ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 116-S23
Reliability-Based Design Provisions for Flexural Strength
of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Prestressed Concrete Bridge
Girders
by Fei Peng and Weichen Xue
This paper develops reliability-based design provisions for flexural
strength of prestressed concrete bridge girders with bonded fiber-re-
inforced polymer (FRP) tendons, focusing on strength reduction
factors and the transition region between tension-controlled and
compression-controlled sections. First, a total of 48 bridge girders
covering a wide range of design scenarios are considered to conduct
stochastic simulation. Subsequently, the statistical parameters of
resistance are evaluated based on Monte-Carlo simulation. Then, the
first-order second-moment method is applied to calibrate strength
reduction factors to meet a uniform target reliability level, βT = 3.5,
specified in AASHTO LRFD. Finally, a probabilistic analysis of flex-
ural failure modes is conducted to determine a transition region in
terms of ratio of provided-to-balanced reinforcement (ρb < ρ ≤ 1.5ρb)
instead of the traditional net tensile strain limits in ACI 440.4R-04.
As a result, this study recommends strength reduction factors of 0.80
for tension-controlled sections, 0.85 for compression-controlled
sections, and a linear variation in the transition region.
Keywords: bridge girders; fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP); prestressed
concrete; reliability; strength reduction factor; transition region.
INTRODUCTION
The deterioration in concrete structures due to corro-
sion of steel reinforcements is one of the major challenges
facing construction industry. According to the Research of
Corrosion Condition and Control Strategy conducted by
the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the annual cost of corro-
sion in China was estimated at ¥2 trillion (approximately
$287 billion), among which the loss related to steel rein-
forcements in concrete structures accounted for a consid-
erable proportion (CAS 2014). Especially, highway bridge
concrete structures are more susceptible to steel corrosion
because of their high level of exposure to environmental
factors. According to the Report Card for America’s Infra-
structure findings, nearly one-tenth of the 607,380 bridges
in the National Bridge Inventory were classified as struc-
turally deficient (ASCE 2013). Of this total, 108,000 were
built with prestressed concrete (NACE International 2012).
As a material with excellent corrosion resistance and a high
strength-weight ratio, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) rein-
forcement has emerged as a viable alternative to steel rein-
forcement in prestressed concrete structures (Nanni and
Tanigaki 1992). In addition, FRP reinforcements have char-
acteristics that include outstanding fatigue resistance, lower
elastic modulus compared to steel, and a linear stress-strain
relationship (Xue et al. 2018). Currently, two types of FRP
reinforcements are mostly recommended for prestressed
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
TECHNICAL PAPER
purposes—namely, carbon FRP (CFRP) and aramid
FRP (AFRP).
Although the use of FRP as prestressing tendons shows
great promise in terms of durability, the design provision
developed for concrete structures with steel strands is not
necessarily applicable to those with FRP tendons. Gener-
ally, the desired flexural failure mode in a traditional steel
prestressed concrete beam is yielding (not failing) of the
tension steel, followed by eventual crushing of the concrete
in the compression zone. Because FRP shows linear elastic
behavior up to rupture without yielding, brittle failure is
unavoidable in FRP prestressed concrete flexural members
which fail due to concrete crushing (compression failure
mode) or FRP rupturing (tension failure mode). This is funda-
mentally different from steel prestressed concrete structures.
Currently, the load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
methodology is widely accepted among researchers and
practicing engineers. The underlying principle of LRFD is
to achieve a certain target reliability level by calibrating load
and resistance factors. In recent years, several LRFD-based
guidelines and codes have been drafted to assist engineers
in the design and application of FRP tendons for prestressed
concrete structures. For example, ACI 440.4R-04 (ACI
Committee 440 2004) recommends strength reduction
factors of 0.85 for CFRP and 0.70 for AFRP in tension-con-
trolled sections, and 0.65 for both materials in compres-
sion-controlled sections. CSA/CAN S806-12 (2012),
however, recommends a constant value of 0.85 for flexural
design of prestressed concrete beams with bonded CFRP
tendon, and 0.70 for the beams with bonded AFRP tendon.
It should be noted that these recommended values are based
on engineering judgment, experience, and previous experi-
mental results, rather than a rigorous reliability study (Burke
and Dolan 2001; Kim and Nickle 2016). Therefore, these
recommended factors may fail to meet a uniform target level
of safety. Recently, several valuable reliability studies have
been conducted to calibrate strength reduction factors for
flexural FRP prestressed concrete members (Kim and Nickle
2016; Forouzannia et al. 2016). Kim and Nickle (2016)
conducted a detailed reliability analysis of diverse types of
benchmark bridges, and proposed reduction factors of 0.75
ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 1, January 2019.
MS No. S-2018-041.R1, doi: 10.14359/51710876, was received February 16,
2018, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, American
Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
author’s closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the
discussion is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
251
and 0.80 for tension-controlled and compression-controlled
sections, respectively. Forouzannia et al. (2016) conducted
reliability analyses and concluded that the strength reduction
factors for compression-controlled and tension-controlled
sections were equal. From the aforementioned discussions,
it can be concluded that there is an obvious inconsistency in
the strength reduction factors for FRP prestressed concrete
flexural members. More research is still needed for develop-
ment of reliability-based flexural design provisions of FRP
prestressed concrete members.
Meanwhile, current design specifications and guidelines
recommend the use of different strength reduction factors
for tension- and compression-controlled beams with a
linear variation of the strength reduction factor in a transi-
tion region between the two. For FRP prestressed concrete,
ACI 440.4R-04 (ACI Committee 440 2004), in accordance
with ACI 318-14 (ACI Committee 318 2014) and AASHTO
LRFD (AASHTO 2017), defines compression-controlled
and tension-controlled sections as those that have net tensile
strain in the extreme tension reinforcement at nominal
strength less than or equal to the compression-controlled
strain limit of 0.002, and equal to or greater than 0.005,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. It should be mentioned that
the strain limits were originally derived based on conven-
tional Grade 60 steel bar and Grade 270 steel strand (Mast
1992). For concrete beam with high-strength steel bars
or strands that have different stress-strain relationships,
however, available studies have shown that these strain
limits are not applicable (Mast et al. 2008; Park and Cho
2017; AASHTO 2017). Because FRP is linear elastic to
failure without yielding, the strain provision may be also not
applicable for FRP prestressed concrete members (Mast et al.
2008). However, no available studies have been carried out
to evaluate the transition region between compression- and
tension-controlled sections prestressed with FRP tendons.
In this study, a design space with various span lengths,
types of girder cross section, and flexural failure modes is
developed to conduct stochastic simulation. Then, the uncer-
tainty in the resistance model is evaluated based on a large
experimental database and Monte-Carlo simulation. Subse-
quently, the first-order second-moment (FOSM) method
is applied to calibrate strength reduction factors to meet
uniform target reliability level. A probabilistic analysis of
flexural failure modes is then conducted to determine a tran-
sition region between tension- and compression-controlled
sections. Finally, design provisions for flexural prestressed
members with bonded FRP tendons are proposed in the
AASHTO LRFD format.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Currently, there is an inconsistency in the strength
reduction factors for FRP prestressed concrete flexural
members. Besides, a good definition of the transition region
between  tension- and compression-controlled sections is
not available. This paper will conduct a rigorous reliability
analysis and provide design provisions for the flexural
strength of prestressed concrete bridge girders with bonded
FRP tendons.
252
Fig. 1—Strength reduction factor as function of net tensile
strain.
DESIGN SPACE
To ensure that the calibrated design provisions deliver
acceptable reliability levels over a wide range of design
scenarios, a total of 48 benchmark bridges (24 AFRP
prestressed concrete bridges and 24 CFRP prestressed
concrete bridges) with variable spans, girder types, and
roadway widths were designed. Table 1 lists the layout of
the designed girders. In this study, the standard HL-93 live
load—which consists of a combination of the effects of a
design truck, a design tandem, and a uniform lane load—
was loaded on the bridges to generate a maximum bending
moment. The load effect was distributed as per AASHTO
LRFD distribution factors.
In this study, design configurations were selected as per
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) standard
specifications and drawings. Three widely used girder types
were selected: I girders, box girders and U girders with a
spacing from 1.6 to 2.8 m (5.1 to 9.3 ft) and a structural depth
from 508 to 1575 mm (20 to 62 in.). Note that span length is
one of the most important parameters in design because the
maximum positive moment of a simply supported girder is
proportional to the square of the length. In this study, the span
length varied from 12.2 to 41.4 m (40 to 135 ft) to achieve
expected flexural failure modes. Design practice indicated
that for box girders the amount of tendons provided was
usually lower than the theoretical limit required to achieve a
balanced flexural failure. To induce compression-controlled
failures, the span length of the girder with box sections
may exceed the limit in TxDOT standard specifications.
Herein, a slab thickness of 177.8 mm (7 in.) was selected
for I girders and U girders, and a slab thickness of 127.0 mm
(5 in.) was selected for box girders. For all design scenarios,
the compressive strength of the girders and slabs was taken
equal to 48.3 and 27.6 MPa (7 and 4 ksi), respectively. For
every design scenario, the number of FRP tendons was
selected to provide a resistance that was greater than, but as
close as possible to the demand.
Table 2 shows the properties of CFRP and AFRP tendon
used in the present study. A jacking stress of 0.65fpu and
0.50fpu was selected for CFRP and AFRP tendon, respec-
tively, in which fpu is the ultimate strength of FRP tendons.
Prestress loss due to friction, initial elastic shortening, creep,
and concrete creep and shrinkage was calculated according
to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications with a typical relative
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Table 1—Design space
ID TxDOT Section Span length, ft Roadway width, ft Failure mode MLL+IM /(MDC+ MDW) Mf, kip-ft
Tx28-T Tx28 40 32 TC *
1.61 1635
Tx28-C Tx28 65 32 CC †
1.17 3508
Tx34-T Tx34 50 32 TC 1.37 2339
Tx34-C Tx34 80 (70)‡ 32 CC 0.98 (1.09) 4897 (3972)
Tx40-T Tx40 60 32 TC 1.19 3144
Tx40-C Tx40 90 (80) 32 CC 0.88 (0.92) 5952 (5437)
Tx46-T Tx46 80 32 TC 0.92 5037
Tx46-C Tx46 100 (90) 32 CC 0.78 (0.84) 7190 (6073)
Tx54-T Tx54 80 32 TC 0.90 5095
Tx54-C Tx54 110 32 CC 0.72 8386
Tx62-T Tx62 80 32 TC 0.88 5134
Tx62-C Tx62 135 (125) 32 CC 0.59 (0.63) 12,007 (10,596)
B20-T B20 40 28 TC 1.43 855
B20-C B20 75 (70) 28 CC 0.89 (0.95) 2347 (2109)
B28-T B28 80 28 TC 0.79 2687
B28-C B28 120 (110) 28 CC 0.56 (0.60) 5153 (4471)
B34-T B34 60 28 TC 0.90 1782
B34-C B34 120 (110) 28 CC 0.51 (0.55) 5437 (4709)
B40-T B40 80 28 TC 0.65 2962
B40-C B40 130 (120) 28 CC 0.43 (0.46) 6606 (5772)
U40-T U40 50 32 TC 0.90 2186
U40-C U40 85 (75) 32 CC 0.60 (0.66) 5145 (4199)
U54-T U54 70 32 TC 0.66 3868
U54-C U54 110 (100) 32 CC 0.46 (0.49) 8146 (6945)

*TC is tension failure control.

†
CC is compression failure control.
‡
Design case for bridge girder with AFRP tendon.
Notes: 1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m.

Table 2—Tensile properties of FRP tendons STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DESIGN

Tendon Diameter, Elastic modulus, Ultimate tensile
PARAMETERS
type mm GPa strength, MPa Uncertainties in loads and resistances (material properties,
geometry, and imperfect modeling of resistance) influence
AFRP 9.5 65 1250
the probability of member failure. The variabilities of these
CFRP 12.7 140 1850 parameters can be captured through three statistical descrip-
Notes: 1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 GPa = 145 ksi; 1 MPa = 145 psi. tors of the random variables: bias and coefficient of variation
(COV), as well as the type of distribution function. Bias is
humidity of 60%. In assessing friction loss, the curvature defined as the ratio of the mean value and nominal value,
friction coefficient of 0.4 was taken from ACI 440.4R-04. and COV is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation
Relaxation losses in FRP tendons result from three sources: and mean value. In the current study, the statistical descrip-
relaxation of polymer, straightening of fibers, and relaxation tors of the load, material properties, and geometry parame-
of fibers. According to ACI 440.4R-04, the total relaxation ters, among others, were obtained from existing literature,
losses were taken as 2% and 12% for CFRP and AFRP described in the following sub-sections, while the resis-
tendons, respectively. tance parameters were determined using data generated or
The moment demands at the critical section were calcu- collected, as a section in the following.
lated for the girders in the design space based on the load
model described in the following section, as given in Table 1. Description of load uncertainty
It was found that the live-to-dead ratios varied from 0.43 For reliability analysis purposes, AASHTO LRFD Spec-
to 1.61. These ranges provided the needed information for ification strength limit I load combination, which includes
the reliability study of the proposed provisions over a wide component dead load (DC), wearing surface load (DW),
range of design scenarios.

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 253

Table 3—Random variable parameters
Parameter Distribution Bias COV Reference
Cast-in-place dead load (DC) Normal 1.05 0.10 Nowak (1999)
Wearing surface load (DW) Normal 1.00 0.25 Nowak (1999)
Live + impact load (LL+IM) Type I 1.20~1.26 *
0.18 Nowak (1999)
GDFs Normal 0.93 0.12 Nowak (1993)
Girder width Normal 1.01 0.04 Nowak (1999)
Girder height Normal 1.00 0.4/h Nowak (1999)
Slab thickness Normal 1.00 0.4/hs Nowak (1999)
Effective depth of girder Normal 1.00 0.025 Nowak (1993)
Area of FRP Normal 1.00 0.03 Shield et al. (2011)
Concrete strength Normal Eq. (2) 0.10 Nowak and Szerszen (2003)
Ultimate compressive concrete strain Lognormal 1.00 0.15 Baji and Ronagh (2016)
FRP strength Weibull 1.04 0.06 Kim and Nickle (2016)
FRP modulus Lognormal 1.04 0.06 Kim and Nickle (2016)
FRP relaxation Normal 1.00 0.30 JCSS (2002)
Relative humidity Normal 1.00 0.75 Vu and Stewart (2000)

*Depend on span length of girder.

and live load with impact (LL+IM), was applied for reli-
ability analyses in this study. Accordingly, the total factored
moment demand (Mf) for a single girder is
M f = γ DC M DCn + γ DW M DWn + γ L M ( LL + IM )n (1)
where MDCn is nominal dead load moment caused by struc-
tural components and nonstructural attachments; MDWn is
nominal dead load moment caused by wearing surfaces and
utilities; M(LL+IM)n is nominal moment caused by the live load
plus a dynamic allowance effect; and γDC, γDW, and γL are
load factor for dead (γDC = 1.25), wearing surface (γDW =
1.5), and live load plus a dynamic allowance effect (γL =
1.75).
It should be noted that various loads can exist in the load
combinations accounted for in AASHTO LRFD. In this
study, however, only the loads in Eq. (1) were considered
to reduce complexity of the reliability analyses. Herein,
the dead load and wearing-surface moments were equally
assigned to the girders based on the tributary areas, whereas
and dynamic impact effect is between 19% and 20.5% for
single-lane bridges. The corresponding values for two-lane
bridges are 18% and 19%. In this study, a constant value of
18% was used for the COV of the live plus dynamic load.
Field measurements indicate that the actual load distribution
is more uniform than what can be analytically predicted. For
GDFs based on AASHTO LRFD simplified methods, a bias
factor of 0.93 and a COV of 0.12 were suggested by Nowak
(1993).
Description of material properties and geometry
uncertainty
The statistical properties of concrete compressive strength fc′
are based on the model proposed by Nowak and Szerszen
(2003). The normal distribution was used for representing the
probability distribution of concrete compressive strength. A
COV of 10% was adopted for concrete compressive strength fc′,
and the bias factor λ fc' , was evaluated as follows
λ f ' = −2.47 × 10−5 ( f c' )3 + 3.17 × 10−3 ( f c' )2 − 1.35 × 10−1 f c' + 3.0649 ≥ 1.15
c

the live load and dynamic impact moments were distributed

(fc′ in MPa) (2)
as per AASHTO LRFD girder distribution factor (GDF).
According to AASHTO LRFD, the dynamic load effect was
The variation in the ultimate compressive strain in
taken as 33% of the design truck. The statistical properties
concrete, εcu, has a significant effect on the distinction of
of each of these load components have been well estab-
flexural failure mode (Baji and Ronagh 2016) and conse-
lished in the literature. Table 3 gives the selection of bias,
quently, the prediction of moment capacity for concrete
COV and type of distribution function for the dead and live
members with FRP reinforcements. However, available rele-
loads. The cast-in-place dead load (DC) can be modeled by
vant studies on FRP prestressed concrete members (Kim and
a normally distributed variable with a bias factor of 1.05 and
Nickle 2016; Forouzannia et al. 2016) treated εcu as deter-
a COV of 0.10 (Nowak 1999). The load due to the wearing
ministic in reliability analyses. In this study, the ultimate
surface (DW) can be also treated as a normally distributed
compressive strain of concrete, εcu, was treated as a random
variable with a bias factor of 1.00 and a COV of 0.25. Typi-
variable. Based on an extensive experimental database, Baji
cally, the live load plus a dynamic allowance effect (LL+IM)
and Ronagh (2016) found that the lognormal distribution
can be modeled by an extreme Type I distribution. The bias
was the best-fit probability density function for representing
factor on the live plus dynamic load depends on the span
the probabilistic distribution of εcu. The mean and COV of
length of the girder. Generally, the COV for the live load

254 ACI Structural Journal/January 2019

the ultimate concrete strain for the best-fit lognormal distri-
bution were 0.0034 and 0.15, respectively.
The statistical characterization of prestressing CFRP and
AFRP properties has been reported by several literature
(Pilakoutas et al. 2002; Forouzannia et al. 2016; Kim and
Nickle 2016). Generally, the ultimate strength of FRP mate-
rial (fpu) can be modeled by Weibull distribution (Kim and
Nickle 2016). In this study, a bias factor of 1.04 and a COV
of 0.06 were adopted for the ultimate strength of FRP (Kim
and Nickle 2016). The modulus of elasticity can be modeled
using lognormal distribution, with a bias factor of 1.04 and a
COV of 0.06. The prestress losses were also treated as random
variables in this study. The statistical parameters of FRP relax-
ation and relative humidity (H) are given in Table 3.
Girder and slab dimensions, prestressing FRP eccen-
tricity, and FRP area were considered in the geometric
uncertainty. All geometric dimensioning can be treated as
normally distributed variables. The statistical parameters of
girder and slab height were presented by Nowak (1999). The
bias factor and COV of girder depth and slab height were
reported as 1.00 and 0.4/height (where height is in inches;
1 in. = 25.4 mm), respectively. For statistical properties of
the cross-sectional area of the FRP tendon, a bias factor of
1.00 and a COV of 0.03 were used (Shield et al. 2011). Table
3 gives the selection of bias, COV and type of distribution
function for geometric dimensioning.
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS OF RESISTANCE
Three sources of uncertainty affect the variability of
resistance; namely, material variability M, variability in
fabrication tolerances F, and analysis factor P. All the three
sources were treated as random variables in this study. The
random variable, MR, for the resistance can be considered as
a product of the nominal resistance Mn used in design and
three parameters that account for some of the sources of
uncertainty mentioned earlier. Mathematically, this model of
resistance is of the form (Nowak and Collins 2012)
MR = Mn ∙ ψM ∙ ψF ∙ ψP (3)
where Mn is nominal resistance; ψM is material factor
reflecting variation in the strength and modulus of elasticity
of the material; ψF is fabrication factor, which includes
element geometry, nominal dimension, and section proper-
ties; and ψP is analysis factor (also known as professional
factor) indicating approximations due to analysis methods
and idealized stress or strain models, such as use of equiva-
lent stress block in concrete. Bias factors and COVs can be
associated with each of the analysis, fabrication, and mate-
rial factors. For simplify, the global bias factor λR and COV
VR of the girder system can be expressed as
λR = λMF ∙ λP (4)
2
VR = VMF + VP2 (5)
where λMF and VMF are bias and COV of the combined mate-
rial and fabrication, respectively; and λP and VP are bias and
COV of ψP, respectively.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Nominal moment resistance
It has been recognized that the more accurate estimate of
the true failure load provides an opportunity to reduce the
uncertainties reflected in the safety factors (Kotsovos 2014).
In principle, the calculation of flexural capacity should base on
strain compatibility, force equilibrium, and constitutive equa-
tions. The nominal flexural capacity (Mn) of FRP prestressed
concrete girder is determined by their failure mode: tension
failure or compression failure. For the tension-controlled
section, the failure is initiated by rupture of FRP tendons
before the concrete reaches its ultimate compressive strain. In
such a case, Whitney stress block cannot be used to determine
the strength of the section. In this study, the stress distribution
in the concrete is approximated with an equivalent rectangular
stress block using two strain-dependent and stress-dependent
parameters α and β. Then, the nominal flexural capacity (Mn)
can be calculated by Eq. (6)
m  βc   βc h f 
M n = ∑ Ap ,i f p ,i  di −  + αf c′(b − bw ) h f  −  (6)
i =1  2  2 2
where Ap,i is area of FRP tendons at layer i; fp,i is stress in
the FRP at layer i, which is equal to the guaranteed strength
of FRP for i = 1; di is depth of the FRP tendon at layer i;
bw is width of web (width of a rectangular cross section); b
is width of compression face of member; hf is depth of the
flange in T-section; and c is neutral axis depth. Note that an
iteration is required to determine the neutral axis depth c and
the parameter α and β.
For compression-controlled section, the failure of the
member is initiated by crushing of the concrete and the stress
distribution in the concrete can be approximated by Whit-
ney’s rectangular stress block. The nominal flexural capacity
(Mn) can be calculated by Eq. (7)
m  β c  β c hf 
M n = ∑ Ap ,i f p ,i  di − 1  + 0.85 f c′(b − bw ) h f  1 − 
i =1  2   2 2
(7)
where β1 is rectangular stress block parameter.
It should be noted that if the term of βc in Eq. (6) or β1c in
Eq. (7) is less than the depth of the flange hf, the section can
be treated as a rectangular section with a width of b.
Statistical parameters of professional factor
Commonly, the uncertainty in an analytical model can
be obtained from comparisons of physical tests and model
results. The bias of the analysis factor (or professional
factor) can be taken as the mean of the strength ratio Mexp/Mn
(MacGregor et al. 1983), where Mexp is experimental flex-
ural capacity. The COV of the professional factor, however,
actual structure-specific conditions need to be taken into
account (MacGregor et al. 1983; Holický et al. 2016). In
accordance with MacGregor et al. (1983), the variability of
the professional factor is then
2
VP = Vobse 2
− Vtest 2
− Vspec (8)
255

Fig. 2—Experimental versus predicted moment: (a) tensile
failure; and (b) compressive failure.
where VP is COV of the professional factor; Vobse is COV as
derived from comparison of model and test results, affected
by dispersion due to imprecision of a test method and the
model; Vtest represents the uncertainties in the measured
loads due to such things as the accuracies of the gauges,
errors in readings, definitions of failure; and Vspec represents
errors introduced by such things as differences between
the strengths in the test specimen and in control cylinders,
and variations in actual specimen dimensions from those
measured. MacGregor et al. (1983) suggested that the value
of Vtest and Vspec were equal to 0.02 and 0.04, respectively.
Obviously, the model uncertainty should be always asso-
ciated with a particular model under consideration. Because
the theoretical model for tension-controlled sections differs
from that for compression-controlled sections, the effect of
flexural failure modes should be considered in qualification
of the model uncertainty. In previous studies, the quantifica-
tion of the model uncertainty for FRP prestressed concrete
beams was directly determined from a limited database of
no more than 30 test specimens (Forouzannia et al. 2016;
Kim and Nickle 2016). Consequently, the obtained statis-
tical parameters of analytical models may lessen the reli-
ability of the beams. In this study, an experimental database
of 112 FRP prestressed concrete beams collected by Xue
et al. (2017) from available literature was used to evaluate
256
Table 4—Resistant parameters
Factors Tension failure Compression failure
λp 1.030 1.030
Vp 0.101 0.110
λFM 1.034 1.108
VFM 0.088 0.094
λR 1.065 1.140
VR 0.135 0.145
the professional factor. All material reduction and safety
factors in determining the flexural capacity were set to unity.
It was found that there was negligible difference between
AFRP prestressed sections and CFRP prestressed beams
with respect to the bias and COV for the professional factor
ψP. Figures 2(a) and (b) compare the experimental moment
to the predicted moment for beams failed due to rupture of
FRP and crushing of concrete, respectively. Table 4 lists
the obtained model bias λP and COV VP for tension- and
compression-controlled sections.
Statistical parameters of material and fabrication
factors
After establishing the statistical characteristics for indi-
vidual random variables, the uncertainty in resistance due to
material and fabrication tolerance, ψMF, was assessed collec-
tively using the Monte Carlo simulations in MATLAB.
The number of trials in each Monte Carlo simulation was
selected based on a convergence study. Figure 3 shows an
example plot of the changes in the computed bias factor
λMF with the number of trials, indicating that the number of
100,000 simulations is sufficient. Table 4 lists the material
and fabrication factors obtained. It was found that the bias
factor and COV of MF for compression-controlled sections
(λMF = 1.108, and VMF = 0.094) was higher than those of
tension-controlled sections (λMF = 1.035, and VMF = 0.088).
These observations are justified by the fact that the moment
capacity of compression-controlled sections is governed by
the compressive strength of concrete, whereas the moment
capacity of tension-controlled sections is a function of the
tensile strength of FRP.
Resistance parameter
Once the statistical parameters for P and MF for FRP
prestressed concrete bridge girders are obtained, the resis-
tance parameters served as a basis for the selection of
strength reduction factors can be determined in accordance
with Eq. (4) and (5), as shown in Table 4. Note that the resis-
tance parameters considered for FRP prestressed concrete
girders (VR = 0.135 for tensile failure, and VR = 0.145 for
compression failure) have greater variability than that used
for steel prestressed concrete girders (VR = 0.075) (Barker
and Puckett 2013).
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Reliability of structural members can be expressed in
terms of limit state function, Z
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
 Z = MR – MQ (9)

where MR represents flexural resistance (capacity) and MQ

represents load effect (demand). If Z = 0, the structure is
safe; otherwise, the structure fails. The probability of failure
Pf is equal to the probability that the undesired performance
will occur and it can be expressed as

Pf = P ( Z ≤ 0) = ∫0 FR ( q ) f Q ( q ) dq = Φ ( −β)
∞
(10)

where Φ(∙) is standard normal cumulative distribution func-

tion; β is reliability index; FR(∙) is cumulative distribution
function of the resistance; and fQ(∙) is probability density
function of the load effect.
Calibrated procedure
The definition of safety can be expressed in terms of failure
probability, or reliability index. The reliability index, β, which
represents the risk level of any design component, can be
calculated using various methods. In many cases, the limit
state function can be simplified into two random variables
representing the structural resistance, MR, and the collective
load effects, MQ. A lognormal distribution can be assumed
for the probability distribution of the resistance which can be
modeled as the product of a number of underlying indepen-
dent random variables (Ghosn et al. 2016). If a normal distri-
bution is assumed for the load effects, MQ, one can calculate
the reliability index using an approximate formula for the reli-
ability index, β, which is given as (Nowak 1999)
−
M n λ R (1 − kVR ) 1 − ln (1 − kVR ) − M Q
β=
( )
 M n λ RVR (1 − kVR ) + σ Q
2 2
where M Q and σQ are mean value and standard deviation of
MQ, respectively; and k measures the shift of the design point
from the mean value and is typically taken equal to 2.0.
The purpose of calibrating the strength reduction factors
is to achieve the target reliability, βT. In general, target reli-
ability levels for members are set based on experience with
the performance of existing structures, the consequences of
member failures, and the cost of construction (Ghosn et al.
2016). For an anticipated 75-year design life structure, the
target reliability index adopted by AASHTO LRFD Speci-
fication is 3.5 (failure probability = 2.33 × 10–4) for flexural
concrete members. To meet this target reliability level, an
iterative procedure was used to calibrate the strength reduc-
tion factors in this study. This reliability analysis procedure
used in this calibration is based on the FOSM method, which
includes the following steps:
1. Determine the input data: Each characteristic of design
parameters is assigned a statistical distribution according to
existing literature. Load factors are taken from the AASHTO
LRFD Specifications.
2. Calculate the statistical parameters of the total load: the
mean total load M Q and COV VQ.
3. A trial strength reduction factor  is selected between
0.5 and 1.0 at an interval of 0.01.
4. Calculate the nominal moment resistance
Fig. 3—Plot of convergence of Monte Carlo results as func-
tion of number of trials.
Mn = (γDCMDCn + γDWMDWn + γLM(LL+IM)n)/ (12)
5. Determine the statistical parameters of the resistance:
the bias factor λR and COV VR.
6. Calculate the reliability index β using Eq. (11).
7. Select  that minimizes (β – βT )2.
Analysis results
The strength reduction factors derived from previous cali-
bration procedure are provided in Table 5. It was found that
the strength reduction factors of the compression-controlled
girders were higher than those of their tension-controlled
counterparts in all cases. This unique trend, which cannot
be found in conventional steel reinforced and prestressed
concrete girders, was also reported in available literature
(11) (Zadeh and Nanni 2013; Kim and Nickle 2016). Besides,
the strength reduction factors of AFRP prestressed sections
are slightly lower than those of CFRP prestressed sections.
Most codes and guidelines recommend that the strength
reduction factors are rounded down to the nearest 0.05. As
shown in Table 5, it was concluded that strength reduction
factors equal to 0.80 and 0.85 for tension- and compres-
sion-controlled girders were appropriate for target reliabilities
of 3.5, respectively. Note that the proposed strength reduction
factors for tension-controlled sections with FRP are much less
than those for tension-controlled sections with steel needed
to produce the same target reliability index of 3.5. This
discrepancy in strength reduction factors is a direct result of
the different mechanical properties and uncertainty inherent
in FRP reinforcements as opposed to steel reinforcements
(Behnam and Eamon 2013). In this study, there are three
major differences in variability; that is, ultimate compressive
strain of concrete εcu, mechanical properties of FRP tendon,
and analytical prediction of moment capacity. Generally, the
variation in εcu is taken as deterministic in reliability analysis
of steel prestressed concrete members (Nowak 1999). For
FRP prestressed concrete girders, however, variation in εcu has
a significant effect on the flexural failure modes and conse-
quently the moment capacity (Xue et al. 2016). Similarly, as
variations in reinforcement elastic modulus generally do not
affect the capacity calculation of steel prestressed sections,
these uncertainties do affect the moment capacity of FRP

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 257

Table 5—Calibrated strength reduction factors
AFRP CFRP AFRP CFRP
ID ρ/ρb T ρ/ρb T ID ρ/ρb C ρ/ρb C
Tx28-T 0.69 0.81 0.43 0.83 Tx28-C 3.30 0.85 1.36 0.86
Tx34-T 0.67 0.82 0.49 0.82 Tx34-C 1.36 0.84 1.90 0.87
Tx40-T 0.62 0.81 0.54 0.82 Tx40-C 1.83 0.85 1.59 0.87
Tx46-T 0.90 0.84 0.77 0.84 Tx46-C 2.05 0.87 1.54 0.87
Tx54-T 0.72 0.83 0.61 0.82 Tx54-C 2.06 0.86 1.16 0.85
Tx62-T 0.51 0.82 0.43 0.82 Tx62-C 1.39 0.85 1.35 0.86
B20-T 0.76 0.82 0.32 0.81 B20-C 2.10 0.86 1.17 0.85
B28-T 0.92 0.83 0.50 0.83 B28-C 1.18 0.84 1.28 0.85
B34-T 0.48 0.80 0.31 0.83 B34-C 1.44 0.85 1.26 0.87
B40-T 0.59 0.82 0.42 0.81 B40-C 1.11 0.84 1.10 0.85
U40-T 0.70 0.83 0.46 0.82 U40-C 1.96 0.86 1.63 0.87
U54-T 0.68 0.82 0.52 0.82 U54-C 1.91 0.86 1.56 0.87
Design T = 0.80 Design C = 0.85

Notes: T is strength reduction factor for tensile failure; C is strength reduction factor for compression failure; ρ is reinforcement ratio; and ρb is balanced reinforcement ratio.

prestressed concrete sections. Finally, the professional factor P
considered for tension-controlled section with FRP tendons (VP
= 0.101) has a greater variability than the professional factor P
used for that with steel strands (VP = 0.06) (Nowak and Collins
2012). Note that these changes in the statistical parameters serve
to lessen the reliability of FRP prestressed concrete sections.
DESIGN PROVISIONS
As discussed previously, the strength reduction factors
of FRP prestressed concrete girders depend on the flex-
ural failure modes. In design practice, both tension- and
compression- controlled sections are accepted. In this
section, the transition region between tension- and compres-
sion- controlled sections was proposed in terms of ratio of
provided-to-balanced reinforcement based on a probabilistic
analysis of flexural failure modes. On this basis, strength
reduction factors were then recommended as a function of
ratio of provided-to-balanced reinforcement.
Boundary of transition region
In the 1999 and earlier editions of the ACI 318 Code, the
maximum reinforcement limit for flexural members was
stated in terms of the ratio of provided-to-balanced reinforce-
ment (ρ/ρb). Currently, ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI Committee 440
2015) also uses the ratio of provided-to-balanced reinforce-
ment (ρ/ρb) to definite the transition region for FRP rein-
forced concrete flexural members. The balanced reinforce-
ment provisions are easily applied to rectangular sections.
The provisions, however, are more cumbersome for flanged
and other nonrectangular sections (Mast 1992). Hence, since
the 2002 edition, ACI code has used the net tensile strain
in the extreme tension reinforcement to definite the tension-
and compression-controlled sections. Currently, ACI
318-14, AASHTO LRFD, as well as ACI 440.4R-04 define
compression-controlled and tension-controlled sections
as those that have net tensile strain in the extreme tension
reinforcements at nominal strength less than or equal to the
compression-controlled strain limit of 0.002, and equal to
or greater than 0.005, respectively. It should be mentioned
that the net tensile strain limits were originally proposed to
achieve sufficient ductility and give adequate warning prior
to failure for flexural members with conventional Grade 60
steel bars or Grade 270 steel strands (Mast 1992). Because
FRP reinforcements are linear elastic to failure without
yielding, this design philosophy is not necessarily applicable
to concrete beams with FRP reinforcements. In addition, the
cumbersome procedure of calculating the balanced rein-
forcement ratio is unavoidable in the design practice of FRP
prestressed concrete members (ACI Committee 440 2004).
Therefore, balanced reinforcement provision was proposed
for FRP prestressed concrete members in this study.
It is noteworthy that it is impossible to use the actual mate-
rial properties, dimensions, and ultimate strain of concrete
to determine the flexural failure mode in design process.
Instead, nominal values are used and the ultimate compres-
sive strain of concrete is assumed as 0.003 according to ACI
440.4R. The decompression strain and the strain resulting
from sustained loads are generally negligible. Therefore,
these two strain values are usually assumed zero (ACI
Committee 440 2004; Grace and Singh 2003). Based on
force equilibrium and strain compatibility in conformance
with the ACI 440.4R methodology, the balanced failure
condition could be expressed as
 0.85β f '  ε cu (b − bw ) h f 
 for β1cb > h f
1 c
  +
 f pu  ε pu − ε pe + ε cu β1bw d p 
ρb = 
 0.85β1 f c'  ε cu 
for β1cb ≤ h f

 f pu  ε pu − ε pe + ε cu 
(13)
where εpe and εpu are effective prestressing strain and ultimate
tensile strain in FRP tendon, respectively; dp is distance from

258 ACI Structural Journal/January 2019

extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension tendon; and
cb is neutral axis depth at balanced failure condition, which
can be calculated by Eq. (14)

ε cu
cb = d p (14)
ε pu − ε pe + ε cu

Due to uncertainties in the design variables (material char-

acteristics, geometry, and assumptions in analysis), the actual
flexural failure mode may not coincide with the predicted
one at the design stage (Xue et al. 2016). That is, there is a
transition region where compression failure mode and tension
failure mode are possible. To determine the transition region,
the Monte Carlo simulation technique was used in this study.
The statistical information of material properties and geome-
tries used here were described previously (Table 3).
Using the Monte Carlo technique, the simulating FRP
reinforcement ratio ρsimu and corresponding balanced rein-
forcement ratio ρb,simu can be calculated. Having the simu-
lated results for the response variables, ρsimu and ρb,simu, it
was then possible to calculate the probability of tension
failure. A sample size of 100,000 was found appropriate
for the simulation based on a sensitive analysis. According
to Eq. (13), if ρsimu/ρb,simu is less than 1.0, tension failure
is deemed to occur. Figure 4 shows the calculated proba-
bility of tension failure as a function of the ratio of provid-
ed-to-balanced reinforcement (ρ/ρb). As observed, when ρ =
1.5ρb, the probability of tension failure Pf is 5.2%. When ρ
= 0.8ρb, the probability of tension failure Pf is 95.3%. If the
acceptable probability of the actual failure mode differing
from the predicted one is 5%, the transition region can be
set as 0.8ρb < ρ ≤ 1.5ρb. Note that compression failure is
the preferred failure mechanism because it is more progres-
sive and less catastrophic (Grace et al. 2013). Besides, the 
factor of the tension-controlled section is smaller than that
of compression-controlled sections. In the design practice,
therefore, the transition region can be taken as ρb < ρ ≤ 1.5ρb.
It is interesting to note that the suggested upper limit for the
transition region is in accordance with the limit for FRP rein-
forced concrete beams suggested by Xue et al. (2016).
Recommended strength reduction factors
Based on the reliability analysis and probability analysis
of flexural failure modes, it was recommended that strength
reduction factors of 0.80 and 0.85 were proposed for tension-
and compression-controlled prestressed concrete girders to
achieve the target reliabilities of 3.5, respectively. In this
study, tension- and compression-controlled sections are
defined as those that have FRP reinforcement ratio less than
or equal to the balanced reinforcement ratio ρb, and greater
than 1.5ρb, respectively. As shown in Fig. 5, sections having
FRP reinforcement ratio between these limits are designed
with an intermediate  factor.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this research, the flexural strength reduction factors in
AASHTO LRFD Specifications were calibrated for bridge
girders prestressed with FRP tendons. An extensive design
space, which included various common design configura-
Fig. 4—Probability of tension failure.
Fig. 5—Variation of strength reduction factor with rein-
forcement ratio.
tions, was considered. Monte Carlo Simulation in conjunc-
tion with the first-order second-moment method was then
used to calibrate the strength reduction factors. Finally, the
transition region between tension- and compression-con-
trolled sections was evaluated. On the basis of the results,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The statistical parameters of resistance were determined
for flexural capacity of FRP prestressed concrete bridge
girders based on Monte Carlo simulation and a large exper-
imental database. The bias factors and COVs of flexural
resistance obtained are listed in Table 4.
2. A probability analysis of flexural failure mode was
conducted to determine a transition region between compres-
sion and tension-controlled sections in terms of ratio of
provided-to-balanced reinforcement. It was proposed that
the tension-controlled and compression-controlled sections
were defined as those that have FRP reinforcement ratio less
than or equal to the balanced reinforcement ratio ρb, and
greater than 1.5ρb, respectively.
3. To achieve a target reliability of 3.5 in design of bridge
girders, this study recommended strength reduction factors
of 0.80 for tension-controlled section, 0.85 for compres-
sion-controlled section, and a linear variation in the transi-
tion region between the two, as shown in Fig. 5.
4. This study focused on the concrete bridge girders exclu-
sively prestressed with bonded FRP tendons. Future research
on the subject may focus on the effect of bond condition of
FRP tendon and the effect of nonprestressed reinforcement.

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 259

 AUTHOR BIOS
Fei Peng is a PhD Candidate in the Key Laboratory of Performance Evolu-
tion and Control for Engineering Structures of the Ministry of Education at
Tongji University, and PhD Candidate in the Department of Structural Engi-
neering at Tongji University, Shanghai, China. His research interests include
analysis and design of concrete structures reinforced with fiber-reinforced
polymers.
Weichen Xue is a Professor in the Key Laboratory of Performance Evolu-
tion and Control for Engineering Structures of the Ministry of Education
at Tongji University, and Professor in the Department of Structural Engi-
neering at Tongji University. He received his BS from Harbin Engineering
University, Harbin, China, in 1990; his MS from Harbin Institute of Tech-
nology, Harbin, China, in 1992; and his PhD from Southeast University,
Nanjing, China, in 1995. His research interests include precast, prestressed
concrete structures, and fiber-reinforced polymer composites.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by
the National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2017YFC0703000), Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 51678433), Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (No. 0200219151) and Project of
Shanghai Science Technology Commission (No. 16XD1402800).
REFERENCES
AASHTO, 2017, “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” 8th edition,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC, 1781 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.
ACI Committee 440, 2004, “Prestressing Concrete Structures with FRP
Tendons (ACI 440.4R-04),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 35 pp.
ACI Committee 440, 2015, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-15),” Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 83 pp.
ASCE, 2013, “2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,” Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, www.infrastructurereportcard.
org. (last accessed Oct. 17, 2018)
Baji, H., and Ronagh, H. R., 2016, “Reliability-Based Study on Ductility
Measures of Reinforced Concrete Beams in ACI 318,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 113, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 373-382. doi: 10.14359/51688201
Barker, R. M., and Puckett, J. A., 2013, Design of Highway Bridges: An
LRFD Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 528 pp.
Behnam, B., and Eamon, C., 2013, “Resistance Factors for Ductile
FRP-Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members,” Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, V. 17, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 566-573. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE) CC.1943-5614.0000363.10.1061/(ASCE)
Burke, C. R., and Dolan, C. W., 2001, “Flexural Design of Prestressed
Concrete Beams Using FRP Tendons,” PCI Journal, V. 46, No. 2, Mar.-Apr.,
pp. 76-87. doi: 10.15554/pcij.03012001.76.87
CAS, 2014, “Corrosion Status of China and the Control Strategy
Research,” Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, www.cas.cn.
CAN/CSA S806-12, 2012, “Design and Construction of Buildings
Components with Fiber- Reinforced Polymers,” Canadian Standards Asso-
ciation, Rexdale, ON, Canada, 206 pp.
Forouzannia, F.; Gencturk, B.; Dawood, M.; and Belarbi, A., 2016,
“Calibration of Flexural Resistance Factors for Load and Resistance Factor
Design of Concrete Bridge Girders Prestressed with Carbon Fiber-Rein-
forced Polymers,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 20,
No. 2, Apr., p. 04015050 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000613
Ghosn, M.; Frangopol, D.; McAllister, T.; Shah, M.; Diniz, S.; Elling-
wood, B.; Manuel, L.; Biondini, F.; Catbas, N.; Strauss, A.; and Zhao, X.,
2016, “Reliability-Based Performance Indicators for Structural Members,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 142, No. 9, Sept., pp. 225-234.
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001546
Grace, N., and Singh, S. B., 2003, “Design Approach for Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Prestressed Concrete Bridge Beams,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 100, No. 3, May-June, pp. 365-376.
Grace, N.; Ushijima, K.; Matsagar, V.; and Wu, C., 2013, “Performance
of AASHTO-Type Bridge Model Prestressed with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced
260
Polymer Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 3, May-June,
pp. 491-501.
Holický, M.; Retief, J. V.; and Sýkora, M., 2016, “Assessment
of Model Uncertainties for Structural Resistance,” Probabilistic
Engineering Mechanics, V. 45, July, pp. 188-197. doi: 10.1016/j.
probengmech.2015.09.008
JCSS, 2002, “JCSS Probabilistic Model Code: Part 3, Resistance
Models,” Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Technical University of
Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark, 41 pp.
Kim, Y. J., and Nickle, R. W., 2016, “Strength Reduction Factors for
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Prestressed Concrete Bridges in Flexure,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 1043-1052. doi:
10.14359/51689028
Kotsovos, M. D., 2014, Compressive Force-Path Method Unified Ultimate
Limit-State Design of Concrete Structures, Springer, New York, 221 pp.
MacGregor, J. G.; Mirza, S. A.; and Ellingwood, B., 1983, “Statistical
Analysis of Resistance of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Members,”
ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 80, No. 3, May-June, pp. 167-176.
Mast, R. F., 1992, “Unified Design Provisions for Reinforced and
Prestressed Concrete Flexural and Compression Members,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 89, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 185-199.
Mast, R. F.; Dawood, M.; Rizkalla, S. H.; and Zia, P., 2008, “Flexural
Strength Design of Concrete Beams Reinforced with High-Strength Steel
Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 570-577.
NACE International, 2012, “Corrosion Costs and Preventive Strategies
in the United States,” Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-156, National Associ-
ation for Corrosion Engineers, Houston, TX.
Nanni, A., and Tanigaki, M., 1992, “Pretensionded Prestressed Concrete
Members with Bonded Fiber Reinforced Plastic Tendons: Development
and Flexural Bond Lengths (Static),” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 4,
July-Aug., pp. 433-441.
Nowak, A. S., 1993, “Live Load Model for Highway Bridges,” Structural
Safety, V. 13, No. 1-2, Dec., pp. 53-66. doi: 10.1016/0167-4730(93)90048-6
Nowak, A. S., 1999, “Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code (NCHRP
368),” Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 222 pp.
Nowak, A. S., and Collins, K. R., 2012, Reliability of Structures, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL, 407 pp.
Nowak, A. S., and Szerszen, M., 2003, “Calibration of Design Code for
Buildings (ACI 318): Part 1—Statistical Model for Resistance,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 100, No. 3, May-June, pp. 377-382.
Park, H., and Cho, J., 2017, “Ductility Analysis of Prestressed
Concrete Members with High-Strength Strands and Code Implications,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 407-416. doi:
10.14359/51689435
Pilakoutas, K.; Neocleous, K.; and Guadagnini, M., 2002, “Design
Philosophy Issues of Fiber Reinfored Polymer Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 6, No. 3, Aug.,
pp. 154-161. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:3(154)
Shield, C. K.; Galambos, T. V.; and Gulbrandsen, P., 2011, “On the
History and Reliability of the Flexural Strength of FRP Reinforced Concrete
Members in ACI 440.1R,” Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures 10th International Symposium, SP-275, R. Sen, R.
Seracino, C. Shield, and W. Gold, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, MI, pp. 1-18.
Vu, K., and Stewart, M., 2000 “Structural Reliability of Concrete Bridges
Including Improved Chloride-Induced Corrosion Models,” Structural
Safety, V. 22, No. 4, pp. 313-333. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4730(00)00018-7
Xue, W.; Peng, F.; and Fang, Z., 2018, “Behavior and Design of Slender
Rectangular Concrete Columns Longitudinally Reinforced with Fiber-Re-
inforced Polymer Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 2, Mar.,
pp. 311-322. doi: 10.14359/51701131
Xue, W.; Peng, F.; and Tan, Y., 2017, “Evaluation of Flexural Design
Approaches for Prestressed Concrete Beams with Bonded FRP Tendons,”
Final Report CJJ/T 280, Tongji University, Shanghai, China, 68 pp.
Xue, W.; Peng, F.; and Zheng, Q., 2016, “Design Equations for Flex-
ural Capacity of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Bars,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 20,
No. 3, June, pp. 04015069. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000630,
04015069.10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000630
Zadeh, H. J., and Nanni, A., 2013, “Reliability Analysis of Concrete
Beams Internally Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 1023-1032.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019