buildings

Article
Prediction of Nonlinear Flexural Behavior of Continuous RC
Beams Pre-Damaged by Corrosion
Youssef Elmezayen 1 , Nouman Khattak 2 and Tamer El-Maaddawy 1, *

1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Al Ain Campus,

United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain 15551, United Arab Emirates; 202090223@uaeu.ac.ae
2 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Gardens Point Campus,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4000, Australia; nouman.khattak@hdr.qut.edu.au
* Correspondence: tamer.maaddawy@uaeu.ac.ae

Abstract: Numerical simulation models capable of predicting the nonlinear flexural behavior of
continuous reinforced concrete (RC) beams with corroded reinforcement were developed. Laboratory
tests were conducted to validate predictions of the numerical models. A parametric study was carried
out to examine the effect of varying the location and severity of corrosion on the nonlinear flexural
behavior of continuous RC beams. The load capacity of continuous RC beams decreased linearly
with an increase in the severity of corrosion, regardless of its location. The corrosion of reinforcement
in the sagging region was, however, more detrimental to the load capacity than hogging corrosion.
The rate of the strength reduction for the beam models with sagging corrosion was approximately
70% higher than that of the models with hogging corrosion. The beam models with sagging and
hogging corrosion concurrently exhibited the poorest performance. The rate of the strength reduction
of the beam models with corrosion in both sagging and hogging regions was approximately 2.7 times
that of the models with hogging corrosion only. The moment redistribution ratio at the ultimate
load for the beam models with sagging corrosion only ranged from 2–22%. The beam models with
corrosion in the hogging region only exhibited the highest moment redistribution ratio of 22–50% at
the ultimate load. The beam models with sagging and hogging corrosion simultaneously exhibited a
constant moment redistribution ratio of 18% at the ultimate load.

Citation: Elmezayen, Y.; Khattak, N.; Keywords: concrete; continuous; corrosion; flexure; numerical; simulation; tests
El-Maaddawy, T. Prediction of
Nonlinear Flexural Behavior of
Continuous RC Beams Pre-Damaged
by Corrosion. Buildings 2023, 13, 1398. 1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.3390/
The corrosion of steel reinforcing bars in reinforced concrete (RC) beams results in rust
buildings13061398
stains, concrete cracks, loss of the reinforcement cross-sectional area, and deterioration of
Academic Editor: Bo-Tao Huang the bond between the reinforcing steel bars and surrounding concrete [1–3]. Surface crack-
Received: 22 April 2023
ing of concrete due to corrosion affects the serviceability of RC structures and weakens the
Revised: 14 May 2023
compressive and tensile properties of the surrounding concrete [3–6]. Concrete structures
Accepted: 26 May 2023 with corroded reinforcement may reach their serviceability limit state at a low level of
Published: 29 May 2023 corrosion mass loss [4–6]. The presence of closely spaced stirrups controls the propagation
of corrosion cracks and restrains the rate of increase of their width at the concrete surface [5].
The degradation of the load-carrying capacity of simply supported RC beams with corroded
reinforcement is highly dependent on the location of corrosion [6]. The corrosion of the
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. compression steel reinforcing bars damages the compression zone of the concrete, which
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. expedites crushing of the concrete, thus reducing the load-carrying capacity and ductility
This article is an open access article of the beam [6]. The corrosion of the tensile steel reinforcing bars weakens the tension
distributed under the terms and stiffening effect provided by the concrete and reduces the yielding load, thus reducing the
conditions of the Creative Commons load-carrying capacity [6]. Corrosion damage in both compression and tension zones of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
simply supported beams has a more detrimental effect on the load-carrying capacity than
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
that induced by corrosion either in the compression zone or the tension zone solely [6].
4.0/).

Buildings 2023, 13, 1398. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13061398 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 2 of 17

The behavior of continuous RC beams with corroded reinforcement differs from that of
simply supported RC beams. The reduction in the load-carrying capacity caused by the
corrosion of the tensile steel reinforcement in simply supported beams with well-anchored
reinforcement is almost the same as the reduction in the moment strength of the midspan
section. This behavior has been supported by experimental evidence in the literature [3,6].
Furthermore, it is well-known that failure of simply supported RC beams occurs when the
section at the midspan reaches its maximum moment.
Dissimilar to the behavior of simply supported RC beams, the flexural load-carrying
capacity of RC beams with multiple spans is controlled by the moment and rotational
capacities of the critical sections at both sagging and hogging regions [7–12]. Due to their
redundancy, continuous RC beams have the capacity to redistribute the moments between
damaged and undamaged critical sections so that formation of a plastic hinge at one section
does not necessarily lead to a structural collapse [13,14]. When the moment capacity is
reached in one of the critical sections of two-span RC beams, further loads and additional
deformations can be sustained prior to failure [15]. The rotational capacity of the section
that exhibited the first yielding and the moment strength of the other section control the
load-carrying capacity and deformability of two-span RC beams [16,17]. As such, the load
capacity of continuous RC beams is a function of the moment strength of both sagging
and hogging sections, and, therefore, a reduction in the moment strength in one location
due to corrosion does not necessarily produce a similar reduction in the load-carrying
capacity of the beam. It has been observed that reinforcement corrosion contributes to the
redistribution of moments from corroded sections to uncorroded ones, relieving the most
damaged regions [18,19]. Therefore, the capacity to redistribute the moments between the
sagging and hogging regions inherent to statically indeterminate beams could provide an
additional safety margin regarding the consequences of the corrosion phenomena. The
capacity for redistributing the moments between critical sections and the higher stiffness
associated with statically indeterminate structures would delay the failure of flexure-
deficient RC beams and reduce the consequences of corrosion on the load-carrying capacity
compared to simply supported beams [19,20]. As such, continuous RC beams can withstand
higher levels of corrosion damage than simply supported beams can, and, therefore, more
time between the first corrosion symptoms and the eventual collapse may elapse. Thus,
data reported in the literature on the flexural behavior of deficient simply supported RC
beams are invalid for continuous structures.
Prediction of the nonlinear flexural behavior of RC beams with multiple spans pre-
damaged by corrosion in the sagging and/or hogging regions represents a challenge to the
engineering community. Providing data on the performance of corroded continuous RC
beams is crucial for design engineers and researchers because practical applications would
typically require condition assessment of continuous RC structural elements. This study
aims to fill this gap through numerical modeling and laboratory testing of two-span RC
beams. It is noteworthy that this research is not intended to study the cracking phenomenon
of the concrete cover surrounding a corroded steel reinforcing bar. The aim of this research
is to examine the overall nonlinear flexural behavior of continuous RC beams with corrosion
in the tensile steel reinforcement. As such, simulation models for performance prediction
of two-span RC beams were developed. An experimental campaign was carried out to
verify predictions of the numerical models. A parametric study was then conducted to
examine the effect of varying the level of corrosion damage and the location of corrosion
on the nonlinear flexural response. The outcomes of this study could aid practitioners and
researchers in condition assessment of continuous RC beams pre-damaged by corrosion.

2. Methods and Materials

This study comprises numerical modeling and experimental testing. The numerical
modeling included the development of three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) mod-
els using ATENA 3D software [21] version 5.6.1r to simulate the behavior of two-span
continuous RC beams pre-damaged by corrosion in either the sagging or hogging region.
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 3 of 17

continuous RC beams pre-damaged by corrosion in either the sagging or hogging region.

The experimental testing involved the construction of eight large-scale continuous RC
The experimental
beam specimens and testing involved
subjecting the construction
the beam specimens toofaccelerated
eight large-scale continuous
corrosion exposureRCto
beam specimens
induce and subjecting
different levels thedamage
of corrosion beam specimens to sagging
in either the accelerated corrosion
or hogging exposure
region. Fol-
to induce
lowing different
corrosion levels ofthe
exposure, corrosion damage inwere
beam specimens either the sagging
tested orto
to failure hogging
examineregion.
their
flexural performance. Laboratory test results were used to validate predictions of thetheir
Following corrosion exposure, the beam specimens were tested to failure to examine 3D
flexural performance.
simulation models. Laboratory test results were used to validate predictions of the 3D
simulation models.
2.1. Model Development
2.1. Model Development
Eight 3D simulation models were initially developed. One beam model did not have
Eight 3D simulation models were initially developed. One beam model did not have
a deficiency to act as a benchmark, whereas the other seven models had a deficiency of
a deficiency to act as a benchmark, whereas the other seven models had a deficiency of
10–40% corrosion cross-sectional loss in either the sagging or hogging region.
10–40% corrosion cross-sectional loss in either the sagging or hogging region.
2.1.1.
2.1.1. Configuration
Configuration of of the
the Continuous
Continuous Beam Beam Model
Model
Figures 1 and 2 show details
Figures 1 and 2 show details regarding the regarding the continuous
continuous beam beam models
models pre-damaged
pre-damaged
by
by corrosion in the sagging and hogging regions, respectively. The models had
corrosion in the sagging and hogging regions, respectively. The models had aa total
total
length
length of 5200 mm and two equal spans of 2400 mm each. The cross-section of the
of 5200 mm and two equal spans of 2400 mm each. The cross-section of the beam
beam
models
models had had aa width
width of of bb= = 150
150 mm,
mm, depth
depth of of h
h == 250
250 mm,
mm, and and an an effective
effective depth
depth ofof tension
tension
steel
steel of d = 225 mm. The beams were designed according to the ACI 318-19 [22] to
of d = 225 mm. The beams were designed according to the ACI 318-19 [22] to fail
fail in
in
flexure. The The tensile
tensilesteel
steelininboth boththethesagging
sagging andand hogging
hogging regions
regions consisted
consisted of three
of three 12 mm12
mm diameter
diameter steelsteel
barsbars
(3 No.(3 No. 12), 12),
whilewhile
the the compressive
compressive steelsteel included
included twotwo6 mm6 mm diam-
diameter
eter bars (2 No. 6). Steel stirrups with a diameter of 8 mm (No.
bars (2 No. 6). Steel stirrups with a diameter of 8 mm (No. 8) were used at a spacing of 8) were used at a spacing
of
75 75
mm mmalongalong
thethe
beam beamlength.length.
TheThe corroded
corroded zonezone
waswas located
located in the
in the middle
middle thirdthird of
of the
the sagging regions (i.e., middle 800 mm) or middle 800 mm
sagging regions (i.e., middle 800 mm) or middle 800 mm of the hogging region. The cube of the hogging region. The
0
cube (fcu
(fcu ) andcu) cylinder
and cylinder (f′′cc) compressive
(f c ) compressive strengths
strengths of the ofconcrete
the concrete werewere
40 and40 29,
andrespectively,
29, respec-
tively,
whereas whereas the splitting
the splitting tensiletensile
strength strength
of the of the concrete
concrete (fsp
(fsp ) was sp)2.4
wasMPa.
2.4 MPa. The yield
The yield and
ultimate
and strengths
ultimate of theof
strengths tensile steel were
the tensile steel561
wereand561649and
MPa, 649 respectively, whereas the
MPa, respectively, yield
whereas
the yield of
strength strength of theand
the stirrups stirrups and the compressive
the compressive steel was steel was 525 MPa.
525 MPa.

22 No.
No. 66 1600
1600 22 No.
No. 66
33 No.
No. 12
12
250
250

No. 8@
8@ 75mm
75mm
Corroded Zone
Corroded Zone
33 No.
No. 12
12 22 No.
No. 66 Corroded Zone
Corroded Zone
33 No.
No. 12
12
No. 800 600 800
800 600 800
200
200 2400
2400 2400
2400 200
200

Figure 1.
1. Geometry
Geometryand
anddetails
detailsregarding
regardingreinforcement
reinforcementofof
beam models
beam with
models sagging
with corrosion
sagging corrosion
(dimensions are in mm).
(dimensions are in mm).

1600
1600
800
800
22 No.
No. 66 22 No.
No. 66
33 No.
No. 12
12
250
250

Corroded Zone
Corroded Zone

No. 8@
No. 8@ 75mm
75mm 33 No.
No. 12
12 22 No.
No. 66
33 No.
No. 12
12
600
600
200
200 2400
2400 2400
2400 200
200
5200
5200

Geometryand
Figure 2. Geometry anddetails
detailsregarding
regardingreinforcement
reinforcementofofbeam
beammodels
models with
with hogging
hogging corrosion
corrosion
(dimensions are in
(dimensions are in mm).
mm).

2.1.2. Material
2.1.2. Material Constitutive
Constitutive Laws
Laws
Material constitutive
Material constitutive laws that account
laws that account for
for the
the nonlinear
nonlinear performance
performance of of the
the materials
materials
used and the bonding conditions between the steel and surrounding
used and the bonding conditions between the steel and surrounding concrete concrete were adopted.
were
The CC3DNonLinCementitious2 material model built-in in ATENA
adopted. The CC3DNonLinCementitious2 material model built-in in ATENA software software [21] was
used to simulate the concrete. The compressive hardening–softening model adopted in
[21] was used to simulate the concrete. The compressive hardening–softening model
the analysis
adopted is based
in the onisthe
analysis Menétrey–Willam
based failure surface.
on the Menétrey–Willam failureIt surface.
uses a return
It usesmapping
a return
algorithm for the integration of the governing equations. The nonlinear behavior of the
0
concrete in compression starts at a compressive stress value of f co = 2ft , where ft = uniaxial
Buildings 2023, 13,Buildings
x FOR PEER
2023,REVIEW
13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17 4

Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 mapping algorithm for algorithm

the integration of integration
the governing equations. Theequations.
nonlinearThe 4 of 17
behavior
mapping for the of the governing nonlinear beha
of the concrete in compression starts at a compressive stress
of the concrete in compression starts at a compressive stress value of f co = 2ft, wher value of f′ co = 2f t , where ′ f t =
uniaxial tensile strength,
uniaxial assumed
tensile strength, as ⅔fassumed
sp [23]. The ascompressive
⅔fsp [23]. Thestress (σc) during
compressive stress the(σhard-
c) during the h
ening phase
tensile strength,is linked
ening assumed to
phase is the plastic
aslinked
2/3fsp [23].strain
to the The (ε ) through
compressive
plastic
p a nonlinear
strain (εstress
p) through function
(σc ) during
a nonlinear [21] until
the hardening
function the [21] unti
cylinder
phase is compressive
linked to the strength
cylinder plastic
compressive (f c) is(ε
strain ′ reached
p ) through
strength (f(Figure
′c) a 3a). The
isnonlinear
reached value3a).
function
(Figure of the
[21]The plastic
until
value thestrainthe at
cylinder
of plastic stra
0
peak (εcp) is generated
compressive peak
strength (εcp)automatically
(fiscgenerated
) is reached by(Figure
the software
automatically 3a). by Thebased
the on of
software
value thetheconcrete
based
plastic oncube strength.
the concrete
strain at peakcube stren
The
(εcp )compressive Thestress
is generated decreases
compressive
automatically stresslinearly
by the in thelinearly
decreases
software post-peak
based on phase
in the
the as a function
post-peak
concrete cubephase of
asthe
strength. com-
a function
The of the c
pressive displacement
compressive stresspressive (w
decreases ) through
displacement
c linearly (w the length
in cthe post-peak
) through scale L
thephase (Figure
length
c asscale 3b).
a function The
Lc (Figure compressive
of the3b). The dis-
compressive compressive
placement
displacement at aplacement
complete
(w c ) through release
at athe of stress
length
complete (wd)Lis
scale
release cof equal
stressto(w
(Figure 0.5
3b). mm
The
d) is equal[21].toThe
compressive
0.5 mm tensile stress
displacement
[21]. The(σ t)
tensile stres
softening
at a completelawsoftening
exhibits
release ofan law exponential
stress (wd ) isan
exhibits function
equal to 0.5
exponential based
mm on the
[21].
function Thecrack opening
tensile
based onstress
the crack displacement
(σt ) softening
opening displacem
(w t) through
law exhibits anthe t)length
(wexponential
through scale Llength
t (Figure
function
the based 3c).on
scale LThe theconventional
t (Figure crack3c). opening orthotropic
displacement
The conventional fixed (wtsmeared-
) through
orthotropic fixed smea
crack fracture
the length scalemodel
L was
(Figure adopted
3c). The in the analysis.
conventional It adopts
orthotropic
crackt fracture model was adopted in the analysis. It adopts the Rankine’s theory fo the
fixed Rankine’s
smeared-crack theory for
fracturethe
failure
model criterion
was adopted and in
failure antheexponential
criterion analysis.
and anIt softening
adopts the
exponential based on crack
Rankine’s
softening opening.
theory
based for crack
on the The software
failure
opening. criterionde- software
The
termines the
and an exponentialcrack
termines opening
softening
the crack at zero
based stress
on crack
opening (w
at zero
tc ) based
opening. on
stress The f and
(wtc)software
t the fracture
based ondetermines energy
ft and the fracture (G
the crack
f) ofenergy (G
the material.
opening The
at zero constitutive
the stress
material. (wtc )The law
based of
on the
constitutiveft andtensile
the of
law steelthebars
fracture wassteel
energy
tensile assumed
(Gfbars
) of the as material.
was linear
assumed elastic
Theas linear el
constitutive
with law
withof
a post-yield a the
strain tensile strain
hardening
post-yield steel(Ebars ) ofwas1% of
hardening
sp assumed ) of as1%linear
Es sp(pre-yield
(E elastic with
ofmodulus),
Es (pre-yield as shown a post-yield
modulus), in Fig-as shown in
strain
ure hardening
4a [24]. Anure (Esp ) ofAn
elastic–perfectly
4a [24]. 1%elastic–perfectly
of plastic
Es (pre-yield
behavior modulus),
was behavior
plastic assumedas shown for the
was in Figure
stirrups
assumed for4aand[24].
the com- An
stirrups and c
elastic–perfectly
pressions steel. plastic
pressions steel. behavior was assumed for the stirrups and compressions steel.

(a) (a) (b) (b) (c) (c)

Figure
Figure 3.3.Hardening
Figureand
Hardening softening
3.and
Hardening
softeningconcrete
and laws:
softening
concrete (a) compressive
concrete
laws: hardening;
laws: (a)
(a) compressive (b) compressive
compressive
hardening; hardening; sof-
(b) compressiv
(b) compressive
tening; (c) tensile softening.
tening;softening.
(c) tensile softening.
softening; (c) tensile

15.0 15.0
Corroded Bars Corroded Bars
12.5 12.5 Uncorroded Bars Uncorroded Bars
Bond Stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (MPa)

10.0 10.0
7.5 7.5
5.0 5.0
2.5 2.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 5.0 0.010.0 5.015.0 20.0
10.0 15.0 20.0
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)
(a) (a) (b) (b)
Figure
Figure4.
4.Constitutive
Constitutive laws
Figure 4. of
oftension
Constitutive
laws steel:
steel:of(a)
tensionlaws stress−strain
tension
(a) stresssteel:
−strain response;
(a) (b)
(b)bond-slip
stress−strain
response; response;law.
bond-slip (b) bond-slip law.
law.

The
The corrosion
corrosionThe of
of reinforcement
reinforcement in
in concrete
concrete reduces
corrosion of reinforcement reduces the
the area
in concrete area of
of the
reduces the
thesteel
areareinforcing
steel reinforcing
of the steel reinfor
bars,
bars, impairs bars,
the properties
the properties ofof the
the surrounding
surrounding concrete,
concrete, and and diminishes
diminishes
impairs the properties of the surrounding concrete, and diminishes the the
bond bond
betweenbe- the bond
the steel
tween the and
steel the
andsurrounding
tween the steel andconcrete.
thesurrounding the concrete.The
surrounding impacts
The impacts ofofThe
concrete. corrosion
corrosion
impacts of
ofofthe
the tensile steel
corrosion steel
of the tensile
reinforcement
reinforcement in RC
in RC beam
beam models
reinforcement models canbe
can
in RC beam be considered
considered
models through
can bethrough aareduction
considered reduction
throughinin thecross-
a the cross- in the c
reduction
sectionalarea
sectional areasectional
of the
of the deficient
deficient steeldeficient
area of steel
the reinforcing
reinforcing bars
bars
steel andaa change
and
reinforcing change in bond-slip
in
bars and bond-slip
a changelaw law at the
at the law a
in bond-slip
steel–concretesteel–concrete
steel–concrete interface.The
interface. Theinterface.
bond-slip
bond-slip constitutive
constitutive laws
laws defined
defined by
by the
the CEB-FIP
CEB-FIP
The bond-slip constitutive laws defined by the CEB-FIP M Model
Model
code[25]
code [25]for
forgood
goodand
code andfor
[25] poor
poor bonding
bonding
good conditions
conditions
and poor bonding were
were adopted
adopted
conditions inadopted
in the
were the analysis
analysis infor for
thethe the for the
un-
analysis
uncorroded and
corroded andcorroded corroded
corrodedand tensile
tensile steel reinforcing
steel reinforcing
corroded bars,
tensile steelbars, respectively
respectively
reinforcing (Figure
bars, (Figure
respectively 4b).
4b). It It is
is
(Figure 4b).
noteworthy that for RC structural elements with corrosion in the compression zone, it
would be essential to adopt modified concrete constitutive laws to account for the effects of
corrosion-induced cracks on the properties of the surrounding concrete.
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17

noteworthy that for RC structural elements with corrosion in the compression zone, it
Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 would be essential to adopt modified concrete constitutive laws to account for the effects
5 of 17
of corrosion-induced cracks on the properties of the surrounding concrete.

2.1.3. Element Types and Boundary Conditions

2.1.3. Element Types and Boundary Conditions
Solid macro-elements with a maximum mesh size of 25 mm were adopted to simulate
Solid macro-elements
the concrete beam and the with steel aplates.
maximum meshreinforcing
The steel size of 25 mmbarswere
wereadopted to simulate
simulated by one-
the concrete beam and the steel plates. The steel reinforcing bars were simulated by one-
dimensional discrete elements that were embedded into the macro-elements of the con-
dimensional discrete elements that were embedded into the macro-elements of the concrete.
crete. Half of the beam was modeled to benefit from the symmetry at the central support.
Half of the beam was modeled to benefit from the symmetry at the central support. The end
The end and central support plates were restricted from movement in the vertical and
and central support plates were restricted from movement in the vertical and transverse
transverse directions. Surface supports were used to prevent movement in the longitudi-
directions. Surface supports were used to prevent movement in the longitudinal direction
nal direction at the plane of symmetry. A displacement-controlled loading regime was
at the plane of symmetry. A displacement-controlled loading regime was adopted in the
adopted in the analysis. As such, prescribed displacements were induced at the midpoint
analysis. As such, prescribed displacements were induced at the midpoint of the top
of the top surface of the loading plate at a rate of 0.1 mm/step. Monitoring points were
surface of the loading plate at a rate of 0.1 mm/step. Monitoring points were included
included in the model to record the displacement-induced loads at the top of the loading
in the model to record the displacement-induced loads at the top of the loading plate,
plate, the central support reactions, the sagging steel strains and the bottom surface de-
the central support reactions, the sagging steel strains and the bottom surface deflections
flections under the load point, and the hogging steel strains at the central support. Figure
under the load point, and the hogging steel strains at the central support. Figure 5 shows
5 shows
the the elements
elements and boundary
and boundary conditions conditions of ahalf-numerical
of a typical typical half-numerical model
model along withalong
the
with the locations of the monitoring points. The software adopts the
locations of the monitoring points. The software adopts the Newton–Raphson iterativeNewton–Raphson
iterative solution.
solution. In each
In each time step,time
the step, the software
software iterates
iterates until until a prescribed
a prescribed convergence
convergence criterion
criterion pertaining
pertaining to displacement
to displacement compatibility,
compatibility, force equilibrium,
force equilibrium, and balance
and balance of energyof en-
are
ergy are satisfied. The line search option of the Newton–Raphson iterative
satisfied. The line search option of the Newton–Raphson iterative solution was activated solution was
to
activated
help to help inthe
in stabilizing stabilizing
convergencethe convergence
process. process.

Figure 5. Typical numerical half-model

half-model for
for the
the two-span
two-span continuous
continuous beam.
beam.

2.2. Experimental Testing

2.2. Experimental Testing
An
An experimental
experimental campaign
campaign was carried out
was carried out to
to validate predictions of
validate predictions of the
the simulation
simulation
models.
models. The test matrix accelerated corrosion technique and setup of the structural test
The test matrix accelerated corrosion technique and setup of the structural test to
to
failure
failure are
are presented
presented inin this
this section.
section.
2.2.1. Test Matrix
2.2.1. Test Matrix
The test matrix is provided in Table 1. A total of eight two-span continuous beams
The test matrix is provided in Table 1. A total of eight two-span continuous beams
were constructed. Test variables included the cross-sectional loss caused by corrosion in
were constructed. Test variables included the cross-sectional loss caused by corrosion in
the tensile steel reinforcement (10–40%) and the location of corrosion damage (sagging or
the tensile
hogging steel reinforcement
region). (10–40%)
One of the tested beamsand the location
remained of corrosion
uncorroded to actdamage (sagging
as a control, or
while
hogging region). One of the tested beams remained uncorroded to act as a control,
seven beams were subjected to accelerated corrosion. Four beams were corroded in the while
seven beams
sagging were
regions, subjected
whereas threetobeams
accelerated corrosion.
were corroded Four
in the beams region.
hogging were corroded in the
The specimens
were labeled as X–Y, where X denotes the corrosion location, (S) for sagging and (H)The
sagging regions, whereas three beams were corroded in the hogging region. for
hogging, and Y denotes the steel rebar cross-sectional loss due to corrosion.
 Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of

Buildings 2023, 13, 1398

specimens were labeled as X–Y, where X denotes the corrosion location,6 (S) of 17
for saggin
and (H) for hogging, and Y denotes the steel rebar cross-sectional loss due to corrosion

Table 1. TestTable
matrix.
1. Test matrix.

Corrosion
Corrosion DurationDuration
CorrosionCorrosion
Damage Damage
Specimen
Specimen Corrosion Location
Corrosion Location (Days) (Days) (%) * (%) *
Control Control - - - - - -
S-10 S-10 Sagging
Sagging RegionRegion 60 60 10 10
S-20 S-20 Sagging
Sagging RegionRegion 120 120 20 20
S-30
S-30 Sagging
Sagging Region
Region 180
180 30
30
S-40 Sagging Region 240 40
S-40 Sagging Region 240 40
H-20 Hogging Region 120 20
H-20 Hogging Region 120 20
H-30 Hogging Region 180 30
H-30 H-40 Hogging RegionRegion
Hogging 180 240 30 40
H-40
* Cross-sectional Hogging Region
loss in the 240 bars caused by corrosion
tensile steel reinforcing 40 based on Faraday
law.loss in the tensile steel reinforcing bars caused by corrosion based on Faraday’s law.
* Cross-sectional

2.2.2. Accelerated
2.2.2. Accelerated Corrosion Corrosion
The concrete Themixture
concreteused to cast used
mixture the desired
to castcorroded region
the desired includedregion
corroded 5% NaCl (salt) 5% Na
included
by weight (salt)
of cement to depassivate
by weight of cement to the steel bars the
depassivate andsteel
promote
bars andcorrosion.
promoteAn internalAn intern
corrosion.
stainless steel tube steel
stainless was tube
placed waslongitudinally along the
placed longitudinally corroded
along region region
the corroded in either the the sa
in either
sagging orging
hogging regionsregions
or hogging to act astoaact
cathode duringduring
as a cathode the accelerated corrosion
the accelerated process.
corrosion process. T
The accelerated corrosion
accelerated included
corrosion impressing
included a constant
impressing current current
a constant density density of 165 2µA/cm2 o
of 165 µA/cm
on the tensile
the steel reinforcing
tensile bars bybars
steel reinforcing means of external
by means power power
of external supplies for 60,for
supplies 120, 60,180,
120, 180, an
and 240 days,
240 which corresponded
days, which to theoretical
corresponded cross-sectional
to theoretical losseslosses
cross-sectional of 10,of
20,10,
30,20,
and30, and 40
40%, respectively, based on Faraday’s law. The corroded steel bars were connected
respectively, based on Faraday’s law. The corroded steel bars were connected to the po to the
positive terminal of the power
itive terminal supplysupply
of the power to act asto an
act anode, whereas
as an anode, the internal
whereas stainless
the internal stainless ste
steel tube was connected to the negative terminal. The beams were
tube was connected to the negative terminal. The beams were subjected subjected to wet–dry
to wet–dry cycl
cycles (half-day as wet
(half-day asand
wetone
anddayoneasday
dry).
as During the wetthe
dry). During phase, water mist
wet phase, waterwas sprayed
mist was sprayed
on the beamstheusing
beamsfogging compressed
using fogging air mist nozzles.
compressed The specimens
air mist nozzles. were encased
The specimens were in encased in
a polyethylene cover sheet during accelerated corrosion to control the interior
polyethylene cover sheet during accelerated corrosion to control the interior humidit humidity.
Figure 6a,bFigure
shows6a,b
a typical
showselectrical
a typicalcircuit andcircuit
electrical a photograph of the beams
and a photograph inside
of the beamsthe inside t
corrosion tank, respectively.
corrosion tank, respectively.

(a) (b)
Figure 6. Accelerated
Figure 6. Accelerated corrosion:
corrosion: (a) a typical (a) a typical
electric electric
circuit; circuit;inside
(b) beams (b) beams inside the
the corrosion corrosion tank.
tank.

2.2.3. Structural Test Setup

A displacement-controlled load was applied at the midpoint of each beam at a rate
of 1.5 mm/min using an MTS actuator. A rigid steel beam was utilized to spread the load
equally on two points located at a distance that corresponded to 40% of the beam span
Buildings 2023, 2023,
Buildings
Buildings 13, x FOR
2023, 13,x xPEER
13, REVIEW
FORPEER
FOR PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 7 of 7177ofof1717

2.2.3.2.2.3.
Structural
2.2.3. Test Test
Structural
Structural Setup
TestSetup
Setup
Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 7 of 17
A displacement-controlled
AAdisplacement-controlled
displacement-controlled loadloadwas applied
loadwaswasapplied at the
applied atatmidpoint
thethemidpointof each
midpoint beam
ofofeach
eachbeam at a at
beam rate
ataarate
rate
of 1.5 mm/min
ofof 1.5mm/min
1.5 mm/minusing an MTS
using
using ananMTSactuator.
MTSactuator. A rigid
actuator. steelsteel
AArigid
rigid beam
steelbeam was was
beam utilized
wasutilizedto spread
utilized the load
totospread
spread theload
the load
equally on two
equally
equally on points
ontwo twopoints located
points at a at
located
located distance
ataadistancethat that
distance corresponded
thatcorresponded
corresponded to 40% of
toto40% the
40% ofofbeam
thebeam
the spanspan
beam span
measured
measured
measured
measured from
fromfromfrom the
the central central
thecentral
the support
central support
(Figure
support
support (Figure
7). The
(Figure
(Figure 7). The
total
7).The
7). total
Thetotal applied
applied load
loadload
totalapplied
applied was was
measured
loadwas measured
wasmeasured
measuredby by by
by
means means
of
means a of
load
of aa load
cell
load cell
located
cell located
between
located between
the
between the
actuator
the actuator
and
actuator and
the
and topthe top
surface
the top
means of a load cell located between the actuator and the top surface of the spreader beam. surface
of
surfacethe of the
spreader
of the spreader
beam.
spreader beam.
beam.
The
The The central
central
Thecentralsupport
central support
support
support reaction
reaction was was
reaction
reaction was measured
measured
wasmeasured
measuredusing using
using
using another
another another
another load
loadload
cell cell
loadplaced placed
cellplaced
cell between
placed between the
the the
between
between the
beam beam
bottom
beam
beam bottom
surface
bottom
bottom surface
and and
surface
surface and
the
andtopthe
the top
thesurface surface
of the
topsurface
top surface of the central
ofofcentral support.
thecentral
the central support.
Strain
support.
support. Strain
gauges
Strain
Strain gauges
(SGs)
gauges
gauges (SGs) were
werewere
(SGs)
(SGs) were
bonded bonded
to the
bonded
bonded to
toto the
tensile tensile
thetensile
the tensile steel
steelsteel reinforcing
reinforcing
steelreinforcing
reinforcing bars
barsbars
to
bars to
record
to record
torecord
record steel
steelsteel
strainsstrains
during
steelstrains
strains during testing.
testing.
during
during The The
testing.
testing. The
beam beam
Thebeam
beam
deflection
deflection at the
deflection
deflection at the
atatbottom bottom
thebottom
the surface
bottom surface
below
surface
surface below
below
below the
the load load
points
theload
the points
was was
loadpoints
points was measured
measured
wasmeasured using
measured using
linear
using
using linear variant
variant
linear
linear variant
variant
displacement
displacement
displacement
displacement transducers
transducers
transducers
transducers (LVDTs).(LVDTs).
(LVDTs).
(LVDTs).

Figure 7. Structural
Figure
Figure
Figure test setup.
7.7.7.Structural
Structural
Structural testsetup.
test
test setup.
setup.

2.2.4.
2.2.4.2.2.4.
2.2.4. Cross-Sectional
Cross-Sectional
Cross-Sectional
Cross-Sectional Loss
LossLoss
Due Due
to
LossDueDue to Corrosion
Corrosion
totoCorrosion
Corrosion
After
AfterAfter
the
Afterthethe structural
structural test
thestructural
structuraltesttest
to to
failure,failure,
steel
testtotofailure, steel coupons
coupons
failure,steel were
werewere
steelcoupons
coupons extracted
extracted
were from
fromfrom
extracted corroded
corroded
corrodedlongi-longi-
longi-
tudinaltudinal
steel steel
tudinalsteel
tudinal reinforcing
reinforcing
steelreinforcing bars
reinforcingbarsbars
and
barsandand
then then
andthen cleaned
cleaned of
thencleaned of
rust rust according
according
cleanedofofrust
rustaccordingto to
the the
ASTM
accordingtotothe ASTM
theASTMG1-03
ASTMG1-03 G1-03
[26] [26]
G1-03[26]
[26]
(Figure
(Figure 8). The
(Figure
(Figure 8). The
8).The
8). diameters
diameters
Thediameters of the
diameters of the
ofofcorrodedcorroded
thecorroded
the corroded coupons
coupons
coupons
coupons were
werewere then
thenthen
were measuredmeasured
thenmeasured using
measured using a
a caliper.
using
using caliper.
aacaliper.
caliper.
Measurements
Measurements
Measurements
Measurements of theof
of the corroded
ofcorroded
thecorroded
the corroded bar
bar diameters diameters
bardiameters
bar diameters verified
verified
verified
verified the cross-sectional
the cross-sectional losses
thecross-sectional
the cross-sectional losses estimated
estimated
losses
losses estimated
estimated
based based
based
based on Faraday’s
on Faraday’s
onFaraday’s
on Faraday’s law.
law.law.
FigureFigure
9 shows
law.Figure
Figure 999shows
shows
shows typical
typicaltypical
typical corroded
corroded steel
steelsteel
corroded
corroded bars bars
after
steelbars after
rust
barsafter rust removal.
removal.
afterrust
rustremoval.
removal.

(a) (a)
(a) (b) (b)
(b)
Figure 8. Extraction
Figure
Figure
Figure of corroded
8.8.8.Extraction
Extraction
Extractionof
of bars bars
ofcorroded
corroded
corroded and
barsrust
bars andremoval:
and
and rust
rust (a) extraction
rustremoval:
removal:
removal: (a)
(a) of steel
(a)extraction
extraction
extractionof
of coupons;
ofsteel
steel (b) corroded
steelcoupons;
coupons;
coupons; (b)corroded
(b)
(b) corroded
corroded
bars bars
during
bars chemical
during
during cleaning.
chemical
chemical cleaning.
cleaning.
bars during chemical cleaning.

(a) (a)
(a) (b) (b)
(b)

(c) (c)
(c) (d) (d)
(d)
Figure 9. Corroded
Figure
Figure
Figure 9. steel steel
9.9.Corroded
Corroded
Corroded bars
steel after
steelbars
bars rust
barsafter
after removal:
afterrust
rust (a) cross-sectional
rustremoval:
removal:
removal: (a)
(a) loss =loss
(a)cross-sectional
cross-sectional
cross-sectional 10%;
loss
loss (b)
===10%; cross-sectional
10%;
10%; (b)cross-sectional
(b)
(b) cross-sectional
cross-sectional
loss =loss
20%;
loss
loss (c)
===20%;
20%;cross-sectional
20%; (c)
(c) loss =loss
(c)cross-sectional
cross-sectional
cross-sectional 30%;
loss
loss (d)
===30%; cross-sectional
30%;
30%; loss =loss
(d)cross-sectional
(d)
(d) cross-sectional
cross-sectional 40%.
loss
loss===40%.
40%.
40%.
 Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8

Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 8 of 17

3. Model Validation
3. Model Validation A comparative analysis between the numerical and experimental test results wa
ducted. The load-deflection responses, crack patterns, steel strains, and failure mode
A comparative analysis between the numerical and experimental test results was con-
tained from the numerical analysis were compared to those obtained from the labor
ducted. The load-deflection responses, crack patterns, steel strains, and failure modes obtained
tests.
from the numerical analysis were compared to those obtained from the laboratory tests.
3.1. Load-Deflection
3.1. Load-Deflection Response Response
The load-deflection
The load-deflection responses of responses
the beamsofcorroded
the beams in corroded in the
the sagging and sagging
hogging and hoggin
gionsnumerically
regions predicted predicted numerically
are compared are to
compared to thosefrom
those obtained obtained from the experiments
the experiments in i
ures 10 and 11, respectively. It is evident that the numerical
Figures 10 and 11, respectively. It is evident that the numerical models simulated the models simulated the fle
behavior
flexural behavior of theoftested
the tested
beamsbeams
withwith
good good accuracy.
accuracy. The The deflection
deflection response
response can be idea
can
into four stages. In the first stage, the load increased linearly
be idealized into four stages. In the first stage, the load increased linearly up to the up to the cracking load
lowing cracking, the deflection continued to increase, but
cracking load. Following cracking, the deflection continued to increase, but at a higher at a higher rate, until th
yielding
rate, until the first occurred
yielding either
occurred in the
either insagging or the
the sagging orhogging region.
the hogging The first
region. yielding insi
The first
cantly increased
yielding insignificantly increasedthe rate of increase
the rate of theofbeam
of increase deflection.
the beam Next, the
deflection. deflection
Next, the incr
almostalmost
deflection increased linearly until the
linearly second
until yielding
the second occurred
yielding in thein
occurred other section.
the other Following th
section.
ond yielding,
Following the second yielding, thethe
deflection
deflectionresponse
responsealmost
almostplateaued.
plateaued.This
Thisbehavior
behavior waswas predicte
merically and verified experimentally. A comparison
predicted numerically and verified experimentally. A comparison between the predicted between the predicted and m
and measuredured results
results is provided
is provided in Table
in Table 2. The2. The difference
difference between
between the the predicted
predicted andand mea
measured load load capacities
capacities diddidnotnot exceed
exceed 9%.9%.TheThe predicted
predicted deflections
deflections atatultimate
ultimateload
load were w
were within a a26% 26%error
errorband.
band.

300 300

250 250

200 200
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

150 150

100 100

50 50
Numerical Numerical
Experimental Experimental
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

(a) (b)
300 300

250 250

200 200
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

150 150

100 100

50 50
Numerical Numerical
Experimental Experimental
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

(c) (d)
Figurevs.
Figure 10. Numerical 10.experimental
Numerical vs. experimentalresponse
load-deflection load-deflection response
of the beams with of the beams
sagging with sagging
corrosion:
sion: (a) S-10; (b) S-20;
(a) S-10; (b) S-20; (c) S-30; (d) S-40. (c) S-30; (d) S-40.

3.2. Crack Pattern

The predicted crack patterns were compared to those obtained from the experiments
in Figures 12–19. In alignment with the experimental observations, the beams showed
extensive flexural cracks in the sagging and hogging regions and few flexure-shear cracks
prior to failure. The failure of the specimens was initiated by the yielding of the steel
reinforcement in both sagging and hogging regions followed by concrete crushing at the
compression sides of both regions. The agreement between the predicted and experimental
 300 300 300

250 250 250

200 200 200

Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 9 of 17

Load (kN)
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

150 150 150

100 100 100

50 50 Numerical 50 Numerical
Numerical
crack patterns
Experimental
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW verifies the capabilityExperimental
of the numerical
0
models to simulate the nonlinear
Experimental
9 of 17
0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)
25 behavior of two-span
30 35 0 5 corroded
10 15 20RC
Deflection (mm)
continuous
25 30 35 beams with good accuracy.
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)
25 30 35

(a) (b) (c)

300 300 300

250 Figure 11. Numerical

250 vs. experimental load-deflection response
250 of beams with hogging corrosion:
200
(a) H-20; (b) H-30;
200
(c) H-40. 200

Load (kN)
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

150 150 150

Table 2. Comparison between numerical and experimental results.
100 100 100

Numerical
50 Numerical 50 Deflection at50 Ultimate Load
Numerical
Ultimate Load (kN)0
Experimental Experimental Experimental
0 (mm)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
Specimen 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)
25 30 35 0 5 10 15
Error 20
(%) *
Deflection (mm)
25 30 35
Deflection (mm)
Error (%) *35
Numerical Experimental Numerical Experimental
(a) (b) (c)
(PFE) (PExp) (ΔFE) (ΔExp)
Control 266.0 Figure Figure 11. Numerical
244.7 vs. experimental
+8.7 load-deflection 21.6 response of beams
17.1 with hogging +26.3 corrosion:
11. Numerical vs. experimental load-deflection response of beams with hogging corrosion:
(a) H-20; (b) H-30; (c) H-40.
S-10 252.4 (a) H-20; (b) H-30; 251.7 (c) H-40. +0.3 26.2 25.0 +4.8
S-20 236.4 222.3
Table 2. Comparison +6.3
between numerical 20.9
and experimental results. 23.8 −12.2
S-30 220.0 Table 2. Comparison 217.3 between numerical
+1.2 and experimental
19.2 results.22.0 −12.7
Deflection at Ultimate Load
S-40 206.6 Ultimate Load (kN)
208.7 −1.0 20.8 21.6 −3.7
Specimen Ultimate Load (kN) Error Deflection at(mm)Ultimate Load (mm) Error (%) *
H-20 248.4 247.4 +0.4(%) * 24.0 22.0 +9.1
Specimen Numerical Experimental Error (%) * Numerical Experimental Error (%) *
H-30 Numerical
238.6 Experimental
231.4 +3.1 Numerical
24.6 Experimental
23.5 +4.7
(PFE ) (P FE) (P
(PExp ) Exp) (Δ FE)
(∆FE ) (ΔExp)
(∆Exp )
H-40
Control 232.4 266.0 223.0
244.7 +4.2
+8.7 23.1
21.6 23.6
17.1 −2.1
+26.3
Control 266.0 * Error % =244.7
Numerical - Experimental +8.7
× +0.3
100. 21.6 17.1 +26.3
S-10 252.4 251.7
Experimental 26.2 25.0 +4.8
S-10 S-20 252.4236.4 251.7222.3 +0.3
+6.3 26.2
20.9 23.825.0 −12.2 +4.8
S-20 S-30 3.2. Crack Pattern
236.4220.0 222.3217.3 +1.2
+6.3 19.2
20.9 22.023.8 −12.7−12.2
S-40 206.6 The predicted 208.7crack patterns −1.0
were 20.8to those obtained
compared 21.6 from the experiments
−3.7
S-30 220.0 217.3 +1.2 19.2 22.0 −12.7
H-20 248.4
in Figures 12–19. 247.4
In alignment with +0.4 the experimental
24.0 observations,22.0 the beams showed
+9.1 ex-
S-40 206.6 208.7 −1.0 20.8 21.6 −3.7
H-30 238.6 231.4 +3.1 24.6 23.5
tensive flexural cracks in the sagging and hogging regions and few flexure-shear cracks +4.7
H-20 H-40 248.4232.4 247.4223.0
prior to failure. The failure of +0.4 the+4.2
specimens was 24.0
23.1 23.622.0
initiated by the +9.1re-
−2.1steel
yielding of the
Numerical - Experimental
H-30 238.6 inforcement in
= both sagging and
* Error %231.4
Experimental
hogging regions
× 100.
+3.1 24.6followed by concrete
23.5 crushing at the
+4.7
H-40 232.4 compression sides of both regions.
223.0 +4.2 The agreement
23.1 between the23.6
predicted and experi-
−2.1
mental crackPattern
3.2. Crack patterns verifies the capability of the numerical models to simulate the non-
Numerical − Experimental
linear (%) =
* Error behavior ofExperimental
two-span × 100. RC continuous beams with good accuracy.
corroded
The predicted crack patterns were compared to those obtained from the experiments
in Figures 12–19. In alignment with the experimental observations, the beams showed ex-
tensive flexural cracks in the sagging and hogging regions and few flexure-shear cracks
prior to failure. The failure of the specimens was initiated by the yielding of the steel re-
inforcement in both sagging and hogging regions followed by concrete crushing at the
compression sides of both regions. The agreement between the predicted and experi-
(a)
mental crack patterns verifies the capability of the numerical models to simulate the non-
linear behavior of two-span corroded RC continuous beams with good accuracy.

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW (b) 10 of 17

Figure
Figure12.
12.Crack
Crackpattern
patternof of
thethe
control specimen:
control (a) numerical;
specimen: (b) experimental.
(a) numerical; (b) experimental.
(a)

(b)
(a)
Figure 12. Crack pattern of the control specimen: (a) numerical; (b) experimental.

(b)
Figure
Figure13.
13.Crack
Crackpattern
patternofof
specimen S-10:
specimen (a) (a)
S-10: numerical; (b) experimental.
numerical; (b) experimental.

(a)
 (a)
(a)

Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 (b)

(b) 10 of 17

Figure
Figure 13.
13. Crack
Crack pattern
pattern of
of specimen
specimen S-10:
S-10: (a)
(a) numerical;
numerical; (b)
(b) experimental.
experimental.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure14.
Figure 14.Crack
14. Crackpattern
Crack patternof
pattern ofspecimen
of specimenS-20:
specimen S-20:(a)
S-20: (a)numerical;
(a) numerical;(b)
numerical; (b)experimental.
(b) experimental.
experimental.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure15.
Figure 15.Crack
15. Crackpattern
Crack patternof
pattern ofspecimen
of specimenS-30:
specimen S-30:(a)
S-30: (a)numerical;
(a) numerical;(b)
numerical; (b)experimental.
(b) experimental.
experimental.

(a)
(a)

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW (b)

(b) 11 of 17
Figure
Figure16.
Figure 16.Crack
16. Crackpattern
Crack patternof
pattern ofspecimen
of specimenS-40:
specimen S-40:(a)
S-40: (a)numerical;
(a) numerical;(b)
numerical; (b)experimental.
(b) experimental.
experimental.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure17.
17.Crack
Crackpattern
patternof
ofspecimen
specimenH-20:
H-20:(a)
(a)numerical;
numerical;(b)
(b)experimental.
experimental.

3.3. Steel Strains

Typical load–steel strain relationships obtained from the numerical analysis are plotted
against those from the experiments in Figures 20–22. In alignment with the experimental
findings, numerical predictions of the steel strains for the control specimen indicated that
(a) and then in the sagging region (Figure 20).
the steel yielded first in the hogging region
Hogging and sagging steel strain responses predicted numerically were in agreement with
those measured experimentally, as shown in Figures 21 and 22, respectively. The steel
strains exhibited a trilinear response. Initially, the steel strains increased linearly up to the

(b)
Figure 18. Crack pattern of specimen H-30: (a) numerical; (b) experimental.
 (a)
(a)

Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 11 of 17

initiation of flexural cracking. In the second(b) stage, the steel strains increased at a higher
(b)
rate until
Figure yielding
17. Crack occurred.
pattern Following
of specimen yielding,
H-20: (a) a plastic
numerical; response was observed.
(b) experimental.
Figure 17. Crack pattern of specimen H-20: (a) numerical; (b) experimental.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure 18.
Figure18.
Figure Crack pattern
Crackpattern
18.Crack ofofspecimen
patternof specimen H-30:
specimenH-30: (a)
H-30:(a) numerical;
(a)numerical; (b)
numerical;(b) experimental.
(b)experimental.
experimental.

(a)
(a)

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW

(b)
(b) 12 of 17
Figure 19.
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 19. Crack
Crack pattern
pattern of
of specimen
specimen H-40:
H-40: (a)
(a) numerical;
numerical; (b)
(b) experimental.
experimental.
Figure 19. Crack pattern of specimen H-40: (a) numerical; (b) experimental. 12 of 17

3.3.300Steel
3.3. Steel Strains
Strains 300
300
Typical load–steel strain relationships 300
obtained from the the numerical
numerical analysis analysis are are plot-
plot-
250Typical load–steel strain relationships obtained 250 from
ted against
ted against
250 those from the experiments
those from the experiments Failure of SG in Figures
in Figures
250 20–22. In alignment
20–22. In alignment with
with
Failure
the experi-
of SGthe experi-
200
mental
mental findings, numerical
findings, numerical predictions
predictions
Failure of SG
of the200
of the steel strains
steel strains forfor the
the control
control specimen
specimen
Failure of SG indi-
indi-
Load (kN)

(kN)(kN)

200 200
cated that the
150 that
cated the steel
steel yielded
yielded firstfirst in
in the
the hogging
hogging150 region and
region and then
then in in the
the sagging
sagging region region (Fig-
(Fig-
Load (kN)

Load

150 150
ure 20). Hogging and sagging steel
ure10020). Hogging and sagging steel strain responses strain responses predicted numerically
predicted numerically were in agree- were in agree-
Load

100
ment100
ment with those
with those measured
measured experimentally,
experimentally, as as100shown
shown in in Figures
Figures 21 21 andand 22, 22, respectively.
respectively.
50 50
The steel
The steel 50
strains exhibited a
strains exhibited a trilinear trilinear
Numerical response.
response. 50 Initially, the steel strains
Initially, the steel strainsNumerical increased
Numerical
increased linearly linearly
Numerical
Experimental Experimental
up to
up to the initiation
0 the initiation of of flexural
flexuralExperimental
cracking. In
cracking. In the
the second
second
0 stage, the
stage, the steel
steel strains
strains
Experimental increased at
increased at
00 5,000 0 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
aa higher
higher rate
0 rate until10,000
until
5,000 yielding
yielding
10,000
15,000 20,000
occurred.
occurred.
15,000 20,000
25,000
Following yielding,
Following
25,000 yielding,
0 aa plastic
plastic
5,000 10,000 response
response
15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000was
was observed.
observed.
35,000
Strain (µε) Strain (µε)
Strain (µε) Strain (µε)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure20.
Figure Numerical
20.
20. Numerical
Numericalvs.
vs.experimental
vs.experimentalsteel
experimental
steel strains
steel for
strains
strains the control
for control
for the specimen:
the control (a)sagging
specimen:
specimen: (a) sagging region;
(a) sagging
region; (b)(b)
region;
hogging
(b) region.
hogging
hogging region.
region.

300 300
300300 300
300

250 250 250250 250

250

200 Failure of SGof SG

Failure 200200 200
200 200
Failure
Failure of
of SG
SG
FailureofofSGSG
Failure
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

150 150 150150 150

150
Load

100 100 100100 100

100

50 50 Numerical
Numerical 50 50 Numerical
Numerical
50
50 Numerical
Numerical
Experimental
Experimental Experimental Experimental
0 Experimental Experimental
0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
0 0 00
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 0 0 5,000 10,000
5,000 10,000 15,000
15,000 20,000
20,000 25,000
25,000 30,000
30,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Strain (µε) Strain (µε) Strain (µε)
Strain (µε) Strain (µε) Strain (µε)

(a) (a) (b)

(b) (c)
(c)
Figure21.
Figure 21.Numerical
Numerical vs. experimental
vs.experimental hogging
experimentalhogging steel
hoggingsteel strains:
steelstrains: (a)(a)
strains: S-10; (b)(b)
S-10; S-30; (c) (c)
S-30; S-40.
S-40.
Figure 21. Numerical vs. (a) S-10; (b) S-30; (c) S-40.
300 300 300
300 300 300
250 250 250
250 250 250
Failure of SG
Failure of SG Failure of SG
200 200 Failure of SG 200
Failure of SG Failure of SG
200 200 200
(kN)
(kN)

kN)

)
)

)
 100 100 100

50 Numerical 50 Numerical 50
Numerical
Experimental Experimental Experimental
0 0 0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Strain (µε) Strain (µε) Strain (µε)

Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 (a) (b) (c) 12 of 17

Figure 21. Numerical vs. experimental hogging steel strains: (a) S-10; (b) S-30; (c) S-40.

300 300 300

250 250 250

Failure of SG
Failure of SG Failure of SG
200 200 200

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
150 150 150

100 100 100

50 Numerical 50 Numerical 50
Numerical
Experimental Experimental Experimental
0 0 0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Strain (µε) Strain (µε) Strain (µε)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 22.
Figure 22. Numerical
Numerical vs.
vs. experimental
experimental sagging
sagging steel
steel strains:
strains: (a)
(a) H-20;
H-20; (b)
(b) H-30;
H-30; (c)
(c) H-40.
H-40.

The agreement
The agreement between
between the the outputs
outputs of
of the
the simulation
simulation models
models and
and the
the experimental
experimental
resultsvalidated
results validatedthe
theability
abilityofof
thethe models
models to predict
to predict the the nonlinear
nonlinear behavior
behavior of corroded
of corroded two-
two-span
span RC beams.
RC beams. The developed
The developed simulation
simulation models models
can becan be considered
considered a reliable
a reliable alter-
alternative
native
to to laboratory
laboratory tests, are
tests, which which are expensive,
expensive, time-demanding,
time-demanding, and labor-intensive.
and labor-intensive.

4.
4. Parametric
Parametric Study
Study
A
A parametric
parametric study
study was
was carried
carried out
out to
to investigate
investigate the
the interaction
interaction between
between the
the level
level
of corrosion damage (10–60% cross-sectional loss), the location of corrosion (sagging
of corrosion damage (10–60% cross-sectional loss), the location of corrosion (sagging only, only,
hogging
hoggingonly,
only,and
andsagging
saggingand
andhogging
hoggingsimultaneously),
simultaneously), andandthethe
nonlinear behavior
nonlinear of the
behavior of
beam models.
the beam models.
4.1. Effect of Corrosion on Load-Deflection Response
The load-deflection responses of the beam models considered in the parametric study
are provided in Figure 23. It is evident that corrosion of the tensile steel reinforcement
compromised the beam load capacity and flexural stiffness. The reduction in the load ca-
pacity was more pronounced for the beam models with sagging corrosion than that of their
counterparts with hogging corrosion. In contrast, hogging corrosion was more detrimental
to the beam’s flexural stiffness than sagging corrosion. The beam models experiencing
sagging and hogging corrosion concurrently exhibited the poorest performance in terms of
flexural stiffness and load capacity. Figure 24 depicts the normalized load capacity of the
corroded beam models (SR ) relative to that of the control beam model versus the percent
reduction in the cross-sectional area of the steel bars caused by corrosion (CR ). Published
data of a simply supported beam from [6] with corrosion in the tensile steel reinforcement
are included in the figure for the purpose of comparison. The load capacity decreased
linearly with an increase in the cross-sectional loss caused by corrosion. The rate of the
strength reduction caused by corrosion in continuous RC beams of the present study was
dependent on the location of the corrosion damage. It is evident that the strength of the
beam models with sagging corrosion reduced at a higher rate than that of the beam models
with hogging corrosion. The rate of the strength reduction was aggravated further when
corrosion occurred in both sagging and hogging regions concurrently. Equation 1 presents
the relationship between the normalized strength of the corroded beam models and the
degree of corrosion. The rate of the strength reduction of the beam models with corrosion
in the sagging region was approximately 70% higher than that of their counterparts with
hogging corrosion. When corrosion occurred in both sagging and hogging regions concur-
rently, the rate of the strength reduction increased by 2.7 folds relative to that of the beam
models with corrosion in the hogging region only. It is noteworthy that published data
from [6] indicated that the strength of the simply supported RC beam with corrosion in
the tensile steel reinforcing bars degraded at a rate even higher than that of the continuous
beam of the current study, with corrosion in both sagging and hogging regions (for the
simply supported beam data, SR = 1 − 0.011CR ). This finding confirms that the corrosion
 models with corrosion in the sagging region was approximately 70% higher than that of
their counterparts with hogging corrosion. When corrosion occurred in both sagging and
hogging regions concurrently, the rate of the strength reduction increased by 2.7 folds
relative to that of the beam models with corrosion in the hogging region only. It is note-
worthy that published data from [6] indicated that the strength of the simply supported
Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 13 of 17
RC beam with corrosion in the tensile steel reinforcing bars degraded at a rate even higher
than that of the continuous beam of the current study, with corrosion in both sagging and
hogging regions (for the simply supported beam data, SR = 1 − 0.011CR). This finding con-
firms that thesteel
of the tensile corrosion of the tensile
is anticipated to havesteel is anticipated
a less pronouncedtoeffect
haveon
a less pronounced
continuous effect
RC beams
on continuous
relative RCsimply
to that of beamssupported
relative tobeams.
that of simply supported beams.
1 − 0.0034CR Hogging Corrosion
 1 − 0.0034CR Hogging Corrosion
= 11−
SSRR =
0.0057CR
− 0.0057C
Sagging Corrosion
Sagging Corrosion (1)
(1)
1 − 0.0091CRR Sagging and Hogging Corrosion
1 − 0.0091C R Sagging and Hogging Corrosion

300 300 300

250 250 250

200 200 200

Load (kN)

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

150 150 150

Control Control
10% Corrosion 10% Corrosion
100 20% Corrosion 100 20% Corrosion 100 Control
10% Corrosion
30% Corrosion 30% Corrosion 20% Corrosion
50 40% Corrosion 50 40% Corrosion 50 30% Corrosion
50% Corrosion 50% Corrosion 40% Corrosion
50% Corrosion
60% Corrosion 60% Corrosion 60% Corrosion
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

(a) (b) (c)

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17
Figure 23.
Figure 23. Effect
Effect of
of corrosion
corrosion on
onload–deflection
load–deflection relationship:
relationship: (a)
(a) sagging
sagging corrosion;
corrosion; (b)
(b) hogging
hogging
corrosion;(c)
corrosion; (c)sagging
saggingand
andhogging
hoggingcorrosion.
corrosion.

1.0

R² = 0.996
0.8 R² = 0.951 R² = 0.999
Normalized Strength, SR

0.6 R² = 0.999

0.4
Hogging Corrosion
Sagging Corrosion
0.2
Sagging & Hogging Corrosion
Simply-Supported Beam Data from [6]
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Steel Cross-Sectional Loss, CR (%)

Figure 24.Normalized
Figure 24. Normalized strength
strength vs. vs. steel
steel cross-sectional
cross-sectional loss caused
loss caused by corrosion.
by corrosion [6].

4.2. Effect of Corrosion on Moment Redistribution

4.2. Effect of Corrosion on Moment Redistribution
The difference in the flexural rigidity between the sagging and hogging regions in
The difference
continuous in the in
RC beams results flexural
a moment rigidity betweenThe
redistribution. theload
sagging
versusand hogging
moment regions in
relation-
continuous RC beams results in a moment redistribution. The load
ships of the beam models obtained from the nonlinear numerical analysis are depicted in versus moment rela-
tionships of the
Figure 25. The beam
elastic models
moment is obtained
included in from the nonlinear
the figure numerical
for the purpose analysis are
of comparison. Thedepicted
in Figureredistribution
moment 25. The elastic moment
ratios is included
(β) calculated in the figure
at the ultimate forthe
load for thebeam
purpose of using
models comparison.
Equation
The moment2 areredistribution
presented in Table 3. It
ratios (β)is calculated
noteworthyat that
thea ultimate
positive sign
loadoffor
β indicates
the beama models
moment gain, whereas a negative sign indicates a loss of moment.
using Equation 2 are presented in Table 3. It is noteworthy that a positive sign of β indi-
cates a moment gain, whereas a negativeMsign−indicates
M a loss of moment.
FE e
β = 100× (2)
e FE − Me
MM
β = 100  (2)
Me

300 300 300

Load (kN)
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

250 250 250

200 200 200

150 150 150 Control

Control Control
10% Corrosion 10% Corrosion 10% Corrosion
100 20% Corrosion 100 20% Corrosion 100 20% Corrosion
30% Corrosion 30% Corrosion 30% Corrosion
40% Corrosion 40% Corrosion 40% Corrosion
 in Figure 25. The elastic moment is included in the figure for the purpose of comparison.
The moment redistribution ratios (β) calculated at the ultimate load for the beam models
using Equation 2 are presented in Table 3. It is noteworthy that a positive sign of β indi-
cates a moment gain, whereas a negative sign indicates a loss of moment.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 MFE − Me 14 of 17
β = 100  (2)
Me

300 300 300

Load (kN)
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
250 250 250

200 200 200

150 150 150 Control

Control Control
10% Corrosion 10% Corrosion 10% Corrosion
100 20% Corrosion 100 20% Corrosion 100 20% Corrosion
30% Corrosion 30% Corrosion 30% Corrosion
40% Corrosion 40% Corrosion 40% Corrosion
50 50% Corrosion 50 50% Corrosion 50 50% Corrosion
60% Corrosion 60% Corrosion 60% Corrosion
Elastic Moment Elastic Moment Elastic Moment
0 0 0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 −60
-60 −40
-40 −20
-20 0 20 40 60 −60
-60 −40
-40 −20
-20 0 20 40 60
Hogging Moment (kN.m) Sagging Hogging Moment (kN.m) Sagging Hogging Moment (kN.m) Sagging

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 25.
25. Effect of corrosion
Effect of corrosionon
onmoment
momentredistribution:
redistribution:(a)(a) sagging
sagging corrosion;
corrosion; (b)(b) hogging
hogging corro-
corrosion;
sion; (c) sagging and hogging corrosion.
(c) sagging and hogging corrosion.

Table
Table 3.
3. Moment
Moment redistribution
redistribution ratio
ratio at
at ultimate load.
ultimate load.
Corrosion Moment at Ultimate, MFE Elastic Moment, ME Moment Redistribution
Corrosion Corrosion Moment at Ultimate, MFE Elastic Moment, ME Moment Redistribution
Corrosion Damage (kN.m)
(kN.m) (kN.m)
(kN.m) Ratio,
Ratio, ββ (%)
(%)
Location Damage
Location (%) Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging
(%) Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging
Control - 46.9 50.2 39.8 61.3 18 −18
Control - 46.9 50.2 39.8 61.3 18 −18
10 43.2 50.0 37.8 58.2 14 −14
10
20 43.2
38.5 50.0
49.9 37.8
35.4 58.2
54.5 14
9 −14−8
20 38.5 49.9 35.4 54.5 9 −8
30
30 33.8
33.8 49.6
49.6 33.0
33.0 50.7
50.7 2 2 −−22
Sagging
Sagging
40
40 30.0
30.0 49.4
49.4 31.0
31.0 47.6
47.6 −3−3 44
50
50 25.4
25.4 49.1
49.1 28.4
28.4 43.7
43.7 −11
−11 1212
60 20.9 48.9 26.1 40.1 −20 22
60 20.9 48.9 26.1 40.1 −20 22
10 47.0 46.3 38.6 59.4 22 −22
20 47.2 41.8 37.2 57.2 27 −27
30 47.1 37.3 35.7 55.0 32 −32
Hogging
40 47.0 33.9 34.8 53.5 35 −37
50 46.8 29.1 33.2 51.1 41 −43
60 46.8 24.2 31.5 48.5 49 −50
10 43.2 46.2 36.6 56.3 18 −18
20 38.6 41.6 32.7 50.3 18 −17
Sagging and 30 34.08 36.6 28.9 44.5 18 −18
Hogging 40 29.8 32.1 25.5 39.2 17 −18
50 25.5 27.5 21.8 33.5 17 −18
60 20.8 22.3 17.7 27.3 18 −18

Figure 25 shows that the behavior of the control beam model that was not corroded
was nearly elastic until yielding of the hogging steel took place. Next, the sagging moment
increased and the hogging moment decreased accordingly until failure occurred. The
moment redistribution ratio recorded at the ultimate load for the control beam model was
18%, as provided in Table 3. The nonlinear behavior of the beam models with sagging
corrosion was dependent on the level of corrosion damage (Figure 25a). The beam models
with sagging corrosion of 10–30% exhibited yielding of the steel in the sagging regions
shortly after it happened in the hogging region. As such, these beam models exhibited
reduced values of β in the range of 2–14% only. A further increase in the sagging corrosion
weakened the sagging region significantly; hence, yielding of the steel occurred first in the
sagging region of the beam models with 40–60% sagging corrosion. Following yielding of
the steel in the sagging regions, the sagging moments decreased and the hogging moments
increased accordingly. As a result, the value of β tended to increase again with further
corrosion until it reached 22% at a sagging corrosion of 60%. The beam models with
hogging corrosion exhibited first steel yielding in the hogging section followed by a second
steel yielding in the sagging section (Figure 25b). As a result, the moment redistribution
ratio β of the beam models with hogging corrosion increased with an increase in the level
Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 15 of 17

of corrosion damage in the hogging region. The beam models with hogging corrosion
exhibited a significant moment redistribution ratio at the ultimate load in the range of
22–50% (Table 3). Similar to the behavior of the control beam model, the beam models
with corrosion in both the sagging and hogging regions exhibited the first steel yielding in
the hogging section and the second one in the sagging section (Figure 25c). Following the
yielding of steel in the hogging region, the hogging moment decreased and the sagging
moment increased. Because the occurrence of corrosion in both sagging and hogging
regions weakened both regions, the moment redistribution ratio at the ultimate load
remained unaltered at a value of 18% (Table 3).

5. Conclusions
Simulation models that can predict the nonlinear flexural performance of two-span
RC beams pre-damaged by corrosion were developed and verified. The conclusions of this
study are summarized below:
• The load-carrying capacity of two-span RC beams decreased linearly with an increase
in the level of corrosion, irrespective of its location. The rate of the strength reduction
was, however, dependent on the location of the corrosion.
• The rate of the strength reduction of the beam models with corrosion in the sagging
region only was approximately 70% higher than that of their counterparts with hogging
corrosion only.
• The rate of the strength reduction of the beam models with corrosion in both sagging
and hogging regions was approximately 2.7 times that of their counterparts with
hogging corrosion only.
• Although sagging corrosion was more detrimental to the load capacity than hogging
corrosion, the flexural stiffness of the beam models with hogging corrosion was lower
than that of their counterparts with sagging corrosion. The beam models experiencing
sagging and hogging corrosion concurrently exhibited the poorest performance in
terms of flexural stiffness and load capacity.
• The value of the moment redistribution ratio at the ultimate load was dependent on
the location of corrosion and the order of steel yielding. The control uncorroded beam
model exhibited a first steel yielding in the hogging section followed by a second steel
yielding in the sagging section, which resulted in a moment redistribution ratio of 18%
at the ultimate load.
• The moment redistribution ratio at the ultimate load of the beam models with corrosion
in the sagging region only decreased with an increase in the level of damage up to 30%
corrosion. Further corrosion in the sagging region increased the moment redistribution
ratio at ultimate load. The beam model with 60% corrosion in the sagging region
exhibited a moment redistribution ratio of 22% at the ultimate load.
• The moment redistribution ratio at ultimate load of the beam models with corrosion in
the hogging region only increased consistently with an increase in the level of corrosion
damage. The beam models with corrosion in the hogging region only exhibited a
moment redistribution ratio of 22–50% at the ultimate load.
• The corrosion of steel in both the sagging and hogging regions concurrently did not
change the order of the steel yielding. The moment redistribution ratio at ultimate
load for the beam models with sagging and hogging corrosion remained constant
at 18%.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.E.-M., Y.E. and N.K.; methodology, T.E.-M., Y.E. and
N.K.; software, Y.E. and T.E.-M.; validation, Y.E. and T.E.-M.; formal analysis, Y.E. and T.E.-M.; inves-
tigation, Y.E., N.K. and T.E.-M.; resources, T.E.-M.; data curation, Y.E. and N.K.; writing—original
draft preparation, Y.E.; writing—review and editing, T.E.-M. and Y.E.; visualization, Y.E. and N.K.;
supervision, T.E.-M.; project administration, T.E.-M.; funding acquisition, T.E.-M. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This project is funded by the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) (grant number 12N004).
Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 16 of 17

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy issues.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bossio, A.; Imperatore, S.; Kioumarsi, M. Ultimate Flexural Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Elements Damaged by Corrosion.
Buildings 2019, 9, 160. [CrossRef]
2. Yalciner, H.; Kumbasaroglu, A.; El-Sayed, A.K.; Balkis, A.P.; Dogru, E.; Turan, A.I.; Karimi, A.; Kohistani, R.; Mermit, M.F.; Bicer,
K. Flexural Strength of Corroded Reinforced Concrete Beams. ACI Struct. J. 2020, 117, 29–41. [CrossRef]
3. El Maaddawy, T.; Soudki, K.; Topper, T. Long-Term Performance of Corrosion-Damaged Reinforced Concrete Beams. ACI Struct.
J. 2005, 102, 649–656.
4. El Maaddawy, T.; Soudki, K. A model for prediction of time from corrosion initiation to corrosion cracking. Cem. Concr. Compos.
2007, 29, 168–175. [CrossRef]
5. Wang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Gong, F.; Dong, J.; Maekawa, K. Developing a Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis Approach to
Simulate Corrosion-Induced Concrete Cracking in Reinforced Concrete Beams. Eng. Struct. 2022, 257, 114072. [CrossRef]
6. Zeng, B.; Yang, Y.; Gong, F.; Maekawa, K. Corrosion Crack Morphology and Creep Analysis of Members Based on Meso-Scale
Corrosion Penetration. Materials 2022, 15, 7338. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. El-Refaie, S.A.; Ashour, A.F.; Garrity, S.W. Sagging and Hogging Strengthening of Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams Using
Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Sheets. ACI Struct. J. 2003, 100, 446–453.
8. El-Maaddawy, T.; Alshawa, J.; El-Ariss, B. Strengthening of Continuous Concrete Slab Strips Containing Cutouts. ACI Struct. J.
2016, 113, 1243–1252. [CrossRef]
9. Alkhalil, J.; El-Maaddawy, T. Nonlinear Flexural Response of Continuous Concrete Slab Strips Strengthened with Near Surface–
Mounted Composites. J. Compos. Constr. 2017, 21, 04016071. [CrossRef]
10. Alkhalil, J.; El-Maaddawy, T. Finite Element Modelling and Testing of Two-Span Concrete Slab Strips Strengthened by Externally-
Bonded Composites and Mechanical Anchors. Eng. Struct. 2017, 147, 45–61. [CrossRef]
11. Su, M.; Zeng, C.; Li, W.; Zhu, J.H.; Lin, W.; Ueda, T.; Xing, F. Flexural Performance of Corroded Continuous RC Beams
Rehabilitated by ICCP-SS. Compos. Struct. 2020, 232, 111556. [CrossRef]
12. Feng, R.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, J.H.; Xing, F. Flexural Behaviour of C-FRCM Strengthened Corroded RC Continuous Beams. Compos. Struct.
2020, 245, 112200. [CrossRef]
13. Fernandez, I.; Herrador, M.F.; Marí, A.R.; Bairán, J.M. Structural Effects of Steel Reinforcement Corrosion on Statically Indetermi-
nate Reinforced Concrete Members. Mater. Struct. Mater. Constr. 2016, 49, 4959–4973. [CrossRef]
14. Fernandez, I.; Herrador, M.F.; Marí, A.R.; Bairán, J.M. Ultimate Capacity of Corroded Statically Indeterminate Reinforced Concrete
Members. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2018, 12, 1–23. [CrossRef]
15. Khattak, N.; Mansour, M.; El-Maaddawy, T.; Ismail, N. Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Fabric-
Reinforced Cementitious Matrix: Experimental Investigation and Numerical Simulation. Buildings 2022, 12, 27. [CrossRef]
16. Cairns, J.; Coakley, E. Deformation of Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams during Patch Repair. Struct. Concr. 2010, 11,
149–160. [CrossRef]
17. Ashour, A.F.; El-Refaie, S.A.; Garrity, S.W. Flexural Strengthening of RC Continuous Beams Using CFRP Laminates. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 2004, 26, 765–775. [CrossRef]
18. Fernandez, I.; Bairán, J.M.; Marí, A.R. Corrosion Effects on the Mechanical Properties of Reinforcing Steel Bars. Fatigue and σ-ε
Behavior. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 772–783. [CrossRef]
19. Insua, A.G. Effects of Reinforcement Corrosion on Ductility and Stress Redistribution Capacity in Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams;
Tabajo Final de Máster: Barcelona, Spain, 2021.
20. Marí, A.R.; Valdés, M. Long-Term Behavior of Continuous Precast Concrete Girder Bridge Model. J. Bridge Eng. 2000, 5, 22–30.
[CrossRef]
21. ATENA Computer Software. Cervenka Consulting s.r.o.: Prague, Czech Republic. Available online: https://www.cervenka.cz/
products/atena/ (accessed on 23 November 2022).
22. ACI 318-19; Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete—Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318R-19). American Concrete Institute (ACI): Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2019.
23. Ashour, S.A.; Hasanain, G.S.; Wafa, F.F. Shear Behavior of High-Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams. Struct. J. 1992, 89,
176–184.
24. El-Tawil, S.; Ogunc, C.; Okeil, A.M.; Shahawy, M. Static and Fatigue Analyses of RC Beams Strengthened with CFRP Laminates.
J. Compos. Constr. 2001, 5, 58–267. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 1398 17 of 17

25. Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB). CEB-FIP Model Code-Design Code; Thomas Telford: London, UK, 1991.
26. ASTM G1-90; Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens. ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1999.

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.