ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 116-S95
Reliability Analysis of Eccentrically Loaded Concrete
Rectangular Columns Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Bars
by Fei Peng and Weichen Xue
This paper develops reliability-based design provisions for eccen-
trically loaded rectangular concrete short columns reinforced with
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. First, closed-form solutions
for the axial force-moment strength interaction diagram were
presented. Subsequently, the statistical parameters of the resistance
model were estimated based on available experimental data and
Monte Carlo simulations. The first-order second-moment (FOSM)
method was then applied to calibrate strength reduction factors
to meet the uniform target reliability level βT = 4.0. To verify the
results obtained, a comparison between reliability indexes obtained
from Monte Carlo simulations and those from the FOSM was
conducted. Finally, sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate
the influence of various design parameters on the reliability index,
indicating that the reliability of FRP-reinforced concrete columns
is dependent on the axial reinforcement stiffness Efρf. As a result,
this study recommended strength reduction factors of 0.60 for the
columns with Efρf ≤ 2 GPa (290 ksi), 0.65 for those with Efρf >
4 GPa (580 ksi), and a linear variation between the two.
Keywords: eccentricity; fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP); rectangular
column; reinforced concrete; reliability; strength reduction factor.
INTRODUCTION
Corrosion of steel bars is a major concern in reinforced
concrete (RC) structures, particularly in harsh, corrosive,
coastal environments (Nanni et al. 2014). As a material with
excellent corrosion resistance, fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) has emerged as a viable alternative to steel in RC
structures. In addition to corrosion resistance, FRP materials
possess characteristics that include a high strength-weight
ratio, outstanding fatigue resistance, nonmagnetic conduc-
tance, lower elastic modulus compared to steel, and a linear
stress-strain relationship. In practice, widely used fibers
include glass, carbon, aramid and basalt, and bars using
them are termed glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP),
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), aramid fiber-rein-
forced polymer (AFRP), and basalt fiber-reinforced polymer
(BFRP) bars, respectively. Over the last three decades, the
flexural and shear behavior of FRP-RC members have been
extensively investigated, and the corresponding design
guidelines have been well established to assist engineers in
the design and application of FRP bars for flexural members.
As a result, FRP bars are widely used in bridge decks and
beam elements (Benmokrane et al. 2016). Nonetheless, there
is little experience in the use of FRP bars in RC columns due
to a lack of relevant design guidelines.
In recent years, a considerable number of experimental
research efforts have focused on the behavior of FRP-RC
columns under concentric (Tobbi et al. 2012, 2014; De Luca
ACI Structural Journal/July 2019
TECHNICAL PAPER
et al. 2010; Afifi et al. 2014) and eccentric loading (Hadhood
et al. 2017, 2018; Elchalakani and Ma 2017; Guérin et al.
2018a,b; Xue et al. 2018). It was concluded that the compres-
sion behavior of FRP-RC columns was similar to that of
conventional steel-RC columns, but with less contribution of
FRP longitudinal bars to load capacity. The FRP-RC rectan-
gular columns under eccentric loading were not triggered by
rupture of the FRP bars in the tension side, but rather
attributed to concrete crushing on the compression side,
even for the column with a low longitudinal reinforcement
ratio (1%) and large eccentricity (e/h ≥ 0.7) (Gong and
Zhang 2009; Sun et al. 2017; Xue et al. 2018; Guérin et al.
2018a,b). Recently, valuable research works have been
conducted to evaluate seismic performance of FRP-RC
columns. Test results indicated that properly designed and
detailed FRP-RC columns could reach high deformation
levels with no strength degradation (Elshamandy et al.
2018). The drift capacity of the columns exceeded the limita-
tions of North American building codes (Tavassoli et al.
2015; Ali and El-Salakawy 2016; Elshamandy et al. 2018).
In addition to the experimental studies, valuable theoret-
ical approaches have been developed to calculate the nominal
axial force-bending moment (P-M) interaction diagrams of
FRP-RC rectangular short columns (Zadeh and Nanni 2013a;
Choo et al. 2006; Xue et al. 2018; Guérin et al. 2018b). These
approaches are based on the fundamentals of equilibrium of
forces, compatibility of strains, and constitutive equations,
except the difference in the manner that they account for the
contribution of FRP longitudinal bar in compression. Choo
et al. (2006) developed an analytical approach to examine
the P-M interaction behavior of FRP-RC rectangular
columns by using different ratios of compressive to tension
modulus. According to their analysis, FRP-RC column
cross section interaction strength diagrams do not exhibit
balance points for the columns bound by the reinforcement
limits [(ρmin = 1%) ≤ ρ ≤ (ρmax = 8%)]. Zadeh and Nanni
(2013a) developed an ultimate strength approach to calculate
the P-M interaction diagrams, neglecting the contribution of
the FRP bars in compression to the load capacity. Xue et al.
(2018) presented an analytical approach for FRP-RC cross
section strength, in which FRP bars in compression were
ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 4, July 2019.
MS No. S-2018-331, doi: 10.14359/5171563, was received August 3, 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.
275
Table 1—Random variable parameters
Random variable Parameter Distribution Bias COV Reference
Dead load (cast-in-place) Normal 1.05 0.10 Szerszen et al. (2003)
Load parameters
Live load Extreme Type I 1.00 0.18 Szerszen et al. (2003)
Cross section (h, b, d) Normal 1.00 0.04 Nowak and Szerszen (2005)
Geometric properties
Area of FRP Normal 1.00 0.03 Shield et al. (2011)
Concrete strength Normal Eq. (10) 0.10 Nowak and Szerszen (2003)
Ultimate compressive concrete strain Lognormal 1.00 0.15 Baji and Ronagh (2016)
Material properties
FRP strength Weibull 1.18 0.12 Shield et al. (2011)
FRP modulus Lognormal 1.04 0.08 Shield et al. (2011)

considered assuming the FRP tensile and the compressive
elastic modulus were equal. Several researchers (Hadhood
et al. 2017; Guérin et al. 2018a,b) compared experimental
and analytical resistances and concluded that considering
the compression contribution of FRP bars provided accurate
predictions of the experimental P-M interaction diagrams,
while neglecting their contribution added to the level of
conservativeness. It should be noted that the aforementioned
approaches proposed for the design of FRP-RC columns are
based on a deterministic point of view. A reliability-based
design provision of FRP-RC columns, however, is not
available.
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, which accounts for probable
overloading and understrength of RC structural members.
Because FRP possesses different mechanical properties from
steel, the design philosophy developed for RC members
with steel bars is not necessarily applicable to those with
FRP bars (Pilakoutas et al. 2002). In the last two decades,
valuable research efforts have been made to calibrate the
resistance factors for flexural members with FRP (Pilakoutas
et al. 2002; Shield et al. 2011; Zadeh and Nanni 2013b; Kim
and Nickle 2016; Peng and Xue 2019). Nowadays, several
LRFD-based guidelines and codes have been drafted to
assist engineers in the design and application of FRP bars for
flexural members (ACI Committee 440 2015; CSA 2012; fib
Task Group 9.3 2007). However, there is no research to cali-
brate the resistance factors for FRP-RC columns, and design
provisions of the columns under combinations of axial
compression and bending moment have not been addressed
in current design guidelines and codes.
This study, therefore, presents a reliability analysis for
FRP-RC rectangular short columns under eccentric loading.
First, the uncertainty in the resistance model is evaluated
based on a large experimental database and Monte-Carlo
simulation. Subsequently, two reliability approaches—
namely, first-order second-moment method and Monte-
Carlo simulation—are used to calculate the reliability
indexes. Sensitivity analyses are then performed to examine
the influence of various design parameters on the reliability
index. Finally, design provisions for eccentrically loaded RC
columns with FRP bars are proposed.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Currently, ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI Committee 440 2015)
does not provide guidance for designing concrete sections
reinforced with FRP bars under combined axial load and
bending moment. To the authors’ knowledge, the strength
reduction factors for the FRP-RC columns have not yet
been addressed in available technical literature. This paper
will conduct a rigorous reliability analysis and calibrate the
strength reduction factors for eccentrically loaded FRP-RC
short columns. The presented research will assist engineers
in the design and application of FRP bars in RC columns.
LOAD MODEL
The load model specified in ACI 318-14 (ACI Committee
318 2014) was used in the reliability analysis. The following
factored load U was considered as the basic load combina-
tion of the ultimate limit state
1.2 D + 1.6 L 
U = max   (1)
 1.4 D 
where D is the dead load; and L is the live load.
It should be noted that various loads can exist in the
load combinations accounted for in ACI 318. In this study,
however, only the loads in Eq. (1) were considered to reduce
complexity of the reliability analyses. According to Nowak
and Collins (2012), dead load follows normal distribution with
a bias factor and COV of 1.05 and 0.10, respectively, while
the live load follows Extreme Type I distribution with a bias
factor and COV of 1.00 and 0.18, respectively. Table 1 lists
the selection of bias, COV, and type of distribution function.
RESISTANCE MODEL
Because information on the variability of the resistance of
FRP-RC columns is not available, it is necessary to develop
resistance models using available test data and numerical
simulation. Three sources of uncertainty affect the vari-
ability of resistance—namely, material variability, M; vari-
ability in fabrication tolerances, F; and analysis factor, P. In
reliability analysis, the random variable R for the resistance
can be considered as a product of the nominal resistance Rn
and three parameters that account for the sources of uncer-
tainty mentioned previously (Nowak and Collins 2012)
R = ψMψFψPRN (2)

276 ACI Structural Journal/July 2019

where Rn is the nominal resistance; ψM is the material factor
reflecting variation in the strength and modulus of elasticity
of the material; ψF is the fabrication factor, which includes
element geometry, nominal dimension, and section proper-
ties; and ψP is the analysis factor (also known as professional
factor) indicating approximations and simplifications due to
analysis methods. Bias factors and COVs can be associated
with each of the analysis, fabrication, and material factors.
For simplification, the global bias factor λR and COV VR of
the column system are expressed as
λR = λMFλP (3)
2
VR = VMF + VP2 (4)
where λMF and VMF are the bias and COV of the combined
material and fabrication, respectively; and λP and VP are the
bias and COV of ψP, respectively.
Nominal resistance
The resistance of a short column can be characterized by
the length of the chord from the origin to the failure surface
of the column’s interaction curve. Therefore, a group of
researchers (Hong and Zhou 1999; Wang and Ellingwood
2015) recommended the following equation to define the
nominal resistance of an RC column
Rn = ( Pn )2 + ( M n / h)2 (5)
where Pn is the nominal axial load resistance; and Mn is the
nominal bending moment.
The following assumptions are made to determine the
nominal axial load-bending moment (Pn, Mn): 1) plane
sections remain plane after deformation; 2) a perfect bond
exits between the FRP bar and the surrounding concrete;
3) the tensile strength of concrete is neglected; 4) a linear
elastic stress-strain relationship is adopted for FRP bars in
tension and compression; and 5) based on the experimental
studies of Deitz et al. (2003) and Tavassoli et al. (2015), it
is assumed that the compressive and tensile moduli of elas-
ticity of FRP bars are equal.
Available experimental and analytical studies have shown
that FRP-RC columns commonly failed due to concrete
crushing in compression. No rupture of FRP bars before
concrete crushing was observed in the tests on the FRP-RC
columns bound by the reinforcement limits (1% ≤ ρ ≤ 8%).
Therefore, the stress distribution in the concrete can be
approximated by Whitney’s rectangular stress block. Then
the nominal axial load-bending moment (Pn, Mn) can be
calculated by
m
Pn = 0.85 f c'ba + ∑ f i Afi (6)
i =1
 h a m  h
M n = 0.85 f c'ba  −  + ∑ f fi Afi  di −  (7)
 2 2  i =1  2
ACI Structural Journal/July 2019
where fc′ is the specified concrete strength in compression;
Af,i is the area of FRP at layer i; ff,i is the stress in the FRP
bars at layer i; b is the section width; h is the section depth;
di is the depth of the FRP bars at layer i; and a is the depth of
equivalent rectangular stress block.
Using plane cross section hypothesis, the stress in each
FRP bar can be calculated as
d 
f fi = E f ε cu  i − 1 ≤ f fu (8)
c 
where εcu is the ultimate compressive strain in concrete,
which is assumed to be 0.003 conforming to ACI 318-14; c
is the neutral axis depth; ffu is the ultimate tensile strength of
the FRP; and Ef is the moduli of elasticity of the FRP. Note
that the compressive stress in FRP from Eq. (8) should not
be larger than the FRP compressive strength, which can be
taken as 35% of its tensile strength (Afifi et al. 2014; Tobbi
et al. 2012).
Calibration of model error
Model error covers the uncertainties in the mathematical
modeling of a RC member where those uncertainties arise
from necessary idealization in analysis. 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 Rexp/Rn (MacGregor et al.
1983), where Rexp is experimental resistance. For 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 (9)
where Vobse is COV 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; 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. According to
MacGregor et al. (1983), Vtest and Vspec are equal to 0.02 and
0.04, respectively.
To evaluate statistics of the model error, experimental
results on FRP-RC columns are required. The existing liter-
ature was extensively surveyed and a total of 86 FRP-RC
rectangular columns under eccentric compression were
collected. Table 2 shows the collected database. All material
reduction and safety factors in determining the capacity shall
be set to unity. In addition to the proposed methodology,
this study also compared the experimental resistance with
the prediction obtained from the methodology proposed by
Zadeh and Nanni (2013a), who ignored the contribution of
the FRP bars in compression. Figures 1(a) and (b) plot the
experimental result versus the predicted resistance from
the proposed methodology and Zadeh and Nanni’s, respec-
tively. Generally, both provided reasonable predictions.
277
Table 2—Collected database for calibrating model error
Reference Number of specimens FRP type b x h, mm fc′, MPa ρf, % e/h
Amer et al. (1996) 4 CFRP 152 x 152 32 0.76 0.18 to 2.01
Sharbatdar (2003) 5 CFRP 230 x 230 54.1 0.38 0.26 to 0.33
Gong and Zhang (2009) 14 CFRP 185 x 250, 150 x 150 24 to 29 0.61 to 1.29 0.10 to 1.44
Tikka et al. (2010) 8 GFRP 150 x 150 35.7 2.25 to 3.38 0.2 to 0.8
Issa et al. (2012) 2 GFRP 150 x 150 24.7 2.01 0.17 to 0.33
Khorramian and Sadeghian (2017) 7 GFRP 150 x 150 37 5.28 0.1 to 0.3
Sun et al. (2017) 8 GFRP 180 x 250 26.8 1.05 0.3 to 0.7
Elchalakani and Ma (2017) 4 GFRP 260 x160 32.8 1.83 to 2.85 0.16 to 0.28
Guérin et al. (2018a) 8 GFRP 405 x 405 42.3 1.04 0.1 to 0.8
Guérin et al. (2018b) 8 GFRP 405 x 405 42.3 1.40 to 2.50 0.1 to 0.8
Xue et al. (2018) 12 GFRP 300 x 300 29 to 55 0.90 to 2.55 0.2 to 1.0
Elchalakani et al. (2018) 6 GFRP 260 x160 26 1.83 0.16 to 0.47
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Fig. 1—Experimental versus predicted resistance: (a) including contribution of FRP bars in compression; and (b) neglecting
contribution of FRP bars in compression.
The proposed methodology, however, gave more accurate 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
predictions of the experimental P-M interaction diagrams in
c

terms of model bias and COV of the ratio between the exper-
imental and the predicted values. The bias λP and COV VP
for the ratio of measured-to-predicted resistances obtained
from the proposed methodology are 1.03 and 0.125, respec-
tively, whereas the corresponding value from Zadeh and
Nanni methodology are 1.17 and 0.128, respectively.
Statistical parameters 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). This model covers a wide range of concrete
compressive strengths. In this model, the normal distribu-
tion 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,
λfc′, was evaluated as follows
(fc′ in MPa) (10)
As given in Eq. (8), the variation in the ultimate compres-
sive strain in concrete, εcu, may have a significant effect on
the stress in FRP and consequently the prediction of resis-
tance of the columns. In this study, therefore, the εcu was
treated as a random variable. Based on an extensive exper-
imental database, Baji and Ronagh (2016) found that the
lognormal distribution was the best-fit probability density
function for representing the probabilistic distribution of
εcu. The mean and COV of the εcu for the best-fit lognormal
distribution were 0.0034 and 0.15, respectively.
The statistical characterization of FRP properties has
been reported in literature (Pilakoutas et al. 2002; Shield
et al. 2011; Kim and Nickle 2016). Generally, the ultimate
strength of FRP bar (ffu) can be modeled by Weibull distri-
bution. In this study, a bias factor of 1.18 and a COV of
0.12 were adopted for the ultimate strength of the FRP bar.
The modulus of elasticity can be modeled using lognormal

278 ACI Structural Journal/July 2019

distribution, with a bias factor of 1.04 and a COV of 0.08
(Shield et al. 2011).
Uncertainties in geometry account for the heterogeneity
in the dimensions of the considered structural element due
to construction quality. The considered statistical parame-
ters of dimensions of RC columns are based on Szerszen
et al. (2005). For statistical properties of the cross-sectional
area of FRP bars, a bias factor of 1.00 and a COV of 0.03
were used (Shield et al. 2011). Table 1 gives the selection of
bias, COV, and type of distribution function for geometric
dimensioning.
The uncertainty in resistance due to material and fabrica-
tion tolerance, ψMF, was assessed collectively using Monte
Carlo simulations in MATLAB. The number of trials in each
simulation was selected based on a convergence study.
Figure 2 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.
Resistance parameter
The resistance parameters served as a basis for the selec-
tion of strength reduction factors can be determined in
accordance with Eq. (3) and (4). The obtained bias and COV
of R are plotted in Fig. 3 as a function of the normalized
Fig. 2— Plot of convergence of Monte Carlo results as func-
tion of number of trials.
Fig. 3—Bias and COV of resistance as function of normalized eccentricity, e/h: (a) fc′ =30 MPa; (b) fc′ = 65 MPa.
ACI Structural Journal/July 2019
eccentricity, e/h. As observed, the bias and COV are rela-
tively constant, along the interaction diagram at different
eccentricity. For ordinary concrete (fc′ = 30 MPa [4.4 ksi]),
the bias is in the range from 1.205 to 1.122, along the inter-
action diagram at different eccentricity, whereas the COV of
R decreases from 0.161 to 0.152 as the e/h increases from 0.1
to 1.0. For high-strength concrete (fc′ = 65 MPa [9.4 ksi]), the
bias ranges from 1.174 to 1.137, while the COV of R ranges
from 0.170 to 0.153 as the e/h increases from 0.1 to 1.0.
Note that the resistance parameters considered for FRP-RC
columns have greater variability than those used for steel-RC
columns (VR = 0.107 for ordinary concrete, and VR = 0.12 for
high-strength concrete) (Nowak and Szerszen 2003).
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
The definition of safety can be expressed in terms of
failure probability Pf, or reliability index β. The goal of
structural reliability analysis is to quantitatively assess
the probability of failure, Pf, for a given design procedure
knowing the uncertainties associated with relevant param-
eters. The probability of failure, Pf, of a structural element
is often expressed in terms of the reliability index, β. The
relationship between β and Pf is
Pf = Φ(–β) (11)
where Φ(·) is the cumulative distribution function for a limit
state function, Z.
The reliability index is defined as
β = μZ/σZ (12)
where μz and σz are the mean and standard deviation of the
random variable, Z, respectively; and the random variable Z
defines the limit state function.
The reliability index, β, which represents the risk level
of any design component, can be calculated using various
methods. In this study, two reliability methods, namely,
the first-order second-moment (FOSM) method and Monte
Carlo simulation, were used to calculate the reliability index.
The purpose of the Monte Carlo simulation was to ensure the
validity of the FOSM method.
279
Limit state function
In many cases, the limit state function can be simpli-
fied into two random variables representing the structural
resistance, R, and the collective load effects, Q. For an RC
column, the limit state function can be expressed as (Hong
and Zhou 1999; Wang and Ellingwood 2015)
2 2
M   MQ 
( PR ) (P )
2 2
Z = R−Q = + R − +
 h 
Q
 h 
( PR )2 + ( M R / h)2 ( P ) + (M
2 2
where R = ;Q = Q Q
and MR are the resistance random variables; and PQ and MQ
are the axial force and moment due to the applied random
loads, respectively.
The reliability of an RC column under the axial load
and the bending moment is a load path-dependent problem
because the column resistance depends on the load eccen-
tricity. The uncertainty in load eccentricity depends on the
degree of correlation between the applied axial force and
bending moment (Hong and Zhou 1999; Jiang et al. 2017).
For a column subjected to vertical loads (for example, dead
load and live load), however, the fixed eccentricity crite-
rion can usually be applied because the random properties
of eccentricity are unnoticeable (Jiang et al. 2017). Because
only vertical loads are considered in this study, PQ and MQ
are assumed perfectly correlated in this study.
First-order second-moment (FOSM) method
Generally, the probability distribution of resistance of
structural members can be assumed as a lognormal distri-
bution (Okeil et al. 2013; Ghosn et al. 2016). Based on the
FOSM method, if a normal distribution is assumed for the
load effects, one can calculate the reliability index using an
approximate formula for the reliability index, β, which is
given as (Nowak 1999)
Rn λ R (1 − kVR ) 1 − ln (1 − kVR ) − Q
β=
 Rn λ RVR (1 − kVR ) + σ Q ( )
2 2
where Q and σQ are mean value and standard deviation of
Q, 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. Generally, target reli-
ability levels for structural members are set based on experi-
ence with the performance of existing structures, the conse-
quences of member failures, and the cost of construction.
For RC columns, the βT is selected equal to 4.0 (failure prob-
ability = 3.17 × 10–5) (Szerszen and Nowak 2003; Ghosn
et al. 2016), which is higher than the value of 3.5 for flexural
members specified in ACI 318. To meet this target reliability
level, an iterative procedure is used to calibrate the strength
reduction factors in this study. This reliability analysis proce-
dure used in this calibration 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 ACI 318-14.
280
2. Calculate the nominal resistance Rn for a given load
eccentricity e.
3. Determine the statistical parameters of the resistance:
the bias factor λR and COV VR.
4. A trial strength reduction factor  is selected between
0.5 and 0.8 at an interval of 0.01.
5. Calculate the factored load effect U
(13) U = Rn (15)
6. Calculate the statistical parameters of the total load effect
)
/ h ; PR for a given load ratio D/(D + L): the mean total load effect Q
and standard deviation σQ.
7. Calculate the reliability index β using Eq. (14).
8. Select  that minimizes (β – βT )2.
Monte Carlo simulation
To verify the results obtained from FOSM, a comparison
between reliability indexes obtained using the Monte Carlo
simulation and those using the FOSM was conducted. For
this purpose, the simulations of N number were performed.
In each simulation, all the random variables represented in
the limit state function were generated based on the statis-
tical characteristics reported earlier. The limit state function
was then evaluated for each of the simulated, randomly
generated values. If the limit state function, Z, less than or
equal to zero, this is considered a failure. The probability of
failure, Pf, was then found as
Pf = n/N (16)
where n is total number of failures in N simulations. Based
on a convergence study, the total number of simulations, N,
was chosen as 10,000,000.
Figure 4 compares the reliability index β obtained from
Monte Carlo simulations against that obtained from FOSM
for several design scenarios. It can be seen that the reliability
index, β, obtained using Monte Carlo simulations is almost
(14) identical to that obtained using FOSM, indicating that the
presented reliability analysis procedure can provide reason-
able reliability index, β, and can be used to conduct a sensi-
tivity analysis.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Based on the developed reliability analysis procedure,
a sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the most
important parameters that influence the reliability indexes.
The following parameters were considered in the analysis:
load ratio D/(D + L), eccentricity ratio e/h, compressive
strength of concrete fc′, FRP reinforcement ratio ρf, modulus
of elasticity of FRP Ef, and aspect ratio h/b. Table 3 lists
the design parameters and their variation coefficients, which
represent the usual ranges of these variables used in the
construction industry. Herein, the FRP reinforcement ratio ρf
ranged from 1.0 to 8.0%, conforming to CAN/CSA 806-12
(CSA 2012). Ten load eccentricity ratios e/h, ranging from
0.1 to 1.0, were used. Note that for RC buildings, e/h usually
ranges from 0.1 to 0.65 (Xue et al. 2018). The most probable
load ratios D/(D + L) for columns are with the range from
ACI Structural Journal/July 2019

Fig. 4—Comparison of between Monte Carlo simulations
and FORM for columns with fc′ = 50 MPa, ρf = 3%, Ef =
50 GPa, e/h = 0.5, h/b = 1.0, and  = 0.65.
Fig. 5—Reliability index surface in function of normalized
eccentricity and load ratio for columns with fc′ = 50 MPa,
ρf = 3%, Ef = 150 GPa, h/b=1.0, and  = 0.70.
0.4 to 0.9 (Szerszen and Nowak 2003). In this study, the reli-
ability analysis is performed for a full range of load ratios
that are expressed as D/(D + L), varying from 0 to 1. Within
the specified range of these design parameters, no FRP bars
were found to reach their ultimate tensile strain in stochastic
simulations.
Figure 5 (as an example) shows the three-dimensional
surface of reliability indexes given as a function of load ratio
D/(D + L) and normalized eccentricity e/h for fc′ = 50 MPa
(7.3 ksi), ρf = 3%, Ef = 150 GPa (21,756 ksi), h/b = 1.0, and
 = 0.70. As observed, the column reliability is not sensi-
tive to the load eccentricity. This observation differs from
the finding in conventional steel-RC columns, whose reli-
ability significantly is affected by the load eccentricity. This
is because the failure mode of a steel-RC column shifts from
compression failure to tension failure as the e/h increase.
However, the controlling failure mode of FRP-RC columns
is concrete crushing. The obtained reliability index surface
can be used to determine the combinations of the critical
load ratios. The surface shows that the reliability indexes are
ACI Structural Journal/July 2019
Table 3—Parameter variation for sensitivity
analysis
Parameters Values
Compressive concrete strength 20 MPa; 35 MPa; 50 MPa; 65 MPa;
fc′ 80 MPa
Modulus of elasticity of FRP Ef 50 GPa; 80 GPa; 150 GPa
Ultimate tensile strain of FRP
0.015; 0.020; 0.025
εfu
Reinforcement ratio ρf 1%; 2%; 3%; 4%; 5%; 6%; 7%; 8%
Aspect ratio h/b 1; 1.5; 2
0.1; 0.2; 0.3; 0.4; 0.5; 0.6; 0.7; 0.8;
Eccentricity ratio e/h
0.9; 1.0
0; 0.1; 0.2; 0.3; 0.4; 0.5; 0.6; 0.7; 0.8;
Load ratio D/(D + L)
0.9; 1.0
Notes: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
Fig. 6—Reliability index versus load eccentricity for
columns with h/b =1.5, ρf = 4%, Ef = 80 GPa, and  = 0.65.
low for the load combinations with dead load being approx-
imately 80 to 93% of the total load. The lowest reliability
indexes are obtained for load ratio approximately equal to
0.9 (the effect of switching formulas in Eq. (1)). Similar
finding was also observed in steel-RC members (Szerszen
and Nowak 2003; Szerszen et al. 2005). Therefore, the load
ratio D/(D + L) equal to 0.9 was selected in the following
reliability analysis.
The relationship between the reliability index and strength
of concrete is presented in Fig. 6. As observed, when the
concrete compressive strength is below 35 MPa (5.1 ksi), the
reliability index is subject to a considerable variation with
regard to concrete strength. When the concrete compres-
sive strength is beyond 35 MPa (5.1 ksi), however, the reli-
ability index not sensitive to the fc′. This can be attributed to
different values of the bias factor for concrete strength, as
given in Eq. (10).
As given in Eq. (6) through (8), the capacity of an FRP-RC
column depends on the axial reinforcement stiffness, EfAf.
Therefore, the effect of the axial reinforcement stiffness
on the reliability of FRP-RC columns was assessed in this
study. Figure 7 plots the three-dimensional surface of reli-
ability indexes given as a function of Efρf, and normalized
281

Fig. 7—Reliability index surface in function of axial rein-
forcement stiffness for columns with fc′ = 65 MPa, h/b =1.5,
and  = 0.65.
eccentricity e/h for concrete compressive strength fc′ =
65 MPa (9.4 ksi), load ratio D/(D + L) = 0.9, and strength
reduction factor  = 0.65. As observed, the reliability indexes
of FRP-RC columns are dependent on the axial reinforce-
ment stiffness Efρf. For the Efρf lower than 2 GPa (290 ksi),
the reliability indexes obtained for  = 0.65 are less than the
βT. When the Efρf beyond 4 GPa (580 ksi), the reliability
indexes were not sensitive to the Efρf. Similar finding was
also found in steel-RC columns by Szerszen et al. (2005),
who suggested strength reduction factors of 0.60 for the
compression-controlled sections with reinforcement ratio
lower than 2%, and 0.70 for those with reinforcement ratio
equal to or greater than 2%, to meet uniform target reliability
level, βT = 4.0.
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR
Most codes and guidelines recommend that the strength
reduction factors are rounded down to the nearest 0.05. Based
on the reliability analysis presented in this paper, strength
reduction factors of 0.60 and 0.65 were proposed for the
columns with Efρf less than or equal to 2 GPa (290 ksi) and
those with Efρf greater than 4 GPa (580 ksi), respectively. As
shown in Fig. 8, FRP-RC columns having Efρf between the
two are designed with an intermediate  factor. Note that the
value of 0.65 is in accordance with the  factor imposed by
ACI 440.1R-15 and ACI 318-14 on compression-controlled
section, regardless the type of reinforcement, whereas the
value of 0.60 is lower than the  factor specified in the both
ACI guidelines. Based on the recommended strength reduc-
tion factors, Fig. 9 plots the three-dimensional surface of
reliability indexes given as a function of Efρf, and normal-
ized eccentricity e/h. As observed, the proposed strength
reduction factors can achieve uniform target reliability index
of 4.0.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this research, the strength reduction factors were cali-
brated for eccentrically loaded concrete columns longitudi-
nally reinforced with FRP bars. Two reliability approaches—
282
Fig. 8—Recommended strength reduction factors for
FRP-RC column.
Fig. 9—Reliability index surface in function of axial stiffness
for columns with fc′ = 65 MPa, h/b = 1.5, and proposed .
namely, first-order second-moment method and Monte Carlo
simulation—were used to implement the calibrated proce-
dure. Then, sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate
the influence of various design parameters on the reliability
index. On the basis of the results, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. A comparison of analytical and experimental results of
86 FRP-RC columns indicates that considering the compres-
sion contribution of FRP bars provide accurate predictions of
the experimental P-M interaction diagrams, while neglecting
this contribution may lead to an overly conservative estima-
tion for the resistance.
2. The reliability index of FRP-RC columns is not sensi-
tive to the load eccentricity ratio e/h, while the load ratio
D/(D + L) has great influence on the reliability levels. The
lowest reliability indexes are obtained for load ratio D/(D +
L) approximately equal to 0.9.
3. There is a trend that as the reliability index decrease
with increase of the compressive strength of concrete fc′.
When the fc′ is beyond 35 MPa (5.1 ksi), however, the reli-
ability index is not sensitive to the fc′.
4. To achieve a target reliability of 4.0, this study recom-
mends strength reduction factors of 0.60 for the columns
ACI Structural Journal/July 2019
with axial reinforcement stiffness Efρf ≤ 2 GPa (290 ksi),
0.65 for those with Efρf > 4 GPa (580 ksi), and a linear vari-
ation in the transition region between the two, as shown in
Fig. 8.
5. This study focuses on the reliability analysis of FRP-RC
short columns. Future research on the subject may focus
on the effect of slenderness on the reliability of FRP-RC
columns.
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 and
in the Department of Structural Engineering at Tongji University, Shanghai,
China. He received his BS from Hunan University, Changsha, China, in 2013.
His research interests include prestressed concrete structures and concrete
structures reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs).
Weichen Xue is a Professor in the Key Laboratory of Performance Evolu-
tion and Control for Engineering Structures of the Ministry of Education
and in the Department of Structural Engineering at Tongji University,
Shanghai, China. He received his BS from Harbin Engineering Univer-
sity, Harbin, China, in 1990; his MS from Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin, China, in 1992; and his PhD from Southeast University, Nanjing,
China, in 1995. His research interests include precast, prestressed concrete
structures and FRP 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
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, 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.
Afifi, M.; Mohamed, H. M.; and Benmokrane, B., 2014, “Axial Capacity
of Circular Concrete Columns Reinforced with GFRP Bars and Spirals,”
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 18, No. 1, Feb.,
p. 04013017. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000438
Ali, M. A., and El-Salakawy, E., 2016, “Seismic Performance of
GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Columns,” Journal of Composites
for Construction, ASCE, V. 20, No. 3, June, p. 04015074. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000637
Amer, A.; Arockiasamy, M.; and Shahawy, M., 1996, “Ultimate Strength
of Eccentrically Loaded Concrete Columns Reinforced with CFRP Bars,”
Proceedings of the Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in
Bridges and Structures, Montreal, QC, Canada, pp. 209-216.
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
Benmokrane, B.; Mohamed, H.; and Ahmed, E., 2016, “Recent
Developments on FRP Bars as Internal Reinforcement in Concrete Structures
& Field Applications,” 4th International Conference on Sustainable
Construction Materials and Technologies, Las Vegas, NV, Aug., 10 pp.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2012, “Design and Construc-
tion of Building Components with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CAN/CSA
S806-12),” CSA Group, Rexdale, ON, Canada, 208 pp.
Choo, C. C.; Harik, I. E.; and Gesund, H., 2006, “Strength of Rectan-
gular Concrete Columns Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 3, May-June, pp. 452-459.
De Luca, A.; Matta, F.; and Nanni, A., 2010, “Behavior of Full-Scale
Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Columns under Axial
Load,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 589-596.
Deitz, D.; Harik, I.; and Gesund, H., 2003, “Physical Properties of Glass
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Rebars in Compression,” Journal of Compos-
ites for Construction, ASCE, V. 7, No. 4, pp. 363-366. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:4(363)
Elchalakani, M.; Karrech, A.; Dong, M.; Ali, M.; and Yang, B.,
2018, “Experiments and Finite Element Analysis of GFRP Reinforced
ACI Structural Journal/July 2019
Geopolymer Concrete Rectangular Columns Subjected to Concentric
and Eccentric Axial Loading,” Structures, V. 14, June, pp. 273-289. doi:
10.1016/j.istruc.2018.04.001
Elchalakani, M., and Ma, G., 2017, “Tests of Glass Fibre Reinforced
Polymer Rectangular Concrete Columns Subjected to Concentric and
Eccentric Axial Loading,” Engineering Structures, V. 151, pp. 93-104. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.023
Elshamandy, M. G.; Farghaly, A. S.; and Benmokrane, B., 2018, “Exper-
imental Behavior of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced Concrete
Columns under Lateral Cyclic Load,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115,
No. 2, Mar., pp. 337-349. doi: 10.14359/51700985
fib Task Group 9.3, 2007, “FRP Reinforcement in RC Structures,” Feder-
ation Internationale du Beton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 173 pp.
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
Gong, Y.; and Zhang, J., 2009, “Experimental Study of Reinforced
Concrete Eccentric Compression Columns with CFRP Tendons,” China
Civil Engineering Journal, V. 42, No. 10, Oct., pp. 46-52. (in Chinese)
doi:10.15951/j.tmgcxb.2009.10.012
Guérin, M.; Mohamed, H. M.; Benmokrane, B.; Nanni, A.; and Shield,
C. K., 2018a, “Eccentric Behavior of Full-Scale Reinforced Concrete
Columns with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars and Ties,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 115, No. 2, Mar., pp. 489-499. doi: 10.14359/51701107
Guérin, M.; Mohamed, H. M.; Benmokrane, B.; Shield, C. K.; and
Nanni, A., 2018b, “Effect of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforce-
ment Ratio on Axial-Flexural Strength of Reinforced Concrete Columns,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 4, July, pp. 1049-1061. doi:
10.14359/51701279
Hadhood, A.; Mohamed, H. M.; and Benmokrane, B., 2017, “Axial
Load-Moment Interaction Diagram of Circular Concrete Columns Rein-
forced with CFRP Bars and Spirals: Experimental and Theoretical Investi-
gations,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 21, No. 2, Apr.,
p. 04016092 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000748
Hadhood, A.; Mohamed, H. M.; and Benmokrane, B., 2018, “Flexural
Stiffness of GFRP-and CFRP-RC Circular Members under Eccentric Loads
Based on Experimental and Curvature Analysis,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 115, No. 4, July, pp. 1185-1198. doi: 10.14359/51702235
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
Hong, H. P., and Zhou, W., 1999, “Reliability Evaluation of RC
Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 125, No. 7, July,
pp. 784-790. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:7(784)
Issa, M.; Metwally, I.; and Elzeiny, S., 2012, “Performance of Eccen-
trically Loaded GFRP Reinforced Concrete Columns,” World Journal of
Engineering, V. 9, No. 1, Jan., pp. 71-78. doi: 10.1260/1708-5284.9.1.71
Jiang, Y.; Zhou, H.; Beer, M.; Wang, L.; Zhang, J.; and Zhao, L., 2017,
“Robustness of Load and Resistance Design Factors for RC Columns
with Wind-Dominated Combination Considering Random Eccentricity,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 143, No. 4, Apr., p. 04016221
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001720
Khorramian, K., and Sadeghian, P., 2017, “Experimental and Analytical
Behavior of Short Concrete Columns Reinforced with GFRP Bars under
Eccentric Loading,” Engineering Structures, V. 151, Nov, pp. 761-773. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.064
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
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.
Nanni, A.; Luca, D. A.; and Zadeh, H. J., 2014, Reinforced Concrete with
FRP Bars: Mechanics and Design, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 384 pp.
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.
Okeil, A. M.; Belarbi, A.; and Kuchma, D. A., 2013, “Reliability Assess-
ment of FRP-Strengthened Concrete Bridge Girders in Shear,” Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 17, No. 1, pp. 91-100. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000315
283
 Peng, F., and Xue, W., 2019, “Reliability-Based Design Provisions
for Flexural Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Prestressed Concrete
Bridge Girders,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 1, Jan., pp. 251-260.
doi: 10.14359/51710876
Pilakoutas, K.; Neocleous, K.; and Guadagnini, M., 2002, “Design
Philosophy Issues of Fiber Reinforced 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)
Sharbatdar, M. K., 2003, “Concrete Columns and Beams Reinforced
with FRP Bars and Grids under Monotonic and Reversed Cyclic Loading,”
PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 371 pp.
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, SP-275, R. Sen, R. Seracino, C. Shield, and W. Gold,
eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, Mar., pp. 1-18.
Sun, L.; Wei, M.; and Zhang, N., 2017, “Experimental Study on the
Behavior of GFRP Reinforced Concrete Columns under Eccentric Axial
Load,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 152, Oct., pp. 214-225. doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.159
Szerszen, M. M., and Nowak, A. S., 2003, “Calibration of Design Code
for Buildings (ACI 318): Part 2—Reliability Analysis and Resistance
Factors,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 3, May-June, pp. 383-391.
Szerszen, M. M.; Szwed, A.; and Nowak, A. S., 2005, “Reliability
Analysis for Eccentrically Loaded Columns,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 102, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 676-688.
Tavassoli, A.; Liu, J.; and Sheikh, S., 2015, “Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer-Reinforced Circular Columns under Simulated Seismic Loads,”
284
ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 103-114. doi:
10.14359/51687227
Tikka, T. K.; Francis, M.; and Teng, B., 2010, “Strength of Concrete
Beam Columns Reinforced with GFRP Bars,” 2nd International Structures
Specialty Conference, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, pp. 1194-1203.
Tobbi, H.; Farghaly, A. S.; and Benmokrane, B., 2012, “Concrete
Columns Reinforced Longitudinally and Transversally with Glass Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 4,
July-Aug., pp. 551-558.
Tobbi, H.; Farghaly, A. S.; and Benmokrane, B., 2014, “Strength Model
for Concrete Columns Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars and
Ties,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 789-798. doi:
10.14359/51686630
Wang, N., and Ellingwood, B. R., 2015, “Limit State Design Criteria for
FRP Strengthening of RC Bridge Components,” Structural Safety, V. 56,
Sept., pp. 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.03.004
Xue, W.; Peng, F.; and Fang, Z., 2018, “Behavior and Design of Slender
Rectangular Concrete Columns Longitudinally Reinforced with Fiber-­
Reinforced Polymer Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 2, Mar.,
pp. 311-322. doi: 10.14359/51701131
Zadeh, H. J., and Nanni, A., 2013a, “Design of RC Columns Using Glass
FRP Reinforcement,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
V. 17, No. 3, pp. 294-304. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000354
Zadeh, H. J., and Nanni, A., 2013b, “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/July 2019