Article

Impact of Corrosion on the Behaviour of Reinforced

Concrete Buildings
Ana Caixinhas 1 , João Tomé 1 , José Melo 2 , Gonçalo Marreneca 1 and André Furtado 1, *

1 CERIS—Civil Engineering Research and Innovation for Sustainability, Department of Civil Engineering,
Architecture and Environment, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal;
[email protected] (A.C.); [email protected] (J.T.);
[email protected] (G.M.)
2 CONSTRUCT, Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Corrosion significantly contributes to the deterioration of reinforced concrete

(RC) structures. This work investigates its impact on the seismic behaviour of RC build-
ings. A simplified numerical simulation strategy was developed and validated, analysing
two columns with corrosion rates of 0% and 20%, based on existing experimental research
found in the literature. Subsequently, five distinct scenarios were developed, incorporating
various corrosion rates of 0%, 10%, and 20%, applied to a structure designed in accordance
with the Eurocode 8. Nonlinear pushover analyses were conducted to derive capacity
curves and bilinear curves, focusing on key parameters such as maximum strength and
corresponding drift, initial stiffness, secant stiffness, yield force and drift. Displacement
and drift profiles per floor were analysed at the significant damage performance point
(SD). The results indicate a clear negative impact of corrosion on structural performance,
evidenced by reduced capacity to withstand deformations and lateral forces, alongside an
increased likelihood of damage to non-structural elements.

Keywords: reinforced concrete structures; corrosion; seismic vulnerability; pushover

analysis

Academic Editor: Giuseppina Uva 1. Introduction

Received: 27 February 2025 The recent seismic event in Turkey [1] tragically highlighted the vulnerability of rein-
Revised: 3 April 2025
forced concrete (RC) structures in high-seismicity regions. With about 87% of the affected
Accepted: 8 April 2025
buildings made of RC, corrosion was one of the factors that contributed to their poor per-
Published: 12 April 2025
formance and collapse, worsening the effects of seismic actions. Also, other research works
Citation: Caixinhas, A.; Tomé, J.;
focused on the seismic vulnerability of existing industrial and residential RC structures
Melo, J.; Marreneca, G.; Furtado, A.
Impact of Corrosion on the Behaviour
(not considering the corrosion effect) [2–4]. Understanding the impact of corrosion on the
of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. seismic behaviour of RC structures is essential for ensuring safety and durability. Corrosion
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267. https:// in RC structures has four main consequences: (a) cracking and delamination of the cover,
doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081267 exposing reinforcement; (b) reduction in the cross-sectional area of reinforcement; (c) degra-
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. dation of the bond between steel and concrete; and (d) deterioration of the mechanical
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. properties of steel, particularly its deformation capacity [5–7]. Numerous studies, including
This article is an open access article those by Aminulai et al. [8], Guo et al. [9], Meda et al. [10], Yang et al. [11], and Yao et al. [12],
distributed under the terms and
have shown that corrosion significantly affects damage states, failure mechanisms, flexural
conditions of the Creative Commons
capacity, and energy dissipation. While Berto et al. [13] and Dizaj et al. [14] have replicated
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
corrosion effects in numerical simulations, predicting the seismic behaviour of corroded
licenses/by/4.0/).

Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081267

Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 2 of 28

structures remains challenging due to limited research. Still, there is a very reduced num-
ber of works on the effect of corrosion on the structural response of RC structures when
subjected to lateral loadings. Based on this motivation, this research work aims to perform
a preliminary study of the seismic behaviour of RC structures with corrosion. The detailed
analysis and understanding of the effect of corrosion on various response parameters of an
RC building subjected to seismic action was the focus of this study. In this regard, it was
necessary to propose and validate a simplified numerical simulation, which would allow
predicting the seismic behaviour of RC structures with corrosion. The validation of the
proposed numerical simulation strategy was carried out by simulating two experimental
tests conducted by Meda et al. [10] on columns with and without corrosion. The columns
were subjected to combined bending with cyclic loading. The validation was carried out
by comparing the experimental and numerical force–displacement responses, evaluating
the accuracy of the numerical predictions with respect to key response parameters such as
initial stiffness, peak strength, and overall behaviour.
After this validation, the main objective was to study the seismic behaviour of a build-
ing under different corrosion scenarios, considering the possible environments in which it
might be exposed. In this context, four scenarios with different corrosion configurations
were considered. The first scenario represents an extreme situation in which all façade
elements are subjected to corrosion, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of the total
effect of deterioration. The second scenario restricts corrosion to specific elements of certain
façades, reflecting a more directional exposure and enabling the evaluation of the influence
of corrosion location on structural behaviour. In the third scenario, a more realistic configu-
ration is considered, where the outer rebars of the same element are corroded while the
inner rebars remain intact, applicable to all façades. Finally, the fourth scenario addresses
variable corrosion along the different floors of the structure, highlighting the impact of soil
conditions on structural integrity.
For each of these scenarios, nonlinear pushover analyses were performed to assess
the effect of corrosion, identifying the most critical scenarios that increase the seismic
vulnerability of the structure. The capacity curves, performance points, initial stiffness,
yield point, maximum resistance, and inter-storey drift profile are discussed and compared.

2. Numerical Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Elements with Corrosion

Numerical simulation plays a crucial role in understanding and analysing structures.
Its main objective is to reproduce and predict, as realistically as possible, the behaviour
of simulated structures under various types of actions, allowing for the identification of
potential structural vulnerabilities. For the development and analysis of this study, it was
first necessary to define a numerical modelling strategy to simulate the behaviour of RC
elements with corrosion. To ensure that the simulation effectively predicted real behaviour,
the numerical modelling was validated through the simulation of two experimental tests
conducted by Meda et al. [10] on RC columns with (20% corrosion rate) and without
corrosion (0% corrosion rate). The validation of the numerical strategy will be assessed by
comparing the experimental and numerical force–displacement curves.

2.1. Numerical Modelling Strategy

The numerical simulation was carried out using the SeismoStruct software [15]. The
modelling strategy adopted herein for simulating the RC elements (i.e., beams and columns)
involved the use of the inelastic force-based frame elements with seven integration sections
per element, in which each section was discretized into 204 fibers, with each fiber assigned
a uniaxial constitutive model (i.e., steel reinforcement, confined concrete, or unconfined
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 3 of 28

concrete). Further details regarding the implementation of the algorithm can be found in
the software manual [15].
To characterize the behaviour of steel and concrete under both conditions (corroded
and non-corroded), the uniaxial constitutive model proposed by Monti-Nuti [16] was
adopted for steel, and the model proposed by Mander et al. [17] was adopted for concrete.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the numerical modelling strategy assumed. The uniaxial
constitutive model proposed by Monti-Nuti [16] is capable of capturing the post-elastic
buckling behaviour of reinforcing bars under compression. It combines the stress–strain
relationship proposed by Menegotto and Pinto [18] with the isotropic hardening rules
proposed by Filippou et al. [19], and incorporates buckling degradation rules introduced
by Monti and Nuti [20]. Additionally, a memory rule proposed by Fragiadakis et al. [21]
is included to enhance numerical stability and accuracy under transient seismic loading.
The use of this model is recommended for simulating RC elements where reinforcement
buckling is expected, such as columns subjected to severe cyclic loading or, for example,
elements with corroded rebars. The uniaxial material model proposed by Mander et al. [17]
follows the constitutive law proposed by Mander et al. [17], combined with the cyclic
loading rules developed by Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai [22]. The confining effects
provided by lateral transverse reinforcement are incorporated using the formulation by
Mander et al. [17], which assumes a constant confining pressure throughout the entire
stress–strain response.
To simulate the effects of corrosion on the RC elements, two fundamental strategies
were implemented. The first involved reducing the effective area of the longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement in a corroded RC element, simulating the loss of cross-section
resulting from the corrosion process. It is important to note that in this software, when
modelling stirrups, only the selection of bars with standard diameters is allowed, making it
impossible to introduce intermediate ones. To address this limitation, the adopted solution
was to adjust the spacing between the stirrups in order to achieve the desired equivalent
cross-sectional area.
The second strategy involved modifying the mechanical properties of the steel, specifi-
cally reducing the yield strength and ultimate strain, achieved through calibration.

Menegotto-Pinto et al.
Longitudinal and Transverse
Reinforcements

Mander et al. non-linear

Concrete

Figure 1. Overview of the numerical simulation of RC elements [17,18].

Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 4 of 28

2.2. Calibration of the Numerical Modelling Strategy

2.2.1. Description of the Experimental Campaign
In the context of this work, the study conducted by Meda et al. [10] was selected as a
reference, where their objective was to evaluate the structural behaviour of RC columns
subjected to uniaxial lateral cyclic loading after artificial corrosion had been induced. Each
column had a square cross-section measuring 0.3 × 0.3 square meters and was reinforced
longitudinally with four steel bars of 16 mm in diameter. The transverse reinforcement
consisted of steel stirrups with a diameter of 8 mm, spaced at intervals of 300 mm. The
total height of the columns was 1.8 m.
The foundation block supporting the columns measured 1.3 × 0.6 × 0.5 cubic me-
ters and was reinforced with a combination of different steel bars. The top and bottom
longitudinal reinforcements consisted of steel bars with a diameter of 20 mm, while the
midsection longitudinal reinforcement was composed of bars with a diameter of 12 mm.
Additionally, vertical distribution reinforcement was incorporated using steel bars with
a 12 mm diameter, spaced at intervals of 150 mm, ensuring structural integrity and load
distribution.
The mean mechanical properties of the materials used in the experimental campaign
are presented in Table 1, where for concrete, f t denotes the tensile strength, f c the com-
pressive strength, and Ec the modulus of elasticity, while for steel, f y represents the yield
strength, ε ult,s the ultimate strain, and Es the modulus of elasticity.

Table 1. Mechanical properties (mean values) of steel and concrete according to Meda et al. [10].

Concrete Steel
f c (MPa) 20 f y (MPa) 520
f t (MPa) 2.2 ε ult,s (%) 13.72
Ec (GPa) 30 Es (GPa) 210

Each test involved the application of a uniaxial lateral cyclic load at a height of 1.5 m.
The top of the column was constrained, allowing it to rotate and translate within the plane
of load application, while displacements and rotations out of this plane were restricted.
The bases/foundations of the column were fixed, with all degrees of freedom constrained.
Additionally, a compressive axial load of 400 kN was applied at the top of the column,
corresponding to a reduced axial load ratio of 0.22. The displacement history applied to
the top of the column is presented in Figure 2 and consisted of repeating three cycles for
each of the following target displacements: 2.5 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, 4.5 mm, 6 mm, 7.5 mm,
11.5 mm, 15 mm, 19 mm, 22.5 mm, 30 mm, 37.5 mm, 52.5 mm, and 75 mm.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 5 of 28

Figure 2. Horizontal displacement history adopted in the tests performed by Meda et al. [10].

2.2.2. Considerations on the Numerical Simulation

The selection of the appropriate uniaxial constitutive model for steel and concrete
was achieved through an iterative calibration process, comparing numerical results with
experimental data for both uncorroded and corroded conditions.
For the simulation of the cyclic loading, a static time–history analysis was employed.
This analysis involves applying a displacement history at the top of the column based
on the horizontal displacement history curve used in the experimental test, which was
represented in Figure 2.
Table 2 presents a comparison of the parameters adopted for each scenario, high-
lighting the modifications made to simulate the effects of corrosion on the mechanical
properties of steel. The parameters considered include the strain hardening parameter
(µ), the initial transition curve parameter (R0 ), the transition curve calibration coefficients
(a1 and a2 ), the kinematic/isotropic weighting coefficient (P), the unloading correction
parameter (r), and the specific weight (γ). Throughout the iterations, it was observed that
the parameters defining the stress–strain curve for the concrete model remained constant
for both conditions. Table 3 lists the parameters used to simulate concrete behaviour.

Table 2. Numerical parameters used to simulate the steel uniaxial material curve.

Corrosion Level 0% 20% Ratio

Es (GPa) 210 210 1.00
f y (MPa) 520 312 0.60
µ 0.015 0.015 1.00
R0 20 18.9 0.95
a1 19.6 18.6 0.95
a2 0.15 0.15 1.00
P 0.6 0.6 1.00
r (%) 2.5 5.00 2.00
ε ult,s 0.1372 0.0410 0.30
γ (kN/m3 ) 78.00 78.00 1.00
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 6 of 28

Table 3. Numerical parameters used to simulate the concrete uniaxial material curve.

Concrete
f c (MPa) f t (MPa) Ec (GPa) ε ult,c γ (kN/m3 )
20 2.2 30 0.02 24

2.2.3. Uncorroded Column

Figure 3 presents a comparison between the numerical (Numeric_Sit0%) and exper-
imental (Test_Sit0%) responses of the uncorroded column. A positive correlation was
observed between the two responses until the drift reached 2%, after which a slight de-
viation from the experimental response occurred concerning the load capacities and the
degradation of resistance.

-6 -4 -2

- 60

- 80

Figure 3. Comparison of the force–drift response curves for the uncorroded column.

A slight difference was observed in the initial stiffness, where the numerical response
was overestimated by approximately 13% for positive cycles and 2% for negative cycles.
Specifically, the numerical simulation demonstrated satisfactory accuracy in capturing the
maximum force, with discrepancies of only 3% and 7% compared to the experimental values
for positive and negative cycles, respectively. It is also important to note that the maximum
force occurred at different drift levels; the numerical model reached the maximum force
at a drift of 3.49%, which was approximately 2.13 times and 2.28 times greater than that
observed in the experimental response for the positive and negative directions, respectively.

2.2.4. Corroded Column

Upon analysing the force–drift curves related to the corroded column, as presented
in Figure 4, it is evident that the numerical model (Numeric_Sit20%) also demonstrated a
good prediction of the experimental response (Test_Sit20%), except for the post-peak stage.
A slight difference was noted regarding the initial stiffness, with the numerical re-
sponse overestimating by approximately 9.52% for positive cycles and 5.74% for negative
cycles. For the maximum force, the model exhibited excellent accuracy in its prediction,
as it occurred at nearly identical levels (overestimating by 0.6% and underestimating by
1% for the positive and negative directions, respectively). The numerical model reached
the maximum force in the positive direction at a drift of 1.26%, while the experimental
response yielded a value of 1.21%. In the negative direction, the numerical model achieved
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 7 of 28

a drift value of 1.27%, compared to the experimental value of 1.24%. Similarly to the uncor-
roded column, the experimental response exhibited a progressive degradation of resistance
with the increase in lateral displacements, attributed to the buckling of the reinforcement
bars, which, in the presence of corrosion, escalated the level of degradation for the same
target displacement.

-3 -2 -1

- 40

- 50

Figure 4. Comparison of the force–drift response curves for the column with a corrosion rate of 20%.

2.2.5. Global Comparison

The comparison between the numerical and experimental results demonstrated a good
correlation, validating the model. In Figure 5, it is observed that the model was able to
replicate, with precision, both the initial stiffness and the maximum strength of the two
tested columns. It is evident that, with the increase in lateral displacements, the reference
column exhibited a progressive degradation of resistance. However, this phenomenon was
not captured by the numerical model. Tables 4 and 5 present the key parameters of the
force–drift curves. Table 5 shows the initial stiffness, maximum strength, and displacement
values at maximum strength for columns without corrosion and with 20% corrosion. Also,
it illustrates the ratios between the numerical and experimental values of these parameters.

-6 -4 -2
- 20

- 60

- 80

Figure 5. Envelope curves of the experimental and numerical force–drift responses of the columns
with and without corrosion.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 8 of 28

Table 4. Key parameters of experimental and numerical response.

Drift
Initial Maximum
Corrosion (Maximum
Cycles Model Stiffness Strength
Level Strength)
(kN/m) (kN)
(%)
Positive Experimental 9068 63.53 1.63
Positive Numerical 10,215 65.74 3.49
0%
Negative Experimental 6900 60.11 1.53
Negative Numerical 7004 64.48 3.49
Positive Experimental 10,857 44.21 1.21
Positive Numerical 11,891 44.48 1.26
20%
Negative Experimental 7022 44.81 1.24
Negative Numerical 7426 44.36 1.27

Table 5. Ratios of key parameters.

Initial Drift
Corrosion Maximum
Cycles Stiffness (Maximum
Level Strength (kN)
(kN/m) Strength) (%)
Positive 1.13 1.03 2.13
0%
Negative 1.02 1.07 2.28
Positive 1.10 1.01 1.04
20%
Negative 1.06 0.99 1.02

3. Study Case
In this section, the case study of this research work will be presented, along with a
detailed description of the methodology adopted to assess the effect of corrosion on the
seismic behaviour. The building selected for the case study was designed by Maranhão
et al. [23] as part of a research project that combined the design of buildings accord-
ing to the enhanced ductility requirements of Eurocode 8 [24] with the optimization of
structural design.
Initially, an overview of the case study will be provided, including a detailed char-
acterization of its geometry, structural system, cross-sections, reinforcement detailing,
constituent materials, and the applied loads considered in the analysis.
Since the primary objective of this work is to study the impact of corrosion on the
seismic behaviour of the RC building structure, different scenarios will be defined, corre-
sponding to different intensities and locations of corrosion in the structural elements.
Finally, the methodology adopted for studying the seismic behaviour of the buildings
will be described in detail, with an emphasis on the chosen type of analysis, and the
structural response parameters obtained from these analyses will be presented.

3.1. General Description

In the investigation conducted by Maranhão et al. [23], the frame system features
a square layout of 18 m per side, totalling 324 m2 , with 6 m × 6 m modules (Figure 6a).
The building has five floors, with a height of 4 m for the ground floor and 3 m for the
upper floors, resulting in a total height of 16 m (Figure 6b). The columns are fully fixed at
ground level.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 9 of 28

A 15 cm thick solid slab is specified for all floors. The building is regular in both
plan and elevation, with no torsional flexibility and a variable height configuration. It
is symmetrical along both longitudinal and transverse axes, and Maranhão et al. [23]
designated it as intended for office use.

6
3

6
16 3

6
4
6 6 6

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Geometry: (a) floor plan of the building (adapted from [23]); (b) front elevation (units
in meters).

3.2. Materials and Actions

Maranhão et al. [23] specified the structure to be made of C30/37 concrete, with
properties defined per Eurocode 2 [25] and EN 206-1:2007 [26]. The reinforcement steel
is classified as B500, with mechanical properties in accordance with EN 10080:2005 [27].
The vertical loads for the structural design correspond to characteristic loads for office
buildings, detailed in Table 6.

Table 6. Vertical loads considered for the case study.

Load Type Floor Load Value

Primary seismic members
Structure self-weight
All floors (columns and beams) γ = 25 kN/m3
(Gk,1)
Slabs: solid RC 15 cm thick
External walls and partitions with
1st to 12 kN/m2
3.0 kN/m (per unit of wall length)
Other permanent
loads (Gk,2) Finishings 1.3 kN/m2
(n)th (roof) Finishings 1.0 kN/m2
Building for use as civil dwellings, falling
1st to 2.0 kN/m2
into usage category A
Live
loads (Qk) Roof category H—Roofs not accessible
(n)th (roof) 1.0 kN/m2
except for normal maintenance and repair

Due to the nature of the study conducted by Maranhão et al. [23], the structure
was designed with the aim of maximizing the optimization of sections and quantities of
reinforcement used while maintaining the ductility level DCM required by Eurocode 8 [24].
It is important to mention that, besides the fact that the probability of developing corrosion
in structures designed with past codes (prior to Eurocodes), this work aims to assess the
impact of corrosion in well-designed RC structures.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 10 of 28

3.3. Corrosion Scenarios

Four corrosion propagation scenarios have been defined for the RC elements, ac-
counting for different environmental conditions and exposure levels during their service
life. Each scenario analysed three corrosion levels: 0% (no corrosion—considered as the
reference, REF), 10% (CL10%), and 20% (CL20%).
Scenario 1: This environmental exposure scenario, characterized by high aggressive-
ness, considers corrosive processes in all RC elements in direct contact with the external
environment (shown in red in Figure 7a). It represents the most severe degradation condi-
tion, assuming all exposed structural elements experience corrosion simultaneously.
Scenario 2: A differential exposure to corrosion was considered, focusing on specific
facades of the structure to simulate directional exposure to corrosive agents influenced by
factors like wind direction, solar orientation, and precipitation. This scenario was divided
into two situations: Situation A, where corrosion occurs on the lateral facades (where
forces are applied), and Situation B, where corrosion is observed on the frontal facades
(perpendicular to the applied forces). In both situations, all RC structural elements in
direct contact with the affected facades were subject to corrosion processes (shown in red
in Figure 7b), with uniform corrosion considered at the cross-sectional level.
Scenario 3: A more realistic corrosion configuration was established, focusing on
the steel bars in the peripheral zone of the RC structural elements in direct contact with
the external environment (shown in red in Figure 7c). This scenario assumes that while
the outer bars of the elements are subject to corrosion, the inner reinforcements remain
relatively protected by the concrete. Implementing this scenario in the SeismoStruct pro-
gram [15] revealed limitations: the software does not permit distinct material properties for
individual bars within the same element, complicating the simulation of localized corrosion.
Consequently, the modelling approach was adapted to apply uniform modifications to the
material properties for all bars in the corroded elements, reducing the area only for the
outer bars while keeping the inner bars’ dimensions unchanged. Additionally, differential
area reduction for stirrups was not possible, leading to the assumption of uniform corrosion
along their entire length, representing the most unfavourable scenario.
Scenario 4: A non-uniform vertical distribution of corrosion was simulated to reflect
the differential exposure of structural elements due to corrosive soils at lower levels. The
scenario included three corrosion zones: the first zone (red), from the ground to the first
floor, with a corrosion level of 20%; the second zone (yellow), from the first to the third
floor, with a level of 10%; and the third zone above the third floor, with a corrosion level of
0%. This configuration is illustrated in Figure 7d.
The decision to model corrosion uniformly across the cross section in Scenarios 1
and 2 was based on the need to simulate the overall loss of structural capacity under
aggressive environmental conditions, assuming the simultaneous exposure of the full
reinforcement cage. Although uniform corrosion does not represent the most localized
effects observed in practice, it provides a conservative approximation suitable for global
performance assessments in the absence of more detailed data. In Scenario 3, a more realistic
representation of corrosion was attempted by applying degradation only to the outer
reinforcement layers, as these are typically the most exposed to environmental agents such
as chlorides and carbonation. This modelling choice reflects the initial stages of corrosion
propagation, where the outer bars begin to deteriorate while the inner reinforcement
remains relatively protected by the concrete cover. However, the numerical implementation
of this scenario was constrained by the modelling capabilities of the software, which do not
allow assigning distinct material properties to individual bars within the same cross-section.
To approximate this effect, the model reduced the area only for the outer bars, while the
geometry of the inner bars was preserved. For stirrups, a uniform reduction was applied
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 11 of 28

along their entire length, as localized degradation could not be specified. This simplification
represents a conservative approach and may lead to a slight overestimation of the damage
in some regions. These limitations are acknowledged and indicate an area for refinement in
future studies using more advanced modelling tools.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 7. Studied scenarios: (a) scenario 1; (b) scenario 2; (c) scenario 3; (d) scenario 4.

3.4. Analysis Methodology

Non-linear pushover adaptive analyses were conducted by incrementally applying
lateral loads until collapse or a predefined deformation level was reached. These analyses
produced capacity curves, yielding values for initial stiffness, maximum strength, corre-
sponding global drift, and secant stiffness. Idealized bilinear curves were also derived,
providing yield parameters such as yield force and displacement, along with profiles of
inter-storey displacements and drifts. The analysis focused on structural deformation pa-
rameters at the performance point corresponding to the significant damage (SD) limit state.
The performance points for the Damage Limitation (DL) and Imminent Collapse (NC)
limit states were also marked on the capacity curves. The seismic characteristics of the
structure’s location, as defined by Maranhão et al. [23], were as follows:
• Seismic Type 1: Higher magnitudes, distant epicenters, and longer durations, with
lower frequencies that may resonate with building natural frequencies.
• Soil Type A: Rock or other geological formations classified as rocky.
• Importance Class II: Ordinary buildings that do not fall into other categories.
• Damping Coefficient: 5% (a typical value for RC structures).
• Seismic Zone 1.3: Corresponds to the Lisbon area.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 12 of 28

It is important to note that the seismic performance assessment presented in this study
is based on adaptive pushover analysis, which is a nonlinear static method. As such, no
direct seismic input (e.g., accelerograms, PGA, frequency content, or duration) is applied.
Instead, lateral loads are incrementally applied following adaptive patterns that reflect the
evolving modal properties of the structure throughout the analysis. This method allows for
an efficient and insightful evaluation of the global and local capacity of the structure under
increasing seismic demand, without the need for specific time–history records.

4. Discussion of Results
The analysis of the scenarios enhanced the understanding of corrosion’s impact on
structural elements and overall lateral response, forming a basis for assessing the structure’s
seismic vulnerability. Capacity curves and their idealized bilinear counterparts will be
presented for various corrosion rates, with extracted parameters discussed for compar-
ison analyses. Finally, the structure’s displacement and drift profiles will be shown to
complement the assessment of corrosion’s effects on seismic behaviour.

4.1. Scenario 1
A comparison of the capacity curves (CC) and the corresponding idealized bilinear
curves (BL) obtained for the analysed corrosion rate levels is presented in Figure 8. Bilinear
curves were computed according to the Eurocode 8 [28] proposal.

Figure 8. Scenario 1: capacity curves (CC) and bilinear curves (BL) considering no corrosion and 10%
and 20% corrosion levels (CLs).

Table 7 summarizes the extracted parameter values from the capacity curves and
idealized bilinear curves for the various corrosion rates analysed.
The performance points (DL, SD, and NC) showed similar variations across corrosion
rates, with 0% and 10% rates at the same drift level, while 20% shifted to higher drift levels.
Table 8 lists the baseline cut values and corresponding drift for each performance point.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 13 of 28

Table 7. Scenario 1: extracted response parameters for each corrosion level.

Response Parameters Ref CL 10% CL 20%

Initial Stiffness (kN/m) 18,422 18,211 18,108
Maximum Strength (kN) 2542 2371 2141
Drift (Maximum Strength) (%) 1.32 1.31 1.22
Secant Stiffness (kN/m) 12,003 11,293 10,981
Yield Force (kN) 1017 949 857
Yield Drift (%) 0.35 0.33 0.30

Table 8. Scenario 1: Corresponding base shear and drift for each of the performance points.

Corrosion Level 0% 10% 20%

Base shear (kN) 1773 1725 1810
Damage Limitation
Drift (%) 0.68 0.68 0.78
Base shear (kN) 2119 2048 2052
Significant Damage
Drift (%) 0.87 0.87 1.00
Base shear (kN) 2456 2297 1813
Near Collapse
Drift (%) 1.51 1.51 1.73

An overview of the changes in the main structural parameters is presented in Figure 9

for corrosion rates of 10% (CL_10%) and 20% (CL_20%), compared to the initial state
(0% corrosion).

Figure 9. Scenario 1: ratios of performance parameters with and without corrosion (for corrosion
levels 10% and 20%).

The initial stiffness of the structure was the least affected compared to other parameters.
At a 10% corrosion rate (ratio of 0.99), the structure maintained its original stiffness, indicat-
ing no loss of concrete section or change in the modulus of elasticity. At 20% corrosion, the
ratio was 0.98, still showing a minimal impact on initial stiffness.
The maximum strength ratio was 0.93 for 10% corrosion, suggesting preserved struc-
tural integrity, but it dropped by 16%, reaching 0.84 at 20% corrosion, indicating a significant
loss in capacity to resist lateral actions. Drift ratios for maximum strength were 0.99 at 10%
and 0.92 at 20%, with differences becoming noticeable only at 20%. Secant stiffness ratios
were 0.94 for 10% and 0.91 for 20%, reflecting slight post-elastic degradation. Yield strength
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 14 of 28

ratios were 0.93 for 10% and 0.86 for 20%, showing decreased capacity to withstand lateral
actions. Yield displacement ratios also indicated reduced deformation capacity, at 0.94
for 10% and 0.86 for 20%. In addition to the analysis of the capacity curve and bilinear
representation, the absolute inter-storey displacements for each floor have been extracted
(Figure 10a), along with the corresponding inter-storey drifts (Figure 10b) related to the
damage limit state of SD.

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Scenario 1: (a) displacement profile; and (b) inter-storey drift profile corresponding to the
significant damage performance point.

The displacement profile analysis showed that, at 0% and 10% corrosion rates, floor
displacements were nearly identical (ranging from 0.037 to 0.14), indicating minimal impact
on flexibility and primarily affecting resistance. The capacity curve indicated that the
damage state SD for both scenarios occurred at similar inter-storey drift levels, suggesting
that corrosion up to 10% did not significantly affect deformation capacity. However, at a 20%
corrosion rate, inter-storey displacements increased by 12.75% to 16.87%, indicating greater
flexibility. The damage state SD point for 20% corrosion occurred at a higher displacement
level, which was unexpected. At 10% corrosion, the inter-storey drifts remained largely
unchanged, suggesting minimal compromise in deformation capacity. In contrast, at 20%
corrosion, the inter-storey drifts increased by 10% to 16.33%, indicating a significant effect
on structural performance under lateral loads. Notably, the drift between the ground
and first floors exceeded the 1% limit for all corrosion rates, indicating a significant risk
of damage to non-structural elements, according to Eurocode 8 [24], especially for rates
above 10%.

4.2. Scenario 2.A

The capacity curves (Figure 11) indicate that the structural behaviour at a 20% corro-
sion rate (CL20%_CC) is distinct from the uncorroded state (REF_CC), while the curve for
a 10% corrosion rate (CL10%_CC) shows no significant variation. Table 9 summarizes the
parameter values extracted from the capacity curves and the idealized bilinear curves for
this scenario, corresponding to the various corrosion rates analysed.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 15 of 28

Table 9. Scenario 2.A: extracted response parameters for each corrosion level.

Response Parameters Ref CL 10% CL 20%

Initial Stiffness (kN/m) 18,422 18,380 18,399
Maximum Strength (kN) 2542 2487 2306
Drift (Maximum Strength) (%) 1.32 1.31 1.22
Secant Stiffness (kN/m) 12,003 11,843 11,824
Yield Force (kN) 1017 995 922
Yield Drift (%) 0.35 0.34 0.31

Figure 11. Scenario 2.A: capacity curves (CCs) and bilinear curves (BLs) considering no corrosion
and 10% and 20% corrosion levels (CLs).

The capacity curve analysis showed that performance points varied similarly for each
corrosion rate, with the 10% and 20% rates located at the same drift level, while the initial
state was at lower drift levels. Table 10 lists the base shear values and corresponding drifts
for each performance point. Figure 12 provides an overview of changes in key structural
parameters for 10% (CL_10%) and 20% (CL_20%) corrosion rates compared to the initial
state (0% corrosion).

Table 10. Scenario 2.A: corresponding base shear and drift of performance points.

Corrosion Level 0% 10% 20%

Base shear (kN) 1773 1946 1899
Damage Limitation
Drift (%) 0.68 0.78 0.78
Base shear (kN) 2119 2276 2184
Significant Damage
Drift (%) 0.87 1.00 1.00
Base shear (kN) 2456 2273 1943
Near Collapse
Drift (%) 1.51 1.73 1.73
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 16 of 28

Figure 12. Scenario 2.A: ratios of performance parameters with and without corrosion (for corrosion
levels 10% and 20%).

The initial stiffness ratios remained constant at 1.0 for both corrosion levels, indicating
no degradation in response parameters. The maximum strength ratio was 0.98 for 10%
corrosion, suggesting negligible impact, while it decreased to 0.91 for 20%, indicating
a 9% reduction in structural capacity. Drift associated with maximum strength also de-
creased with corrosion; for 10%, the ratio was 0.99, maintaining deformation levels, while
it dropped to 0.92 for 20%, indicating reduced deformation capacity and increased fragility.
Secant stiffness ratios were 0.99 for both corrosion rates, showing no change. Yield values
mirrored maximum strength behaviour: 0.98 for 10% corrosion, indicating almost the same
capacity as the initial state, and 0.91 for 20%, highlighting a reduced ability to withstand
deformations before nonlinear behaviour. The yield drift for 10% corrosion was 0.99, sim-
ilar to the uncorroded structure, but decreased to 0.92 for 20%, indicating yielding with
less deformation. In addition to the capacity curve and bilinear representation analysis,
absolute inter-storey displacements (Figure 13a) and the corresponding inter-storey drifts
(Figure 13b) were extracted for the damage limit state SD.

(a) (b)

Figure 13. Scenario 2.A: (a) displacement profile; and (b) inter-storey drift profile corresponding to
the significant damage performance point.

The displacement profile between 0% and 10% corrosion showed a significant increase
in displacement from 12.90% to 15.60%, indicating enhanced flexibility. For both 10% and
20% corrosion, displacements at each floor were similar, ranging from 0% to 4%, likely
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 17 of 28

due to the SD point’s location on the capacity curve, where both rates were at similar
inter-storey drift levels, contrary to expectations that increased corrosion would lead to
smaller displacements.
The inter-storey drift profile analysis revealed a clear decrease in values with building
height, regardless of corrosion level. For 10% corrosion, the inter-storey drifts increased
compared to the initial condition, ranging from 10% to 15.56%, indicating a significant
compromise in lateral resistance. However, at 20% corrosion, no increase in inter-storey
drifts was observed. Notably, the drift between the ground and first floors exceeded 1% for
all corrosion rates, highlighting a substantial risk of damage to non-structural elements,
especially under seismic actions as corrosion increases.

4.3. Scenario 2.B

The capacity curves in Figure 14 show a similar degradation trend as in scenario 2.A,
with slight increases.
Table 11 summarizes the parameter values extracted from the capacity curves and
the idealized bilinear curves for this scenario, corresponding to the various corrosion
rates analysed.
The capacity curve analysis revealed similar variations in performance points for each
corrosion rate, as seen in scenario 2.A. Table 12 lists the base shear values and corresponding
drift for each performance point.

Figure 14. Scenario 2.B: capacity curves (CCs) and bilinear curves (BLs) considering no corrosion and
10% and 20% corrosion levels (CLs).

Table 11. Scenario 2.B: extracted response parameters for each corrosion level.

Response Parameters Ref CL 10% CL 20%

Initial Stiffness (kN/m) 18,422 18,249 18,108
Maximum Strength (kN) 2542 2420 2215
Drift (Maximum Strength) (%) 1.32 1.31 1.22
Secant Stiffness (kN/m) 12.003 11,524 11,357
Yield Force (kN) 1017 968 922
Yield Drift (%) 0.35 0.33 0.31
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 18 of 28

Table 12. Scenario 2.B: corresponding base shear and drift of performance points.

Corrosion Level 0% 10% 20%

Base shear (kN) 1773 1907 1833
Damage Limitation
Drift (%) 0.68 0.78 0.78
Base shear (kN) 2119 2226 2104
Significant Damage
Drift (%) 0.87 0.99 1.00
Base shear (kN) 2456 2180 1824
Near Collapse
Drift (%) 1.51 1.72 1.73

An overview of the changes in the main structural parameters is presented in Figure 15

for corrosion rates of 10% (CL_10%) and 20% (CL_20%) compared to the initial state
(0% corrosion).

Figure 15. Scenario 2.B: ratios of performance parameters with and without corrosion (for corrosion
levels 10% and 20%).

In scenario 2.B, the initial stiffness remained unchanged from the non-corroded con-
dition, with ratios of 0.99 for 10% corrosion and 0.98 for 20%. Maximum strength ratios
showed a progressive loss with corrosion: 0.95 at 10% (5% reduction) and 0.87 at 20% (13%
loss). Drift ratios also decreased, with values of 0.99 for 10% and 0.92 for 20%, indicating
increased fragility with higher corrosion. Secant stiffness ratios were more affected than
in scenario 2.A, at 0.96 for 10% and 0.95 for 20%, reflecting deterioration in post-elastic
behaviour. Yield force ratios were 0.95 for 10% and 0.91 for 20%, while yield displacement
ratios were 0.96 for 10% and 0.89 for 20%.
The primary variable affecting differences between scenarios 2.A and 2.B is the location
of applied lateral forces, with front facades experiencing more stress. Consequently, sce-
nario 2.A shows less impact compared to scenario 2.B, which exhibits moderate reductions
with increasing corrosion.
In addition to the capacity curve analysis, absolute inter-storey displacements
(Figure 16a) and the corresponding inter-storey drifts (Figure 16b) were obtained for the
damage limit state SD.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 19 of 28

(a) (b)

Figure 16. Scenario 2.B: (a) displacement profile; and (b) inter-storey drift profile corresponding to
the significant damage performance point.

The displacement profile showed an increase from 12.92% to 15.51% between 0% and
10% corrosion, indicating greater flexibility in the structure. Inter-storey displacements
remained nearly constant at corrosion rates of 10% and 20%, linked to the position of the
damage limit state (SD) on the capacity curve, which was the same for both rates but
lower at 0% corrosion. The inter-storey drift profile revealed a continuous reduction with
increasing floor height, regardless of corrosion levels. At 10% corrosion, inter-storey drifts
exceeded those at 0% corrosion, highlighting a significant impact on performance and
susceptibility to deformation. However, at 20% corrosion, drifts remained stable across
floors, indicating no further increase in flexibility. Drifts between the ground and first
floors exceeded the 1% limit under all corrosion conditions, raising the risk of failures in
non-structural elements. This suggests that even low corrosion levels can lead to significant
issues, which may worsen with further deterioration.

4.4. Scenario 3
A comparison of the capacity curves (CCs) and their corresponding idealized bilinear
curves (BLs) for the analysed corrosion rate is presented in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Scenario 3: capacity curves (CCs) and bilinear curves (BLs) considering no corrosion and
10% and 20% corrosion levels (CLs).
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 20 of 28

Table 13 summarizes the parameter values from the capacity curves and idealized
bilinear curves for the analysed corrosion rates. The performance points showed similar
variations for each corrosion rate, as seen in scenarios 2.A and 2.B. Table 14 lists the base
shear values and corresponding drifts for each performance point.

Table 13. Scenario 3: extracted response parameters for each corrosion level.

Response Parameters Ref CL 10% CL 20%

Initial Stiffness (kN/m) 18,422 18,348 18,392
Maximum Strength (kN) 2542 2413 2211
Drift (Maximum Strength) (%) 1.32 1.31 1.25
Secant Stiffness (kN/m) 12,003 11,491 11,057
Yield Force (kN) 1017 965 885
Yield Drift (%) 0.35 0.33 0.30

Table 14. Scenario 3: corresponding base shear and drift of performance points.

Corrosion Level 0% 10% 20%

Base shear (kN) 1773 1922 1866
Damage Limitation
Drift (%) 0.68 0.77 0.78
Base shear (kN) 2119 2239 2121
Significant Damage
Drift (%) 0.87 0.99 1.00
Base shear (kN) 2456 2167 1930
Near Collapse
Drift (%) 1.51 1.72 1.73

An overview of the changes in the main structural parameters is presented in Figure 18

for corrosion rates of 10% (CL_10%) and 20% (CL_20%), compared to the initial state
(0% corrosion).

Figure 18. Scenario 3: ratios of performance parameters with and without corrosion for corrosion
levels 10% and 20%).

The initial stiffness ratio of 1.0 in both scenarios indicates no change, suggesting that
corroded external bars did not affect elastic stiffness at loading onset. Maximum resistance
decreased by 5% at 10% corrosion and 13% at 20%, indicating that corrosion impacted the
load-bearing capacity. The corresponding drift at maximum resistance decreased only at
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 21 of 28

20% corrosion, with ratios of 0.99 for 10% and 0.94 for 20%, showing reduced deformation
absorption ability at higher corrosion rates. Secant stiffness also slightly decreased with
increased corrosion, affecting post-elastic performance: the ratio was 0.96 for 10% and 0.92
for 20%. A decrease in yield strength and drift was noted, with ratios of 0.95 for 10% and
0.87 for 20%, indicating that the structure yields with smaller deformations when external
bars are corroded. The analysis of the capacity curves and bilinear models enabled the
extraction of the absolute inter-storey displacements (Figure 19a) and inter-storey drifts for
each floor (Figure 19b) corresponding to the performance state point SD. Between corrosion
rates of 0% and 10%, the displacement profile increased from 12.07% to 14.51%. However,
between 10% and 20% corrosion, displacements remained similar across floors, varying by
up to 3%. The performance state point SD on the capacity curve indicated that significant
damage occurred at 10% and 20% corrosion at the same displacement level, while for 0%
corrosion, this point appeared at a lower displacement.

(a) (b)

Figure 19. Scenario 3: (a) displacement profile; and (b) inter-storey drift profile corresponding to the
significant damage performance point.

Inter-storey drift distribution along the building height showed a clear reduction
with increasing height, regardless of corrosion levels. Similar to previous scenarios, a
10% corrosion rate led to increased floor drift, ranging from 7.7% to 14.69%, making the
structure more vulnerable to larger deformations. In contrast, at 20% corrosion, inter-storey
drifts showed minimal variation (up to 3.4%). Drifts between the ground and first floors
exceeded the 1% limit in all cases, with the risk of non-structural damage increasing with
higher corrosion rates.

4.5. Scenario 4
Figure 20 shows the capacity curves and idealized bilinear curves for both the uncor-
roded condition (REF) and the corroded condition (WC), which, as previously mentioned
in Section 3.3, consists of two simultaneously corroded zones: 20% from the ground floor
to the first floor and 10% from the first to the third floor.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 22 of 28

Figure 20. Scenario 4: capacity curves (CCs) and bilinear curves (BLs) considering no corrosion and
10% and 20% corrosion levels (CLs).

The parameter values from the capacity curves and idealized bilinear curves for the
analysed corrosion rates are summarized in Table 15. The performance points (DL, SD, and
NC) on the capacity curves showed a similar pattern to scenarios 2 and 3. Table 16 presents
the base shear values and corresponding drift for each performance point. Figure 21 shows
the changes in primary structural parameters due to corrosion (WC) compared to the initial
uncorroded state.

Table 15. Scenario 4: extracted response parameters for each corrosion level.

Response Parameters Ref WC

Initial Stiffness (kN/m) 18,422 18,243
Maximum Strength (kN) 2542 2349
Drift (Maximum Strength) (%) 1.32 1.22
Secant Stiffness (kN/m) 12,003 12,048
Yield Force (kN) 1017 940
Yield Drift (%) 0.35 0.32

Table 16. Scenario 4: corresponding base shear and drift of performance points.

Corrosion Level Ref WC

Base shear (kN) 1773 1896
Damage Limitation
Drift (%) 0.68 0.78
Base shear (kN) 2119 2213
Significant Damage
Drift (%) 0.87 1.00
Base shear (kN) 2456 1969
Near Collapse
Drift (%) 1.51 1.73
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 23 of 28

Figure 21. Scenario 4: ratios of performance parameters with and without corrosion.

The initial stiffness ratio was 0.99, indicating a minimal impact of corrosion on this
parameter, while the secant stiffness ratio was 1. This is due to the upper uncorroded floors
still significantly contributing to the structure’s behaviour. The maximum strength ratio
from the capacity curve was 0.92, reflecting an 8% reduction in resistance capacity, primarily
due to corrosion affecting the lower facade elements where stress concentration is higher.
The drift at maximum strength also showed a ratio of 0.92, indicating an 8% reduction in
deformation capacity. The yield strength ratio was 0.92, highlighting an 8% reduction in
elastic capacity due to corrosion in the lower floors. Lastly, the drift corresponding to yield
strength had a ratio of 0.93, suggesting that corrosion advanced the yield point with less
deformation, indicating increased fragility.
The analysis of the capacity curves and bilinear models enabled the extraction of
the absolute inter-storey displacements (Figure 22a) and inter-storey drifts for each floor
(Figure 22b) corresponding to the performance state point SD.

(a) (b)

Figure 22. Scenario 4: (a) displacement profile; and (b) inter-storey drift profile corresponding to the
significant damage performance point.

The displacement profile reveals increased fragility in the structure, with displace-
ments rising from 12.52% to 18.15% in the corroded state. The inter-storey drift profile
showed a consistent decrease with building height, with higher inter-storey drift values
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 24 of 28

per floor in the corroded scenario, indicating reduced lateral resistance and increased sus-
ceptibility to deformations. Notably, the drift between the ground and first floors exceeded
the 1% limit in both states.

4.6. Global Comparison

Figure 23 provides a comparative overview of all analysed scenarios with key parame-
ters presented in a normalized format.
Figure 23a shows the normalized initial stiffness for each scenario, indicating negli-
gible variation across different corrosion rates, remaining close to 1, which suggests that
structural stiffness is largely unaffected by corrosion levels (10% and 20%). Figure 23b
illustrates the normalized maximum strength values, showing a consistent decrease with
increasing corrosion rates. For 10% corrosion, values range from 0.93 (Scenario 1, greatest
loss) to 0.98 (Scenario 2.A, least affected), with Scenarios 2.B and 3 at 0.95. At 20% cor-
rosion, Scenario 1 drops to 0.84, while Scenario 2.A remains stable at 0.91; Scenarios 2.B
and 3 are around 0.87. Scenario 4, with varying corrosion, shows a normalized maximum
strength of 0.92, indicating a moderate impact. The normalized drift at yield values in
Figure 23c decreases with increasing corrosion rates. For 10% corrosion, values range from
0.94 (Scenario 1, greatest reduction) to 0.98 (Scenario 2.A, least impact), with Scenarios
2.B and 3 at 0.96 and 0.95, respectively. At 20% corrosion, Scenario 1 drops to 0.86, while
Scenario 2.A remains at 0.91. Scenarios 2.B and 3 show values of 0.89 and 0.87, and Scenario
4 presents a drift of 0.93, similar to the 10% corrosion scenarios. Figure 23d shows the
secant stiffness for each scenario, revealing minor differences of up to 3% between corrosion
rates. Scenario 1 experienced the greatest reductions, with 6% and 9% losses at 10% and
20% corrosion, respectively. In contrast, Scenario 2.A had only a 1% reduction for both
rates. Scenario 2.B showed intermediate reductions of 4% and 5%, while Scenario 3 had
reductions of 4% and 8%. Corrosion did not affect Scenario 4. Figure 24 illustrates the
degradation of maximum strength and initial stiffness with increasing corrosion across
different scenarios. Overall, the results indicate minimal variation in the seismic response
of the structure due to corrosion, in contrast to more concerning findings in the existing
literature. This discrepancy may be attributed to the predominant influence of the central
columns, which remain unaffected by corrosion, thereby limiting its impact on the overall
structural behaviour. Furthermore, since initial stiffness is primarily governed by the
concrete, the reduction in the reinforcement bar cross-section does not significantly alter
the initial response. Additionally, the case study developed by Maranhão et al. [23] was
optimized, and during nonlinear pushover analyses, the effects of corrosion may not have
been adequately detected or assessed.
Finally, it is important to clarify that the type of damage observed in the structures
subjected to the four corrosion scenarios was largely similar, and was characterised by a
shear failure, primarily due to the reduction in transverse reinforcement area caused by
corrosion. No consistent pattern was identified regarding which specific element reached
the shear failure first. However, in all cases, the first failure occurred in a column located
on the ground floor of the building.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 25 of 28

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 23. Global comparison for each scenario: (a) normalized initial stiffness; (b) normalized
maximum strength; (c) normalized yield drift; (d) normalized secant stiffness.

2,600 19,500

2,500
19,000

2,400
18,500
2,300

18,000
2,200

2,100 17,500

2,000 17,000

(a) (b)

Figure 24. (a) Variation of maximum strength with the increase in corrosion rate; (b) variation of
initial stiffness with the increase in corrosion rate.

5. Conclusions and Future Works

RC structures are widely used in modern construction; however, over their service life,
they are subject to degradation processes such as corrosion. Understanding how corrosion
affects the seismic behaviour of these structures is therefore essential. Nevertheless, predict-
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 26 of 28

ing this behaviour remains a significant challenge in numerical modelling. Additionally,

the literature presents a scarcity of studies on modelling strategies that incorporate the
effects of corrosion in reinforced concrete structures, making this field even more complex
and underexplored.
This research work set out two main objectives: first, to contribute to scientific ad-
vancements in the numerical simulation of the seismic behaviour of RC structures subjected
to corrosion, and second, to investigate the impact of corrosion on the seismic performance
of these structures.
To achieve these goals, simplified simulation strategies were proposed and validated to
represent the effects of corrosion on reinforcement bars within reinforced concrete structures.
Following the validation process, an analysis of five distinct scenarios was conducted
using the nonlinear pushover analysis method, allowing for a detailed characterization
of the structural capacity and deformability under different levels of corrosion-induced
degradation. The following conclusions were drawn from the development and validation
of numerical simulation strategies:
• The model accurately reproduced experimental results by properly defining material
properties and simulation strategies, validating its application for assessing corrosion
effects on structures under lateral loads;
• Initial stiffness and maximum strength were captured well, with errors not exceeding
13% for positive cycles and 6% for negative cycles in initial stiffness and 3% and 7%
for maximum strength;
• A significant challenge was simulating bond conditions between concrete and
steel; neglecting this led to models that failed to show resistance degradation with
increasing displacements.
The following conclusions were drawn from the study of the seismic behaviour of
different scenarios:
• Initial stiffness showed minimal degradation with increasing corrosion, while max-
imum strength and corresponding displacements significantly decreased. A 10%
corrosion rate reduced maximum strength by 2–7%, and a 20% rate reduced it by
9–16%. Displacements associated with maximum strength decreased by 1–5% and
8–13% for 10% and 20% corrosion rates, respectively;
• Yield force and yield displacement indicated that corrosion degraded the structure’s
elastic behaviour, increasing vulnerability to seismic actions. Yield force decreased by
2–7% for 10% corrosion and 9–16% for 20%, while yield displacement decreased by
1–6% and 6–14%, respectively;
• High corrosion levels significantly altered the dynamic behaviour, particularly affect-
ing lower floors, which experienced drifts exceeding 1%. This raises concerns about
potential damage to non-structural elements (e.g., infill walls), highlighting the need
to consider corrosion’s impact on overall building safety and post-seismic repair costs.
One of the main limitations of this study lies in the simplifications adopted in corro-
sion modelling, particularly the assumption of uniform degradation in certain scenarios
and the inability to assign different material properties to individual reinforcement bars.
While these assumptions allowed for a consistent and comparative analysis, they may not
fully capture the localized effects of corrosion observed in real structures. More refined
simulations need to be carried out, focusing on real corroded structures, and comparison
with the results obtained herein may be validated.
Also, given the large number of parameters involved in the corrosion scenarios and
structural configurations, a more comprehensive statistical or sensitivity-based approach
could offer further insight into the influence of each variable.
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 27 of 28

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.F. and J.M.; methodology, J.T. and A.C.; software, J.T.;
validation, J.T.; formal analysis, A.C. and J.T.; investigation, J.T.; resources, A.F.; data curation, J.T.
and G.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.; writing—review and editing, A.F. and J.M.;
visualization, G.M.; supervision, A.F.; project administration, A.F.; funding acquisition, A.F. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: The authors Ana Caixinhas, João Tomé and Gonçalo Marrenca acknowledges the financial
support of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the project UIDB/04625/2025
of the research unit CERIS. The work developed by the author José Melo was financially supported by
Funding—UID/04708 of the CONSTRUCT—Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções—funded
by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P./MCTES through the national funds. Also, this work
is financially supported by national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC), under the project
PTDC/ECI-EGC/7244/2020.

Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Aktaş, Y.D.; So, E.; Johnson, C.; Dönmez, K.; Özden, A.T.; Vatteri, A.P.; O’Kane, A.; Kalkan, A.; Andonov, A.; Verrucci, E.; et al. The
Türkiye Earthquake Sequence of February 2023: A Longitudinal Study Report by EEFIT; Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation
Team (EEFIT), Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE): London, UK, 2024. [CrossRef]
2. Kassem, M.M.; Mohamed Nazri, F.; Farsangi, E.N.; Ozturk, B. Development of a uniform seismic vulnerability index framework
for reinforced concrete building typology. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 47, 103838. [CrossRef]
3. Kassem, M.M.; Nazri, F.M.; Farsangi, E.N.; Ozturk, B. Improved Vulnerability Index Methodology to Quantify Seismic Risk and
Loss Assessment in Reinforced Concrete Buildings. J. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 26, 6172–6207. [CrossRef]
4. Ozturk, B.; Sahin, H.E.; Yildiz, C. Seismic performance assessment of industrial structures in Turkey using the fragility curves. In
Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012.
5. Campione, G.; Cannella, F.; Cavaleri, L. Shear and Flexural Strength Prediction of Corroded R.C. Beams. Constr. Build. Mater.
2017, 149, 395–405. [CrossRef]
6. Amini, S.N.; Rajput, A.S. Seismic Response Assessment of Ductile Reinforced Concrete Columns Affected by Corrosion and Axial
Load Variations. J. Struct. Eng. 2024, 65, 106699. [CrossRef]
7. Shang, Z.; Zheng, S.; Zheng, H.; Li, Y.L.; Dong, J. Seismic Behavior and Damage Evolution of Corroded RC Columns Designed for
Bending Failure in an Artificial Climate. J. Struct. Eng. 2022, 38, 184–201. [CrossRef]
8. Aminulai, H.O.; Robinson, A.F.; Ferguson, N.S.; Kashani, M.M. Nonlinear Behaviour of Corrosion Damaged Low-Strength Short
Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Compressive Axial Cyclic Loading. Eng. Struct. 2023, 289, 116245. [CrossRef]
9. Guo, A.; Li, H.; Ba, X.; Guan, X.; Li, H. Experimental Investigation on the Cyclic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Piers with
Chloride-Induced Corrosion in Marine Environment. Eng. Struct. 2015, 105, 1–11. [CrossRef]
10. Meda, A.; Mostosi, S.; Rinaldi, Z.; Riva, P. Experimental Evaluation of the Corrosion Influence on the Cyclic Behaviour of RC
Columns. Eng. Struct. 2014, 76, 112–123. [CrossRef]
11. Yang, S.Y.; Song, X.B.; Jia, H.X.; Chen, X.; Liu, X.L. 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]
12. Yao, L.; Shi-ping, Y.; Wen-jie, C. Seismic Behavior of Corrosion-Damaged RC Columns Strengthened with TRC Under a Chloride
Environment. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 201, 736–745. [CrossRef]
13. Berto, L.; Vitaliani, R.; Saetta, A.; Simioni, P. Seismic Assessment of Existing RC Structures Affected by Degradation Phenomena.
Struct. Saf. 2009, 31, 284–297. [CrossRef]
14. Afsar Dizaj, E.; Kashani, M.M. Nonlinear Structural Performance and Seismic Fragility of Corroded Reinforced Concrete
Structures: Modelling Guidelines. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 5374–5403. [CrossRef]
15. Seismosoft. SeismoStruct 2024—A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Framed Structures. 2024.
Available online: https://seismosoft.com/ (accessed on 2 April 2025).
16. Monti, G.; Nuti, C.; Santini, S. CYRUS—CYclic Response of Upgraded Sections: A Program for the Analysis of Retrofitted or Repaired R.C.
Sections Under Biaxial Cyclic Loading Including Buckling of Rebars; Report DSSAR 1/96; Dipartimento di Scienze Storia e Restauro,
Università Degli Studi G. D’Annunzio di Chieti: Chieti, Italy, 1996. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11590/191035
(accessed on 2 April 2025).
17. Mander, J.B.; Priestley, M.J.N.; Park, R. Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 1988, 114, 1804–1826.
[CrossRef]
Buildings 2025, 15, 1267 28 of 28

18. Menegotto, M.; Pinto, P.E. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and
non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending. In Proceedings of the Symposium on the Resistance
and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 21–23 May 1973; pp. 15–22.
19. Filippou, F.C.; Popov, E.P.; Bertero, V.V. Effects of Bond Deterioration on Hysteretic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Joints; Report
EERC 83-19; Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1983.
20. Monti, G.; Nuti, C. Nonlinear cyclic behaviour of reinforcing bars including buckling. J. Struct. Eng. 1992, 118, 3268–3284.
[CrossRef]
21. Fragiadakis, M.; Pinho, R.; Antoniou, S. Modelling inelastic buckling of reinforcing bars under earthquake loading. In Progress in
Computational Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; Papadrakakis, M., Charmpis, D.C., Lagaros, N.D., Tsompanakis, Y., Eds.; A.A.
Balkema Publishers—Taylor & Francis: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2008.
22. Martinez-Rueda, J.E.; Elnashai, A.S. Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Mater. Struct. 1997, 30, 139–147. [CrossRef]
23. Maranhão, H.; Varum, H.; Melo, J.; Correia, A.A. Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Design and Detailing Provisions for RC
Moment Resisting Frames Under the First- and Second-Generation of Eurocode 8. Eng. Struct. 2024, 306, 117809. [CrossRef]
24. EN 1998–3; Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance–Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings. CEN-European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
25. EN 1992–1-1; Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1—1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. CEN-European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
26. N 206–1; Concrete—Part 1: Specification, Performance, Production and Conformity. CEN-European Committee for Standardiza-
tion: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
27. EN 10080; Steel for the Reinforcement of Concrete—Weldable Reinforcing Steel—General. CEN-European Committee for
Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
28. EN 1998–1; Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings.
CEN-European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.