in Corrosion Damage Models and Its Effect on Seismic Collapse Fragility of Aging
Reinforced Concrete Frames. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 295, 123654. [CrossRef]
26. Carrera, J.; Carpio, F.; Salgado, R.; Márquez, S.; Barradas, J.; Carmona, A.; González, S.; Vargas, A. Influencia de La Corrosión
Sobre El Índice de Vulnerabilidad Sísmica de Edificios Escolares de Concreto Reforzado. In Proceedings of the Meeting of the
Mexican Section of the Electrochemical Society, Puebla, Mexico, 10–14 October 2022; Méndez, E., Cerna, J., Guerrero, C., Teutli,
M., Cerro, M., Méndez, A., González, M., González, M., Eds.; Electrochemical Society: Puebla, Mexico, 2022; p. 307.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2203 15 of 15

27. Kashani, M.M.; Lowes, L.N.; Crewe, A.J.; Alexander, N.A. Finite Element Investigation of the Influence of Corrosion Pattern on
Inelastic Buckling and Cyclic Response of Corroded Reinforcing Bars. Eng. Struct. 2014, 75, 113–125. [CrossRef]
28. Lee, H.S.; Cho, Y.S. Evaluation of the Mechanical Properties of Steel Reinforcement Embedded in Concrete Specimen as a Function
of the Degree of Reinforcement Corrosion. Int. J. Fract. 2009, 157, 81–88. [CrossRef]
29. Shayanfar, M.A.; Barkhordari, M.A.; Ghanooni-Bagha, M. Effect of Longitudinal Rebar Corrosion on the Compressive Strength
Reduction of Concrete in Reinforced Concrete Structure. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2016, 19, 897–907. [CrossRef]
30. Xia, J.; Jin, W.-L.; Li, L.-Y. Performance of Corroded Reinforced Concrete Columns under the Action of Eccentric Loads. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 2016, 28, 04015087. [CrossRef]
31. Tapan, M.; Aboutaha, R.S. Effect of Steel Corrosion and Loss of Concrete Cover on Strength of Deteriorated RC Columns. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2596–2603. [CrossRef]
32. Campione, G.; Cannella, F.; Minafò, G. A Simple Model for the Calculation of the Axial Load-Carrying Capacity of Corroded RC
Columns. Mater. Struct./Mater. Constr. 2016, 49, 1935–1945. [CrossRef]
33. Campione, G.; Cannella, F.; Cavaleri, L.; Ferrotto, M.F. Moment-Axial Force Domain of Corroded R.C. Columns. Mater.
Struct./Mater. Constr. 2017, 50, 21. [CrossRef]
34. Kashani, M.M.; Lowes, L.N.; Crewe, A.J.; Alexander, N.A. Phenomenological Hysteretic Model for Corroded Reinforcing Bars
Including Inelastic Buckling and Low-Cycle Fatigue Degradation. Comput. Struct. 2015, 156, 58–71. [CrossRef]
35. EHE-08; Instrucción de Hormigón Estructural. 4th ed. de Publicaciones, C.; Técnica, S.G.; De Fomento, M. (Eds.) Ministerio de
Fomento, Gobierno de España: Madrid, Spain, 2010.
36. NTC-DCEC; Normas Técnicas Complementarias Para Diseño y Construcción de Estructuras de Concreto. Gaceta del Gobierno de
la Ciudad de México: Mexico City, Mexico, 2021.
37. Wang, X.H.; Liang, F.Y. Performance of RC Columns with Partial Length Corrosion. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2008, 238, 3194–3202.
[CrossRef]