Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Bond-slip effect in flexural behavior of GFRP RC slabs T

⁎
Omid Gooranorimi , Guillermo Claure, Wimal Suaris, Antonio Nanni
Civil, Arch & Environ. Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The use of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite bars as internal reinforcement for concrete is rapidly
GFRP bars increasing especially in structures exposed to aggressive environments. A proper bond mechanism between
Flexural behavior GFRP bar and concrete is essential to ensure proper functioning of such structures. The slippage between the
Finite element analysis (FEM) concrete and reinforcement has usually been ignored in numerical modeling of reinforced concrete (RC)
Bond-slip model
structures. In this study, the effect of the bond action in flexural behavior of GFRP RC slabs was investigated. The
Reinforced concrete structures
analysis was first performed by considering a perfect bond between the concrete and reinforcement and ignoring
any slippage. Next, an experimentally obtained bond-slip relation was used to replace the unrealistic perfect
bond assumption. The predicted flexural load-deflection response of the slab was compared to the experimental
data. The result obtained by incorporating the bond-slip model showed a better agreement with the experimental
data. Hence, considering the slippage between the GFRP and concrete may be necessary when accurate de-
flection estimate is required under the service condition. Additionally, it was shown that the perfect bond as-
sumption was sufficiently safe for the design of the GFRP RC slabs.

1. Introduction accordingly [21–24].

Glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars are rapidly emerging as
promising alternatives for traditional steel reinforcement especially in
concrete structures exposed to aggressive environments. GFRP bars
offer several advantages such as corrosion resistance, high strength-to-
weight ratio, magnetic transparency and economic feasibility [1]. Ad-
ditionally, the evidence of their long-term durability in field applica-
tions has enhanced their implementation in the reinforced concrete
industry [2–6]. Among all structural and material requirements for a
suitable concrete reinforcement, the proper bond between concrete and
reinforcement is one of the most crucial ones to ensure proper load
carrying capability of the reinforced concrete (RC) structural members
[7–9]. GFRP bars demonstrate different bond behavior in concrete
compared to steel rebars due to the difference in material properties
and surface texture [10,11]. The mechanism of the bond transfer be-
tween internal FRP reinforcement and concrete has been investigated
by several scholars. Direct pull out and beam tests have been the most
common tests to obtain the bond behavior [12–17]. The initial para-
metric bond models for FRP bars in concrete were developed by mod-
ifying the existing models for steel rebars [11]. Different parametric
models were proposed and modified for FRP bars in concrete [18–20].
The effect of different parameters affecting the bond behavior such as
concrete strength, type of fiber, surface texture and bar diameter has
also been investigated and the bond parameters were calibrated
In analytical and numerical models of RC structures, due to the
complexity of the bond modeling, a perfect bond between concrete and
reinforcement has been typically considered by ignoring any possible
slippage [25–27] while a slip mechanism accompanied with a concrete
cracking model is required to provide a more precise and realistic
prediction of the RC structural behavior [28–30]. Specifically, the ex-
isting literature does not sufficiently address the importance of con-
sidering the slippage between concrete and GFRP bars in numerical
modeling of a GFRP RC structure. In order to contribute to the existing
literature, the main objective of the present study is to investigate the
effect of incorporating the bond action on predicting the flexural be-
havior of GFRP RC slab and to demonstrate its importance on obtaining
a more precise load-deflection prediction.
A GFRP bar with a sand coated and helically-wrapped fiber surface
was used as the concrete reinforcement. Table 1 shows the guaranteed
mechanical properties and nominal and measured area of the bar. The
nominal area is based on a circle with nominal diameter, while the
average measured area was computed following the ASTM D792 [31].
The FEM model of the GFRP RC slab in three-point bending config-
uration was developed in Abaqus. First, a perfect bond was considered
between concrete and GFRP by ignoring any slippage. Next, in order to
demonstrate the effect of bond-slip in predicting the flexural behavior
of GFRP RC slab, a FEM model was developed which incorporated the
experimentally-obtained bond-slip formulation between GFRP bar and

⁎
Corresponding author at: Walker Consultants, 850 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 310, Chicago, IL 60607, United States.
E-mail address: o.gooranorimi@umiami.edu (O. Gooranorimi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.027
Received 11 April 2017; Received in revised form 2 March 2018; Accepted 12 March 2018
Available online 13 March 2018
0263-8223/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
O. Gooranorimi et al. Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86

Table 1
Characteristics of the GFRP bar used as concrete reinforcement.

Surface texture GFRP Area (mm2) Modulus of Elasticity Ultimate Strength Ultimate Strain Poisson’s Ratio
(GPa) (MPa) (%)
Nominal Measured

Fine sand coated & helically 126.6 137.8 46.2 757.7 1.64 0.3
wrapped fiber

this study, the proposed methodology and numerical modeling ap-

proach may be extended to other test setups and GFRP bar types and
diameters

2. Concrete model

A smeared crack model developed by Lubliner and coworkers [33]

and modified by Lee & Fenves [34] was employed in this paper which
combines the isotropic damage elasticity with isotropic tensile and
compressive plasticity. For the concrete under uniaxial compression,
the stress-strain relationship, proposed by Saenz [35], was im-
plemented:
E0 ε c
σc =
εc 2
1+ ( E0 εmax
σmax
−2 )( ) + ( )
εc
εmax εmax (1)

where σc and εc are the compressive stress and strain, σmax and εmax are
the experimentally determined maximum stress and strain which are
the cylindrical strength of concrete ( fc′) in MPa for the stress and 0.002
for the strain. Concrete used in this study was found to have an average
compressive strength of fc′ = 31.0 MPa. The elastic modulus of the
concrete was estimated based on the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
318 equation (i.e. E0 = 4730 fc′ in MPa) [36]. The resulted elastic
modulus was calculated as E0 = 26.3 GPa.
For the concrete under uniaxial tension, the stress versus crack
opening relation, proposed by Hordijik [37], was employed to present
the nonlinear portion of the stress-strain response:

w 3
σt ⎛ wt ⎞ ⎤ (−c2 wcrt ) − wt (1 + c 3) e (−c2)
=⎡
⎢1 + c1 wcr ⎥ e
⎜ ⎟
1
ft ⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦ wcr (2)
Fig. 1. The setup of the pull out test.
GF
wcr = 5.14
ft (3)

where GF is the fracture energy, wt refers to the crack opening dis-

Fig. 2. The implemented bond slip law for GFRP-concrete interface.
concrete [32]. The load versus mid-span deflection results obtain from
the FEM analysis were compared to the experimental data. While one
bar type and diameter and specific test configuration were selected for
placement, wcr is the crack opening displacement at the complete loss of
tensile stress, σt is the tensile stress normal to crack direction and ft
refers to the concrete uniaxial tensile strength. c1 = 3.0 and c2 = 6.93
are constants which provided the best fit to the experimental data [37].
Tensile strength of the concrete and fracture energy were estimated
using the CEB-FIP models [38].
The main disadvantage of the smeared crack model is being “mesh
dependent” which leads to zero energy consumption during the crack
propagation when the element size approaches to zero. The crack band
theory was implemented in this study to eliminate the mesh de-
pendency by relating the constitutive law of the concrete to the element
size [39,40]. In this model, the micro-cracks evolve in the fracture
process zone (FPZ) 0 < wt < wcr till the crack opening reaches a cri-
tical value and then the macro-crack occurs. The stress is assumed to
decrease gradually in the FPZ with increasing the crack width (wt).
The cracking strain (εcr) is considered to be uniformly distributed
along the characteristic length of the element (lch):

81
O. Gooranorimi et al.
Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis on parameter α; pull-out load vs. slip at free end of the bar compared to the experimental results.
Table 2
The parameters of bond-slip model of the GFRP in concrete.
Parameter D1 D2 τ1 τ2
(mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
Value 1.5 20.3 8.95 6.93
wt = lch εcr
where cracking strain was defined as εcr = εt −σt / E0 .
The characteristic length (lch) was considered to be 2 le (square
plane stress elements with four integration points and linear shape
functions) where le is the side length of the element [41]. As a result, the
dependency of tensile stress (σt) to crack opening displacement (wt) was
replaced with a tensile stress vs. cracking strain [σt vs. εcr] relation
which eliminates the strain localization when the element size de-
creases.
3. Bond-slip model
Pull out tests were performed on GFRP bars embedded in concrete
cylinders to obtain experimental bond-slip data. The tests were per-
formed in the displacement control mode with a rate of 0.5 mm/min.
Three linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT) were used to
record the slip at the loaded and free ends of the bar as shown in Fig. 1.
The tested samples exhibited the pull-through failure mode. The test
was stopped when a slip of 30 mm was achieved at the free end of the
bar. The experimental data was employed to develop a parametric
bond-slip law for the GFRP bars in concrete [32]. The proposed model
consists of three stages and five parameters as shown in Fig. 2 where τ
represents the bond stress and D refers to the corresponding slippage. In
this model, first the bond stress exponentially increases to the peak
Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86
value of τ1 at the slip level of D1:
α
D
τ = τ1 ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ 0 ⩽ D ⩽ D1
α D (5)
⎝ 1⎠
where 0 < α < 1 is an exponential parameter. Next, it linearly de-
0.17 creases to τ2 where the slip reaches to D2. Finally, the bond stress re-
mains constant. Sensitivity analyses were performed to obtain the most
(4) accurate parameters fitting the experimental data [32]. Fig. 3 provides
the result of a sensitivity analysis performed on parameter α. The pull
out load versus slippage of the bar was obtained using four different
values of α and compared to the experimental data. Similar analyses
were performed on all the other parameters. The selected parameters
that lead to the most accurate bond-slip law are provided in table 2. The
performed pull out tests and the sensitivity analyses have been ex-
tensively discussed in separate publications by authors [32].
4. FEM analysis
The GFRP RC slab reinforced with one 12.7 mm diameter GFRP bar,
with the geometry shown in Fig. 4, was modeled with two-dimensional
elements. The GFRP surface was idealized by a cylindrical shape [42]
and modeled as a linear-elastic brittle material. The measured area of
the GFRP bar and the guaranteed mechanical properties provided by
the manufacturer were employed in the FEM models (Table 1).
Due to the symmetry of the load and geometry, only half of the slab
was modeled. The symmetry condition was enforced by imposing the
longitudinal displacement at the mid-span as zero (U1 = 0). The other
boundary condition was the roller support which implied the vertical
displacement to be zero (U2 = 0) at support point. The load was applied
in a displacement control configuration by imposing a vertical dis-
placement at the mid-span. The simulation was stopped when the mid-
span deflection of the slab was equal to the average of experimentally
Fig. 4. Characteristic dimensions of the GFRP RC slab.
82
O. Gooranorimi et al. Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86

Fig. 5. Translator elements defined at the GFRP-concrete interface.

Fig. 6. Load vs. slab mid-span deflection using different concrete mesh sizes (considering perfect bond).

Fig. 7. Crack distribution in GFRP RC slab with the concrete mesh size of 15 mm (considering perfect bond).

obtained deflection at failure (22 mm).
First, the slab was modeled by ignoring any slippage between the
bar and concrete and next, the bond-slip model was incorporated.
Translator elements in Abaqus were implemented to simulate the bond
action where a force-slip relationship was assigned to the translators
[43,44]. Translator elements are defined at the GFRP-concrete interface
and consist of two nodes. The relative displacement of the nodes in the
slip direction is used to define the slippage at any location of the in-
terface [45]. The parametric bond-slip law obtained from the pull-out
tests on the GFRP bar was employed to assign the bond-slip law to the
translator elements. Plane stress square elements with four integration
point (CPS4) were chosen for both concrete and the GFRP bar. Four
different concrete mesh sizes were investigated. To ensure the effec-
tiveness of the concrete plasticity model, mesh sizes bigger than the
maximum aggregate size (dmax = 6 mm) were chosen [27]. The mesh
size of the reinforcement bar was not found to have a considerable
effect on the results. The mesh size of 5 mm was chosen for the GFRP
bar.
In order to incorporate the bond-slip relationship into the model,
translator elements were defined at the GFRP-concrete interface. The
bond-slip model was input as the property of the translator elements.
The translators were defined at the constant spacing of 45 mm as shown
in Fig. 5. The dimensions of the model are identical to the slab geometry
shown in Fig. 4 except the slab length since half of the slab was modeled
due to symmetry reasons.
4.1. Perfect bond
The mesh sensitivity analysis was performed with four different
concrete mesh sizes of 20, 15, 10 and 7 mm. The results of the load

83
O. Gooranorimi et al. Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86

Fig. 8. Crack distribution in GFRP RC slab with the concrete mesh size of 10 mm (considering perfect bond).

Fig. 9. Crack distribution in GFRP RC slab with the concrete mesh size of 10 mm (bond-slip law implemented).

Fig. 10. Load vs. mid-span deflection of the GFRP RC slab: The result of numerical analysis compared to experimental data.

versus mid-span deflection of the slab are shown in Fig. 6. The result
obtained from the model with the mesh size of 15 mm showed the best
agreement with the experimental data.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the crack propagation in the slab using the plastic
strain contour of the model with the concrete mesh sizes of 15 and
10 mm. Cracks initiate at points where the tensile stress in the concrete
exceeds its tensile strength and leads to non-zero plastic strains
(εpl > 0). The direction of the vector normal to the crack plane is
assumed to be parallel to the direction of the maximum principal plastic
strain. Hence, the plastic strain was adopted to illustrate the crack or-
ientation and propagation.
4.2. Implementation of the bond-slip model
The concrete mesh size of 15 mm was used in this stage according to
the result of mesh sensitivity analysis performed for the model with the

84
O. Gooranorimi et al.
Table 3
Ultimate load prediction of GFRP RC slabs.
PU-Th PU-Exp (kN) PU-FEM-1
No. of Samples Ave (kN) Cov (%)
(#)
GFRP RC 19.7 3 22.0 3.8 23.1
Slab
perfect bond. Fig. 9 shows the crack distribution in the slab using the
plastic strain contour. The load-deflection results obtained from both
numerical models are shown in Fig. 10 and compared to the experi-
mental data.
5. Discussions
Both FEM analyses overestimated the initial stage of the load-de-
flection result until the initiation of the first crack in concrete. The
concrete may demonstrated a tensile strength lower than the calculated
theoretical one which led to an overestimation of the load before the
initial crack appeared in the numerical models.
The FEM analysis by considering the perfect bond led to a consistent
overestimation of the load-bearing capacity of the slabs for the entire
load-deflection response including the ultimate load capacity as shown
in Fig. 10. On the other hand, the FEM analysis with the implemented
bond-slip model provided a load-deflection response which has a better
agreement with the experimental data. In this analysis, an under-
estimation of the load-bearing capacity occurred at the final stage of
loading close to the ultimate capacity, while the rest of the predicted
behavior is in a very good agreement with the experimental data
(Fig. 10). Hence, incorporating the bond-slip into the model resulted in
a more accurate prediction of the flexural behavior.
Additionally, in a design point of view, the slab ultimate load ca-
pacities obtained from two FEM analyses were compared to the ex-
perimental data and summarized in Table.3 which includes the average
experimentally obtained load capacity (PU-Exp), theoretical ultimate
capacity (PU-Th) introduced in ACI 440.1R [46] without applying any
safety factor and the ultimate load capacities obtained by two devel-
oped FEM models. PU-FEM-1 and PU-FEM-2 refer to the ultimate load ca-
pacity obtained by FEM model with the perfect bond and with im-
plemented bond-slip law, accordingly. Both FEM models provided
consistent results with the experimental ultimate capacity and can be
useful tools for design purposes. Additionally, the results confirm that
the perfect bond assumption is sufficiently safe in the design of GFRP
RC slabs.
6. Conclusions
In analytical modeling of RC structures, scholars have usually ig-
nored the slippage between concrete and reinforcement and assumed a
perfect bond. In this paper, the effect of incorporating the bond-slip
model in predicting the flexural behavior of GFRP RC slabs was in-
vestigated. The FEM model was developed by incorporating the proper
concrete material and cracking parameters. First, a perfect bond was
considered between concrete and GFRP by ignoring any slippage. Next,
the bond-slip was explicitly modeled using a formulation obtained from
an experimental study. The load versus slab mid-span deflection results
obtained by incorporating the bond-slip model was in a better agree-
ment with the experimental data. Considering the slippage between the
reinforcement and concrete led to more realistic and precise predictions
of the flexural behavior compared to the case which did not consider
any slippage. Additionally, both FEM models provided an acceptable
prediction of the ultimate load capacity of the GFRP RC slab which is
one of the main concerns in the design point of view. The results of this
study also confirmed that while incorporating the bond-slip may be
Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86
necessary when accurate deflection estimate is needed under the ser-
vice condition, the common perfect bond assumption is sufficiently safe
for design and ultimate load capacity calculation of the GFRP RC slabs.
PU-FEM-2
The proposed explicit bond modeling approach may be extended to
prediction of the flexural behavior of different types of RC structural
members reinforced with GFRP bars with various types of surface
characteristics and diameters.
20.1
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the National Science Foundation for the
support provided to the Industry/University Center for Integration of
Composites into Infrastructure (CICI) at the University of Miami under
grant IIP-1439543.
References
[1] Nanni A, De Luca A, Jawaheri Zadeh H. Reinforced concrete with FRP bars: me-
chanics and design. CRC Press; 2014.
[2] Mufti A, Banthia N, Benmokrane B, Boulfiza M, Newhook J. Durability of GFRP
composite rods. Concr Int 2007;29:37–42.
[3] Gooranorimi O, Nanni A. GFRP reinforcement in concrete after 15 years of service. J
Compos Constr 2017;21. 04017024 (1-13).
[4] Nanni A, Claure G, Caso y Basalo F, Gooranorimi O. Concrete and composites pe-
destrian bridge. Concr Int 2016;38(11):57–63.
[5] Khatibmasjedi S, De Caso F, Nanni A. SEACON: Redefining Sustainable Concrete.
The 4th International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and
Technologies (SCMT4); 2016.
[6] Spagnuolo S, Meda A, Rinaldi Z, Nanni A. Curvilinear GFRP bars for tunnel seg-
ments applications. J Compos Part B: Eng 2018;141:137–47.
[7] Kwak H, Hwang J. FE model to simulate bond-slip behavior in composite concrete
beam bridges. Comput Struct 2010;88:937–84.
[8] Maaddawy TA, Soudki KA, Topper T. Analytical model to predict nonlinear flexural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 2005;102:550–9.
[9] Yan F, Lin Z, Yang M. Bond mechanism and bond strength of GFRP bars to concrete:
a review. J Compos Part B: Eng 2016;98:56–69.
[10] Chaallal O, Benmokrane B. Pullout and bond of glass-fibre rods embedded in con-
crete and cement grout. Mater Struct 1993;26(3):167–75.
[11] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Behavior and modeling of bond of FRP rebars
to concrete. J Compos Constr 1997;1(2):40–51.
[12] Achillides Z, Pilakoutas K. Bond behavior of fiber reinforced polymer bars under
direct pullout conditions. J Compos Constr 2004;8:173–81.
[13] Aiello M, Leone M, Pecce M. Bond performance of FRP Rebars-reinforced concrete.
J Mater Civ Eng 2007;19:205–13.
[14] Islam S, Afefy H, Sennah K, Azimi H. Bond characteristics of straight- and headed-
end, ribbed-surface, GFRP bars embedded in high strength concrete. J Constr
Build Mater 2015;83:283–98.
[15] Hao Q, Wang Y, He Z, Qu J. Bond strength of glass fiber reinforced polymer ribbed
rebars in normal strength concrete. J Constr Build Mater 2009;23:865–71.
[16] Okelo R, Yuan R. Bond strength of fiber reinforced polymer rebars in normal
strength concrete. J Compos Constr 2005;9:203–13.
[17] Baena M, Torres L, Turon A, Barris C. Experimental study of bond behavior between
concrete and FRP bars using a pull-out test. J Compos Part B: Eng
2009;40(8):784–97.
[18] Won J-P, Park C-G, Lee S-J, Hong B-T. Durability of hybrid FRP reinforcing bars in
concrete structures exposed to marine environments. Int J Struct Eng
2013;4(1–2):63–74.
[19] Malvar LJ. Bond Stress-Slip Characteristics of FRP Rebars. DTIC Document; 1994.
[20] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Analytical modelling of bond between FRP
reinforcing bars and concrete. Non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete
structures: proceedings of the second international RILEM symposium. CRC Press;
1995.
[21] Masmoudi R, Masmoudi A, Ouezdou MB, Daoud A. Long-term bond performance of
GFRP bars in concrete under temperature ranging from 20 °C to 80 °C. Constr Build
Mater 2011;25(2):486–93.
[22] Yoo D-Y, Kwon K-Y, Park J-J, Yoon Y-S. Local bond-slip response of GFRP rebar in
ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. J Compos Struct
2015;120:53–64.
[23] Antonietta Aiello M, Leone M, Pecce M. Bond performances of FRP rebars-re-
inforced concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 2007;19(3):205–13.
[24] Benmokrane B, Tighiouart B. Bond strength and load distribution of composite
GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete. ACI Mater J 1996;93(3):245–59.
[25] Hu H, Lin F, Jan Y. Nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened by fiber-reinforced plastics. J Compos Struct 2004;63:271–8.
[26] Nguyen V. Numerical modeling of reinforced concrete bridge pier under artificially
generated earthquake time-histories [Ph.D. dissertation]. University of
Birmingham; 2006.
[27] Pesic N, Pilakoutas K. Tensile stress-strain relaxation as a failure precursor for FRP
strengthened RC beams. J Compos Struct 2015;125:530–41.
[28] Ooi ET, Yang ZJ. Modelling crack propagation in reinforced concrete using a hybrid
85
O. Gooranorimi et al. Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86

finite element–scaled boundary finite element method. Eng Fract Mech [37] Hordijk DA. Local approach to fatigue of concrete [Ph.D. dissertation]. Delft
2011;78:252–73. University of Technology; 1991.
[29] Chen JF, Chen GM, Teng JG. Role of bond modeling in predicting the behavior of [38] Telford Th. Comité Eurointernational du Béton. CEB-FIP Model Code; 1990.
RC beams shear-strengthened with FRP U-Jackets. In: Proceedings of the 9th [39] Bazant ZP, Oh BH. Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. Mater Struct
International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer for Concrete Structures 1983;16:155–77.
(FRPRCS9); 2009. [40] Bazant ZP, Planas J. Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasi-brittle
[30] Tao Y, Chen JF. Concrete damage plasticity model for modeling FRP-to-concrete materials. CRC Press; 1998.
bond behavior. J Compos Constr 2015;19. 04014026 (1-13). [41] Rots JG. Computational modeling of concrete fracture [Ph.D. dissertation]. Delft
[31] ASTM D792. Standard test methods for density and specific gravity (relative den- University of Technology; 1988.
sity) of plastics by displacement. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; [42] Cox JV, Herrmann LR. Development of a plasticity bond model for steel re-
2013. inforcement. Mech Cohesive-Frictional Mater 1988;3:155–80.
[32] Gooranorimi O, Suaris W, Nanni A. A model for the bond-slip of a GFRP bar in [43] Li CQ, Yang ST, Saafi M. Numerical simulation of behavior of reinforced concrete
concrete. J Eng Struct 2017;146:34–42. structures considering corrosion effects on bonding. J Struct Eng 2014;140.
[33] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Onate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J 04014092 (1-10).
Solids Struct 1989;25:299–326. [44] Tohidi M, Yang J, Baniotopoulos C. Numerical evaluations of codified design
[34] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J methods for progressive collapse resistance of precast concrete cross wall structures.
Eng Mech 1998;124:892–900. J Eng Struct 2014;76:177–86.
[35] Saenz LP. Discussion of equation for the stress-strain curve of concrete-by Desayi P [45] ABAQUS 6.11 User manual; 2011.
and Krishan S. J Am Concr Inst 1964;61:1229–35. [46] ACI 440.1R. Guide for the design and construction of structural concrete reinforced
[36] ACI 318-14. Building code requirements for structural concrete. Farmington Hills, with FRP bars. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 2015.
MI: American Concrete Institute; 2014.

86