# Seismic Resilience of CRC- vs. RC-Reinforced Buildings: A Long-Term Evaluation
## 6 Conclusions  
This study provided crucial insights into the durability and seismic performance of reinforced concrete structures under corrosive conditions and led to several important conclusions:  
* Our findings indicate that CRC-reinforced structures exhibit higher shear capacity than those reinforced with traditional steel. This conclusion is supported by the comparative analysis of shear tests performed across various sample structures, as detailed in Section 4. * Steel and RC show a steep decrease in their ability to dissipate seismic energy over time, losing 54.4% of their capacity after 170 years, compared to a 25.5% loss in CRC structures. This observation is based on the long-term degradation analysis presented in Section 5, highlighting CRC's resilience against environmental wear and tear. * The significant reduction in the RCF for RC structures is attributed to a 10% reduction in the concrete cross-sectional area, a 38% decrease in the steel reinforcement area, and an 84% reduction in concrete strength. These factors, thoroughly analyzed in Section 5.4, reflect the critical impact of material degradation on overall structural integrity. * In contrast to RC, CRC structures maintain a consistent ultimate capacity and minimal variation in yield displacements over time, as elaborated in Section 5.4. This consistency in performance enhances their suitability for long-term applications in environments prone to corrosion. * The decrease in the RCF for the RC structures is primarily attributed to three significant factors:
* 10% due to the reduction in the concrete cross-sectional area;
* 38% due to the decrease in the cross-sectional area of the steel reinforcement;
* 84% due to the reduction in concrete strength. This large percentage reflects the critical impact of material degradation on the overall structural integrity. * The use of CFRP shows potential in corrosive environments and is particularly suited for buildings with low seismic sensitivity and areas with low seismic risk, as explored in Sections 4 and 5. This suitability is based on the comprehensive cost and material analysis conducted. * The level of residual seismic resistance in existing buildings can be quantitatively measured, providing a more precise understanding of a structure's longevity and safety, as demonstrated through the application of the developed predictive model in Section 5.4. In conclusion, the developed predictive model proves effective for the quantitative assessment of both existing and new buildings at various stages of their lifespan. This adaptable methodology allows for the evaluation of different building types and the comparison of retrofit scenarios. It highlights the benefits of using non-corrosive materials, such as CFRP, as a sustainable solution for maintaining long-term structural integrity. Future studies should integrate the seismic performance philosophy and consider the influence of infill and shear walls to analyze structural behavior under seismic loads andassess cost-effectiveness comprehensively. Additionally, we will incorporate the reduction in bonding strength into our modeling approach for RC members, which was initially omitted to simplify the simulation process, as discussed in Section 4. In future work, we will account for the progressive bond degradation and its impact on stress redistribution. This modification will be integrated into our modeling approach by introducing plastic hinges at the loading stages where they would develop, considering a degraded interface layer between the concrete and reinforcement. Conceptualization, M.M., G.L.S., I.S. and E.G. ; methodology, M.M., G.L.S., I.S. and E.G. ; software, M.M. ; validation, M.M., G.L.S., I.S. and E.G. ; formal analysis, M.M. ; investigation, M.M. ; resources, G.L.S. and E.G. ; data curation, M.M., G.L.S., I.S. and E.G., writing--original draft preparation, M.M., G.L.S., I.S. and E.G. ; writing--review and editing, G.L.S., I.S. and E.G. ; visualization, M.M. ; supervision, G.L.S., I.S. and E.G. ; project administration, G.L.S., I.S. and E.G.