Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 July 2013
Revised 18 June 2014
Accepted 19 June 2014
Keywords:
Cross wall construction
Progressive collapse
Catenary action
Ties force method
Ductility
Translator element
Bond
Post-bond-failure analysis
a b s t r a c t
Progressive collapse of building structures typically occurs when an abnormal loading condition causes a
sudden loss in the structural capacity of one or more critical members, which leads to a chain reaction of
failure and ultimately catastrophic collapse. The tensile tie force (TF) method is one of the main design
approaches for considering progressive collapse. As this method does not take into account factors such
as dynamic effect, the load redistribution mechanism, the effect of steelconcrete interfacial properties,
or the size and embedment length of tie bars on bond behaviour, it can be considered as a simplied
method, and hence a thorough examination of the adequacy of this method is needed. This paper reports
such a study including numerical evaluation of the codied methods of progressive collapses for precast
concrete cross wall buildings. To this end, detailed three-dimensional nite element models of the pullout behaviour of strands in the keyway of precast concrete blocks and of the ductility behaviour of oor
joints subjected to uniform and line loads exerted from upper walls were developed. Through a calibration process for a series of laboratory pullout tests carried out by the Portland Cement Association (PCA),
the interfacial bond properties were established using numerical modelling. The same modelling method
was then used in the subsequent three dimensional non-linear numerical analyses to simulate the ductility behaviour of precast concrete oor joints in the absence of underlying wall supports. In both modelling processes, the simulation of the bondslip behaviour at the steelconcrete interface was realised by
using the translator element embedded in ABAQUS. The numerical analyses showed a close agreement
between FE analyses and test results. The tie force developed during the collapse process was particularly
examined. Discrepancies in the tie force between the numerical and the codied specications have
suggested an underestimate of tie force in the TF method that may lead to an unsafe design. Finally,
an improved model based on the numerical results has also been proposed to address this problem.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
As is dened by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) [1], the
term large-panel concrete structure is used to describe a building
system consisting of vertical wall panels together with precast concrete oors and/or roofs. Large panel buildings are featured as
examples of wall panels being used as the load-bearing structure.
Corresponding author at: School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil
Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, PR China. Tel.: +86
13917654726.
E-mail addresses: j.yang.3@bham.ac.uk, yangjian2000@hotmail.com (J. Yang).
1
On study leave.
2
On leave.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.06.034
0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
In the usual arrangement, a wall that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of a structure is referred to as the cross wall and that is
parallel to the longitudinal axis is termed the spine wall. In the
cross wall system, oor/roof slabs are typically one way hollow
core precast concrete slabs, and only cross walls carry the oor
loads (see Fig. 1).
To avoid the progressive collapse of a precast concrete cross wall
structure, in the event of a sudden loss of a support wall, it is required
that damage will be limited to the affected zone only, e.g. in the
vicinity of the damaged wall (see Fig. 2). This means that the remaining structures will stay in place without any chain-reaction type of
collapse. One of the typical responses of oor-to-oor joints in the
above scenario is that, due to the dynamic nature of the event, the
178
Damaged zone
Catenary action of
floor system
Ineffective
wall support
impact force from the upper oors will exert on the oor-to-oor
joint immediately above the damaged wall. This impact force will
rapidly crush the in-situ lled grout and produce a large deection
in the oor joint. The damage to the grout and the development of
a large deection will dissipate the impact energy. The latter also
renders a reduction in the force from the upper walls and diverts
loads to the adjacent walls. In so doing, a catenary action is developed in the oor slabs adjacent to the damaged wall. It is believed
that the key for the catenary action to work successfully is that longitudinal ties at the joint have sufcient strength and deformation
capability, which closely depends on the bond performance of ties
in the grout (see Fig. 3).
Following the partial failure of a precast concrete building
based in London, Ronan Point apartment [2], in 1968, the British
Standards for concrete structures [3] started to incorporate provisions to deal with the problem of progressive collapse. The Portland Cement Association [1] conducted a series of comprehensive
investigations to form an underpinning knowledge basis supporting the stipulated minimum detailing requirements to ensure the
Dry pack
Longitudinal tie in
keyway
13 mm
50 x 3 mm
bearing pad
Precast concrete
hollow core slab
50 mm
L=Longitudinal
T=Transverse
V=Vertical
P=Peripheral
179
is then followed by the second step, where the mechanism of forming a catenary action in relation to the bond behaviour in precast
concrete cross wall structures is examined. To that end, numerical
studies on the pull-out behaviour of strands in concrete and the
catenary behaviour of oor joint system due to the removal of wall
support are performed, from which key inuencing factors are
identied. By using the obtained results, the adequacy of the current TF method as recommended by codes of practice is evaluated.
2. Tie force (TF) method
The TF method requires that in each direction ties should be
designed to carry a tensile force of P (kN/m) equal to the greater
of the following two values [3,11,35]:
P1
g k qk Lr
Ft
7:5
5
P2 F t
1
2
where (gk + qk) is the sum of the characteristic permanent and variable oor loads (in kN/m2); Ft is the lesser of (20 + 4no) or 60 kN/m,
where no is the number of storeys; Lr is the length of the oor span.
In implementing the TF method that is adopted in most codes or
standards, an indeterminate structure is usually simplied to a
determinate one by introducing hinges at connections. This will
enable the minimum tie forces to be calculated. Based on the calculated results of tie force, sufcient tie arrangements are made
to provide sufcient strength to establish overall structural integrity, continuity and redundancy. This method is suitable for hand
calculation and results are inevitably of an approximate nature.
Recently, with the advancement of computer tools, an alternative
load path (ALP) method has become more popular. In this method,
following the removal of a critical element, the structure should be
capable of redistributing loads to the remaining undamaged
structural elements.
3. Catenary action
According to the current code specications, in order to prevent
progressive collapse of building structures, four types of alternative load path should be provided, i.e.
180
Wall panels
Floor slab
T Fv
UDL q
lm
Fv
Fl
ls
Fl
2lb
Longitudinal ties
Fl
wlb aqbp lb
2ds
3a
2
F l 1 a
Let q wlb ;
wbp lb
2ds
3b
q
2
2
lb d2s lb
s
!
ds
1
1
dl lb
db
dl
2
dl 1 ds
lb 2 lb
if
4a
4b
dl
1
lb
dl dls dlm
Keyway
Strand
Table 1
The percentage increase of the line load with the number of storeys a (BS 811011:1997).
Storey no.
10
a%
17
33
50
67
83
100
117
133
150
Grouted Keyway
imitate the load exerted by the upper walls. All longitudinal ties
were seven wire strands, which were placed symmetrically into
keyways in the middle and side joints.
181
50mm
50 mm joint
lb = 4, 6, 8, 10 m
Both concrete and steel were modelled by the 8-node solid element with reduced-integration. The model was discretised in such
a way that the mesh density varies at different locations where
stress distributions are different. Three locations have been chosen
to apply different mesh densities in the hollow core concrete slabs,
and these are the steelgrout interface zones within the embedment length and the middle of the block (see Fig. 9). A mesh size
convergence analysis was carried out to determine the optimal
meshing pattern. Table 2 presents three mesh trials with various
mesh sizes at the circumference of the steelgrout interface, along
the embedment length and the middle of the block. The results of
slip and tie-force were examined for the convergence check. Table 2
indicates that meshing trials B and C yield very close results and
hence trial B has been chosen for the following modelling work.
The boundary conditions applied in the concrete block and the
oor-to-oor joint models are displayed in Fig. 10(a and b). In the
former case, only one degree of freedom of two end nodes
remained free, i.e. the longitudinal movement for the left end node.
In the latter case, the right end node remains restrained but the
middle point has been allocated a symmetry boundary condition
as only the right-hand side half is included in the model.
lb = 4, 6, 8, 10 m
50mm
Longitudinal ties
Keyways
Side
supports
182
u2
u2
b
u1
u3
u1
u3
Middle of block
Embedment length
Embedment length
Circumference
2500
Table 2
Mesh properties for pullout and full scale models.
A
B
C
Embedment
length (mm)
Middle of
block (mm)
Slip
ratio
Tie
force
ratio
8 elements
16 elements
32 elements
50
25
12.5
150
150
150
1
1.09
1.10
1
1.08
1.08
Force (kN)
Mesh
trial
2000
1500
1000
500
0
50
100
150
are compared with the corresponding experimental studies as presented in Fig. 12. As can be seen from Fig. 12, both sets of results
agree extremely well in the entire loading range, which indicates
183
Ld//
Loading angle
CP 1
CP 2
9.5
12.7
120
120
1140
1500
8
0
Table 4
Slab details from oor-to-oor joint tests.
ID
Dimension (mm)
Strand diameter(mm)
Ld/db
FT1
FT2
9.5
9.5
152
110
40
20
0
50
100
80
40
0
150
PCA
FE
120
(a)
50
100
150
9.5mm, Ld=1140 mm
(b)
PCA
FE
75
50
25
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
FE modelling, the contribution from this part of the grout was not
included in the model. This explains why the stiffness from the
tests was slightly higher than in the numerical modelling before
the central deection reached 250 mm (see Fig. 13). However, after
the grout crushing, FE and experimental results show a close
agreement.The developed model has been conrmed as being able
to capture a complete tie force vs. vertical deection history with
good accuracy for different bar sizes, embedment lengths, and slab
lengths. From both full-scale tests and FE modelling results, during
the descending section in the tie force vs. deection curves, ties
undergo stable pullout damage until the pullout displacement
becomes excessive. According to the experimental study, the safe
region to establish catenary action described by the deection/
span ration is 5% 6 ds =lb 6 15% [1]. Hence, based on Eq. (4), the
upper limit for the pullout displacement can be dened as
dl/lb = 0.56%. This limit of the pullout displacement can be further
used to derive the corresponding limit of the tie force by using
tie force versus vertical deection graphs, e.g. Fig. 13. These limits
are included in dening the translators properties as the failure
criteria option.
The FE modelling also provides opportunities to investigate the
bond behaviour along the entire embedment length of the tie.
Fig. 14 shows the pullout displacement along the strand for the
CP2 specimen. Fig. 14(a) presents the result curves at two pullout
force levels before reaching the ultimate value, i.e. the prebond-failure stage. The rst curve corresponds to the case when
the pullout force is only half of the ultimate bond load, i.e.
P = 0.5Pmax, and no debonding along the entire strand occurs. The
100
5. Parametric study
100
PCA
FE
75
50
25
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 13. Experimental and FE results of tie force-vertical deection of FT1 and FT2.
P = 0.9 Pmax
P = 0.5Pmax
15
Partial debonded
10
5
0
Fully bonded
60
PCA
FE
160
80
second curve is plotted when the pullout force is close to the ultimate load, i.e. P = 0.9Pmax. At this level, the strand section near the
loaded end is debonded while the rest remains unbonded.
Fig. 14(b) represents the post-bond-failure stage, i.e. the descending section in the pullout force against displacement curves in
Fig. 12. In this stage, the entire strand has debonded and the pullout force has dropped to 60% of the ultimate value. At this level, all
data points in the strand experience excessive pullout displacement with a modest variation.
Fig. 15 shows the shear stress along the strand under the same
pullout force levels as indicated in Fig. 14. If no debonding is found
along the entire strand, the shear stress distribution follows an
exponentially decreasing pattern as is predicated by any conventional linear elastic analysis [20]. Once a part of the strand is debonded, the shear stress in the debonded zone tends to be almost
uniform, while in the bonded zone it still follows a similar pattern
to the un-bonded case. In the post-bond failure stage, when the
pullout forces descend to 0.6Pmax, the shear stress shares a similar
trend to the pullout displacement but with a smaller degree of
variation.
90
P = 0.6Pmax
85
80
Completely debonded
75
70
65
60
250
500
184
Partially debonded
1.5
1.2
Pre-failure; P=0.5Pmax
Completly debonded
0.9
Partial-failure; P = 0.9Pmax
Post-failure; P = 0.6Pmax
0.6
Fully bonded
F/Fy
1.8
0.3
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
L = 4.075 m
L = 6.375 m
L = 8.075 m
L = 10.075 m
10
15
F/Fy
(a)
25
30
35
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
L = 4.075 m
L = 6.375 m
L = 8.075 m
L = 10.075 m
10
20
30
40
s /lb
F/Fy
(b)
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
15
20
25
30
s /lb
(c)
Fig. 16. Tie force/resistance ratio versus vertical deection/span length ratio for
different oor span lengths and tie specications.
140
20
s /lb
120
100
80
TF Method
60
40
20
0
10
12
14
16
lb (m)
Fig. 17. Tie force requirements vs. span length for different strand size and
embedment length.
uniform load on the oor wbp that will be endured by the system
can be derived by using Eq. (3). Fig. 18(ac) show the applied load
versus ds =lb for various strands diameters, embedment lengths and
oor spans. To develop a general design method according to the
PCA [1] experimental study, the maximum ds =lb ratio for an effective catenary action is chosen as 15%. Fig. 19 presents a design
chart for the maximum applied load wbp, under which a oor joint
design conguration can establish a safe catenary action
mechanism and prevent progressive collapse.
w bp (kN/m)
7
6
L=4.075 m
L=6.375 m
L=8.075 m
L=10.075 m
5
4
3
2
1
0
10
15
20
25
s/lb
(a)
8
L=4.075 m
L=8.075 m
w bp (kN/m)
L=6.375 m
L=10.075 m
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
10
15
20
25
s/lb
(b)
185
oor joints were veried by comparing the results with test data
carried out by the PCA. Parametric analysis reveals that the bond
behaviour of ties governs the oor joint behaviour in developing
the catenary mechanism, and hence the maximum tie force for different span lengths is identical if the tie congurations are the
same. Results also indicate that the embedment length to bar
diameters ratio poses a more signicant impact on the ultimate
bond load of a system. However, the central deection to span ratio
will vary with the span, and the limit of this ratio is often chosen
for the safe design of the progressive collapse of the oor slab. Furthermore, the results show that the maximum applied loads that
oors can carry decreases signicantly with increasing slab length
from the progressive collapse design perspective.
The novelty of this study is that, from a design perspective, it is
the ductility rather than the tie strength which should be considered in the progressive collapse design, and the oor joint deection in the absence of supporting walls to span ratio is often
used quantify the design. The discrepancies in the tie force
between the numerical and the codied specications suggest that
an underestimate based on the TF method may lead to an unsafe
design. Hence, an improved model based on the numerical results
has also been proposed to address this concern.
L=6.375 m
L=10.075 m
wbp (kN/m)
L=8.075 m
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Bison Manufacturing Ltd. for their generous support by sponsoring test samples in this project. They are grateful for the funding from Shanghai
Pujiang Program, P.R. China (13PJ1405200). They also would like to
thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments
to improve the quality of the paper.
5
4
3
2
1
0
10
15
20
s/lb
(c)
Fig. 18. Maximum load wbp vs. vertical deection/oor span ratio.
w bp (kN/m)
4
3
2
1
0
lb (m)
10
12
14
Fig. 19. Design chart for the maximum applied load against progressive collapse.
8. Conclusion
The tie force (TF) method is one of the most widely used methods to design concrete structures against progressive collapse. Due
to a high degree of simplication, this method is easy to use when
compared to the FE method. However, the study reported in this
paper has suggested that the design based on the TF method will
turn out to be unsafe for a certain range of oor spans.
Numerical models were developed to reproduce laboratory
tests on the pullout and full scale oor joint system. The interfacial
behaviour between the steel and the grout was modelled by using
the translator elements built into the ABAQUS software. The bond
stress-slip relationship was established by using the pullout tests
as calibration examples. The modelling results of the full-scale
References
[1] Portland Cement Association (PCA). Design and construction of large-panel
concrete structures. reports 16; Supplement Reports A, B, C. US Department
of Housing and Development; 19751979.
[2] Yagust VI, Yankelevsky DZ. On potential progressive failure of large-panel
buildings. Struct Eng 2007;131(11):1591603.
[3] British Standard BS 8110-11. The structural use of concrete in building Part
1: Code of practice for design and construction. London, UK; 1997.
[4] Pekau O, Cui Y. Progressive collapse simulations of precast panel shear walls
during earthquakes. Comput Struct 2006;84:40012.
[5] Scanlon A, Kianoush MR. Behaviour of large panel precast coupled wall
systems subject to earthquake loading. PCI J 1988:12437.
[6] Fintel M, Firnkas S, Speyer IJ. Comments on design against progressive collapse
by Alexander Popoff. PCI J 1977:1169.
[7] Dusenberry D. Review of existing guidelines and provisions related to
progressive collapse. Workshop on prevention of progressive collapse,
National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington (DC), USA; 2002.
[8] Moore DB. The UK and European regulations for accidental actions. In: Proc.
workshop on prevention of progressive collapse. National Institute of Building
Sciences. Washington (DC), USA; 2002.
[9] Nair RS. Progressive collapse basics. Modern Steel Constr 2004;44(3):3744.
[10] Abruzzo J, Matta A, Panariello G. Study of mitigation strategies for progressive
collapse of a reinforced concrete commercial building. Perform Constructed
Facil 2006;20(4):38490.
[11] DoD. Design building to resist progressive collapse. Unied Facilities Criteria
(UFC-04-023-03), USA: Department of Defence; 2005.
[12] Merola R. Ductility and robustness of concrete structures under accident and
malicious load cases. PhD. Thesis. School of Civil Engineering, University of
Birmingham, UK; 2009.
[13] Li Y, Lu X, Guan H, Ye L. An improved tie force method for progressive collapse
resistance design of reinforced concrete frame structures. Eng Struct
2011;33:293142.
[14] Yi WJ, He Q, Xiao Y, Kunnath SK. Experimental study on progressive collapse
resistant behaviour of reinforced concrete frame structures. ACI Struct
2008;105(4):4339.
[15] Gerasimidis S, Bisbos CD, Baniotopoulos CC. A computational model for full or
partial damage of single or multiple adjacent columns in disproportionate
collapse analysis via linear programming. Struct Infrastruct Eng
2013;9(1):114.
[16] Tohidi M, Yang J, Baniotopoulos C. An improved tie force method for
progressive collapse resistance of precast concrete cross wall structures.
World Acad Sci Eng Technol Int J Civil Archit Sci Eng 2014;8(1).
186
[17] DoD. Design building to resist progressive collapse. Unied Facilities Criteria
(UFC-04-023-03), USA: Department of Defence; 2013.
[18] Yan Y, Gerasimidis S, Deodatis G, Ettouney M. A study on the global loss of
stability progressive collapse mechanisms of steel moment frames. In:
Ellingwood, Frangopol, editors. Safety, reliability, risk and life-cycle
performance of structure & infrastructures Deodatis. London: Taylor &
Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-138-00086-5; 2013.
[19] Spyridaki A, Gerasimidis S, Deodatis G, Ettouney M. A new analytical method
on the comparison of progressive collapse mechanism of steel frames under
corner column removal. In: Ellingwood, Frangopol (Eds). Safety, reliability, risk
and life-cycle performance of structure & infrastructures Deodatis. London:
Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-138-00086-5; 2013.
[20] Ettouney M, Smilowitz R, Tang M, Hapij A. Global system considerations for
rogressive collapse with extensions to other natural and man-made hazards.
ASCE J Perform Constr Facil 2006:40317.
[21] Ren FF, Yang ZJ, Chen JF, Chen AWW. An analytical analysis of the full-range
behaviour of grouted rockbolts based on a tri-linear bondslip model. Constr
Build Mater 2010;24:36170.
[22] Shen SL, Hou DW, Zhao JL, Horpibulsuk S, Yin ZY. Assessment of internal forces
for intermediate anchorage zone of post-tensioned concrete structure. Constr
Build Mater 2014;64:3708.
[23] CEB-FIP. State-of-the-art report on bond of reinforcement in concrete. Stateof-art report prepared by task group bond models (former CEB Task Group 2.5)
FIB -Fd. Int. du Bton, Lausanne, Switzerland; 2000. p. 197.
[24] Den UJ. Bond modelling of prestressing strand. ACI Special Publication. vol.
180; 1998. p. 145170.
[25] Abrishami HH, Mitchell D. Analysis of bond stress distributions in pullout
specimens. Struct Eng 1996;122:25561.
[26] Balazs GL. Transfer control of prestressing strand. PCI J 1992:6071.
[27] Daoud A, Maurel O, Laborderie C. 2D mesoscopic modelling of barconcrete
bond. Eng Struct 2013;49:696706.
[28] Hao Q, Wang Y, Ou J. Design recommendations for bond between GFRP/steel
wire composite rebars and concrete. Eng Struct 2008;30:323946.
[29] Mazzarolo E, Scotta R, Berto L, Saetta A. Long anchorage bondslip formulation
for modeling of RC elements and joints. Eng Struct 2012;34:33041.
[30] Ogura N, Bolander JE, Ichinose T. Analysis of bond splitting failure of deformed
bars within structural concrete. Eng Struct 2008;3:42835.
[31] Salema HM, El-Fouly AK, Tagel-Din HS. Toward an economic design of
reinforced concrete structures against progressive collapse. Eng Struct
2011;33:334150.
[32] Kwasniewski L. Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a
multistory building. Eng Struct 2010;32:122335.
[33] Shi Y, Li ZX, Hao H. A new method for progressive collapse analysis of RC
frames under blast loading. Eng Struct 2010;32:1691703.
[34] Valipour HR, Foster SJR. Finite element modelling of reinforced concrete
framed structures including catenary action. Comput Struct 2010;88:52938.
[35] BSI. BS EN1991-1-7: Action on Structures Part 17: General actionsaccidental action. London, UK; 2006.
[36] Bresler B, Bertero VV. Behaviour of reinforced concrete under repeated load.
Struct Eng 1968;94(6):157690.
[37] Reinhardt HW, Blaauwendraad J, Vos E. Prediction of bond between steel and
concrete by numerical analysis. RLLEM Mater Struct 1984;17(100):31120.
[38] Keuser M, Mehlhorn G. Finite element model for bond problem. J Struct Eng
1987;113(10):216073.
[39] Darwin D, McCabe SL, Brown CJ. Fracture analysis of steelconcrete bond. In:
Bittnar, Z. Jirasek M. and Mazars J, editors. Proc. Europe-US Workshop on
fracture and damage in quasi brittle structure. Pregue, Czech Repulic; 1994. p.
557566.
[40] Al-Zuhairi AHA, Al-Fatlawi WDS. Numerical prediction of bondslip behaviour
in simple pull-out concrete specimens. J Eng 2013;19:112.
[41] Sung HL, Sung CC, Bohwan O. Numerical analysis of pull-out behaviour of
headed bar in concrete. Architectural Technology Research Team, DAEWOO
Institute of Construction, Technology, Suwon 440-210 Korea; 2012.
[42] Valente M. Bond strength at the steel-concrete interface: experimental tests
and numerical analyse. In: 11th International conference on concrete
engineering and technology 2012 (CONCET2012), 1213th June 2012,
Putrajaya, Malaysia; 2012.
[43] Khalfallah S, Ouchenane M. Prediction of bond between steel and concrete by
numerical analysis. Open Civil Eng J 2008;2:18.
[44] Harajli MH. Numerical bond analysis using experimentally derived local bond
laws: a powerful method for evaluating the bond strength of steel bars. J Struct
Eng 2007;133:695705.
[45] Moreno C, Bastos AS. Experimental and numerical evaluation of bond
properties between reinforcement and concrete, Civil Engineering
Department, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 2006. p. 2426.
[46] Nardin SD, Filho FMA, Filho JO, Haach VG, El Debs ALHC. Non-linear analysis of
the bond strength behaviour on the steel-concrete interface by numerical
models and pull-out tests. New York: ASCE, Structure Congress; 2005.
[47] Girard C, Bastien J. Finite-element bondslip model for concrete columns
under cyclic loads. J Struct Eng 2002;128(12):150210.
[48] Yogarajah I, Yeo KC. Finite element modelling of pull-out tests with load and
strain measurements. Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK; 1994.
[49] Hibbit K. Sorensen, ABAQUS: Users Manual, Version 6.7; 2007.