340

Finite element modeling of concrete structures

reinforced with internal and external fibre-
reinforced polymers1
Ali Nour, Bruno Massicotte, Emre Yildiz, and Viacheslav Koval

Abstract: Externally bonded fibre-reinforced-polymer (FRP) laminates and fabrics have been successfully used for
strengthening damaged or deficient concrete members, whereas internal FRP reinforcements are becoming an efficient
alternative to steel reinforcement, particularly in corrosive environments. Despite the enormous progress that has been
observed in the last decade, further research is still required to consolidate recent developments and expand the scope
of application of FRPs for structural uses. Nonlinear finite element analysis combined with laboratory testing constitutes
an efficient approach for pursuing this objective. The scope of this paper is to illustrate, through a selection of a wide
variety of typical applications, the contribution of a refined three-dimensional (3-D) constitutive model for investigating the
nonlinear response of concrete structures reinforced with internal and external FRPs. The analyses are carried out using a
general and portable constitutive concrete model implemented as a user-defined subroutine at Gauss integration point level
in commercial finite element software. The constitutive law follows a 3-D hypoelastic approach that models the nonlinear
behaviour of concrete using a scalar damage parameter that accounts for the anisotropic behaviour of partially confined
concrete and the inelastic volume expansion upon reaching the peak strength. In tension, the model adopts a macroscopic
approach that is directly integrated into the concrete law. It simulates implicitly the reinforcing bar – concrete interaction
using tension-stiffening factors modified according to the nature of reinforcement that vary as a function of the member
strain. The applications include results of well-known test series published in the literature on beams with external and
internal FRP reinforcement, slabs with internal reinforcements, bond failure analysis of external FRP, and the effect of
confinement on the behaviour in compression of circular and square elements. The paper demonstrates the ability of the
concrete model to correctly simulate the behaviour of structural elements reinforced with FRPs at service load level and
reproduce failure mechanisms and loads that are consistent with the experimental observations.
Key words: constitutive model, nonlinear analysis, finite element, reinforced concrete, glass-fibre-reinforced polymer
(GFRP), carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP), strengthening, steel.

Résumé : Les laminés et les tissus en polymères renforcés de fibres (« FRP ») fixés sur les faces externes ont été utilisés
avec succès pour renforcer des éléments de béton endommagés ou défectueux alors que les renforcements « FRP »
internes commencent à remplacer efficacement un renforcement en acier, particulièrement dans les environnements
corrosifs. Malgré les grands progrès réalisés au cours de la dernière décennie, une recherche plus approfondie est
nécessaire afin de faire la synthèse des récents développements et d’élargir l’utilisation des « FRP » dans les structures.
Une analyse non linéaire par éléments finis combinée aux essais en laboratoire constitue un moyen efficace pour atteindre
cet objectif. Cet article illustre, grâce à des exemples provenant d’un très grand nombre d’utilisations typiques diverses,
la contribution d’un modèle constitutif tridimensionnel perfectionné à l’étude de la réponse non linéaire des structures
de béton armé de « FRP » internes et externes. Les analyses ont été réalisées en utilisant un modèle constitutif du
béton général et universel en tant que sous-programme défini par l’usager au point d’intégration Gauss dans un logiciel
commercial d’analyse par éléments finis. La loi constitutive suit une approche hypoélastique tridimensionnelle qui
représente le comportement non linéaire du béton par l’utilisation d’un paramètre de dommages scalaire qui tient compte
du comportement anisotrope du béton lorsque partiellement confiné et de l’expansion inélastique de volume lors de
l’atteinte de la contrainte maximum. En tension, le modèle adopte une approche macroscopique directement intégrée
dans la loi régissant le béton. Il simule implicitement l’interaction tige de renforcement-béton en utilisant des facteurs de
raidissement en tension modifiés selon la nature du renforcement ; ces facteurs varient en fonction de la contrainte dans
les éléments. Les utilisations comprennent les résultats de séries d’essais bien connues, publiées dans la littérature, sur des

Received 25 November 2005. Revision accepted 20 September 2006. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca/ on
12 May 2007.

A. Nour, B. Massicotte,2 E. Yildiz, and V. Koval. Département de génie civil, géologique et mines, École Polytechnique de Montréal,
CP 6079, Station Centre-ville, Montréal, QC H3C 3A7, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 31 July 2007.
1
This article is one of a selection of papers in this Special Issue on Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures (ISIS Canada).
2
Corresponding author (e-mail: bruno.massicotte@polymtl.ca).

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 34: 340–354 (2007) doi: 10.1139/L06-140 © 2007 NRC Canada
Nour et al. 341

poutres munies de renforcement en « FRP » externe et interne, des dalles munies de renforcement interne, d’analyse de
la rupture dans les « FRP » fixés sur les faces externes et l’effet du confinement sur le comportement en compression des
éléments circulaires et carrés. Le présent article démontre la capacité du modèle à simuler correctement le comportement
des éléments structuraux renforcés de « FRP » lors d’une utilisation à la charge de service et à reproduire les mécanismes
et les charges de défaillance concordant bien avec les observations expérimentales.
Mots-clés : modèle constitutif, analyse non linéaire, élément fini, béton armé, polymère renforcé de fibres de verre
(« GFRP »), polymère renforcé de fibres de carbone (« CFRP »), renforcement, acier.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

1. Introduction Laboratory tests on structural elements or on reduced-scale

During their service life, civil infrastructures may need struc-
tural repair or strengthening for several reasons, such as design
and construction defaults, climatic or chemical agent damage,
corrosion, accidental overloading or impact, fires, or earth-
quakes. Modifications to the loading level, design forces, or
code specifications may require the strengthening of critical
load-carrying members. Generally, the complete replacement
of deficient structures is very expensive, and their repair or
strengthening is often considered as the most economical solu-
tion.
In recent years fibre-reinforced-polymer (FRP) composites
have become an alternative for strengthening and repairing de-
ficient concrete structures. Externally bonded FRP fabric and
laminates have been successfully used for strengthening re-
inforced concrete beams, slabs, or columns. They represent
promising means for remedying structural deficiencies and for
enhancing the performance of civil engineering structures
(Nitereka and Neale 1999).
Steel has been used for more than a century as an effec-
tive and cost-efficient internal reinforcement for concrete struc-
tures. When it is not prone to ion attack, steel reinforcement can
last for decades without any noticeable deterioration. However,
concrete members in corrosive environments or exposed to de-
icing salts are sensitive to reinforcement corrosion, which often
leads to significant diminution of their strength and thereby af-
fects structure safety. Costs related to repair or replacement of
structures damaged by corrosion is very high and occupies a
large portion of bridge owner budget (El-Salakawy et al. 2003).
Most solutions adopted to protect reinforcing steel, such as
galvanization, concrete additives, epoxy coating, or cathodic
protection, generally have limited success (Benmokrane et al.
2000). Internal FRP reinforcement is an alternative material
to replace conventional steel bars. Fibre-reinforced polymers
present outstanding characteristics, such as durability, because
of their high corrosion resistance, high strength-to-weight ratio,
and advantageous fatigue resistance. In addition, FRP reinforce-
ments exceed the strength and can match stiffness properties of
steel. Savings in maintenance usually largely compensate for
the higher initial cost of FRPs.
In the last decade, significant progress on the use of FRPs
as construction materials has been observed. Recent codes and
standards have introduced specifications for the design or the
strengthening of members with internal or external FRPs, re-
spectively. Despite these significant advances, more research
is still required to expand the scope of utilisation of FRPs and
relax some limitations imposed on their use owing to the lack
of scientific knowledge.
structures are essential for observing the actual behaviour and
failure modes. Testing is, however, expensive and time-
consuming and often limits the pace of research progress.
Existing structures cannot be tested at ultimate failure, whereas
because of limitations of testing equipment, scale effects on
large structures cannot be observed experimentally. This sit-
uation has strongly encouraged the development of advanced
analytical methods capable of representing the behaviour of
concrete structures internally and (or) externally reinforced by
composite materials under all possible loading conditions. In
this context, recourse to numerical strategies based on the finite
element method could enable correct prediction of structural be-
haviour up to ultimate failure and capture with fidelity the main
complexities associated with material nonlinearities, namely
concrete confinement, lap splice strength, concrete postcrack-
ing, and the interaction between concrete and composite or steel
reinforcements.
Bouzaiene and Massicotte (1997) developed a three-
dimensional constitutive model that can simulate the behaviour
of concrete under multiaxial stress conditions. The model is
based on the hypoelastic approach for which the behaviour of
concrete is modeled using an equivalent uniaxial stress–strain
curve combined with a compression scalar damage parameter.
The model accounts for anisotropy, elastic modulus degradation
under loading–unloading, and inelastic volume expansion.
The original model was developed as an academic finite el-
ement software. Within the scope of the Center of Excellence
ISIS Canada project 2.3.4, the model was improved and mod-
ified to make it portable to most commercial nonlinear finite
element software. The objective was to provide a powerful con-
stitutive model that could be made available to other users.
Massicotte et al. (2007) introduced a new tension-stiffening
model to the original law of Bouzaiene and Massicotte and
made the constitutive model portable. The proposed tension-
stiffening model, inspired by CEB-FIP (1990) and Winkler
et al.’s (2004) recommendations, adopts a macroscopic ap-
proach that modifies the concrete law. The model integrates
variable tension-stiffening factors defined as a function of the
member strain, as used by many investigators to account for
steel–concrete interaction (Fields and Bischoff 2004). The post-
cracking modeling of concrete follows the smeared crack ap-
proach proposed by Rachid (1968), which constitutes an effi-
cient representation of the cracked concrete in nonlinear finite
element analysis.
The term portable means that the constitutive model is imple-
mented as a user-defined subroutine, at Gauss integration point
level, into finite element software. For the present study, the
model was introduced into each of the two components of the

© 2007 NRC Canada

342
Fig. 1. Concrete model: (a) concrete in compression; (b) concrete in tension.
general-purpose finite element software ABAQUS (Hibbitt et
al. 2004) (i.e., ABAQUS standard (STD) and ABAQUS explicit
(EXP) (Massicotte et al. 2007)).
Experimental results aimed at defining tension-stiffening fac-
tors for internal FRP reinforcement are scarce. The high elastic
modulus of carbon-fibre-reinforced polymers (CFRPs) would
presumably lead to relationships similar to those of steel re-
inforcement. Reinforcing bars made of glass-fibre-reinforced
polymers (GFRPs) have stiffness that is lower than steel and
thereby require appropriate formulation for describing the as-
sociated tension-stiffening factors. Bischoff and Paixao (2004)
indicated that concrete members reinforced with GFRP bars ex-
hibit greater tension stiffening than those reinforced with steel
bars. Moreover, concrete members reinforced with GFRP de-
velop wider and deeper cracks than members reinforced with
steel.
This paper presents the main features of the concrete model
developed at École Polytechnique (Bouzaiene and Massicotte
1997; Massicotte et al. 2007) and the recent modifications im-
plemented to the model to enable analysis of concrete members
reinforced with FRPs. The paper illustrates the performance of
the model for capturing and predicting the behaviour of concrete
members and structural elements reinforced with internal and
external FRPs. The examples presented in the paper are taken
from well-known tests, published the literature, that have been
specifically selected for illustrating the capabilities and versa-
tility of the model for simulating a wide variety of structural
behaviour.
2. Material models
2.1. Concrete
For simulating the behaviour of concrete under multiaxial
loading, Bouzaiene and Massicotte (1997) developed a three-
dimensional hypoelastic constitutive model that accounts for
the anisotropic behaviour of concrete, elastic modulus degrada-
tion under loading–unloading, the transition point that
separates brittle and ductile behaviour of concrete under in-
creasing confinement, and the volume increase observed in
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007
concrete upon approaching ultimate strength. The behaviour
of concrete is modeled using an equivalent uniaxial curve, a
compression scalar damage parameter λ, and either the five pa-
rameters of Willam and Warnke (1975) or the four parameters of
Hseih et al. (1982) failure surfaces. The scalar damage parame-
ter provides an invariant measure of the evolution of irreversible
damage in concrete, which overcomes the difficulties encoun-
tered in the application of other hypoelastic models (Darwin
and Pecknold 1977; Elwi and Murray 1979). Only an overview
is presented in this paper; details on the model are available in
Bouzaiene and Massicotte (1997).
The damage evolution of concrete in compression is de-
scribed by a scalar function in relation to the major compressive
stress by means of an equivalent uniaxial curve. A realistic rep-
resentation of the cumulative damage, along any stress path, is
obtained by the following incremental relationship:



1
[1] λ= dλ = d
dε d
εmax
load path
 εeq − σ /Ec
≈ for 0≤λ≤1
εc − σc /Ec
where dλ stands for the damage parameter increment, εeq is
the uniaxial equivalent strain increment, σ is the compression
stress increment according to the major axis, εc is the uniaxial
equivalent strain at peak load, σc is the major compressive stress
at failure, and Ec is the material elastic modulus. Equation [1]
expresses the inelastic stain increment dεd and the total inelastic
d . For an elastic behaviour of concrete, the
strain at failure εmax
parameter λ is set equal to zero and equals one at the peak.
The concept of equivalent damage allows the evaluation of the
increment and the total equivalent strain for a nonproportional
loading as follows (Fig. 1a):
σ − σ̃
εeq =
[2] Et
εeq = ε̃eq (λ) + εeq
where σ̃ stands for the effective compression stress obtained
© 2007 NRC Canada
Nour et al.
Fig. 2. Constitutive relations for steel and fibre-reinforced-polymer (FRP) reinforcements.
from the equivalent uniaxial curve corresponding to the accu-
mulated damage at the previous step, Et is the stiffness modulus
corresponding to λ, and σ is the major compression stress. One
also notes that the uniaxial stress–strain curve of Saenz (1964)
is adopted for its convenience.
In compression, the rapid increase of Poisson ratio is related
to the opening of microcracks in the direction of the unconfined
  
υ + λ (1 − υ ) σi − σj for σi < 0
0 0
[3] υij = σc

υ0 otherwise
where υ0 stands for the initial Poisson ratio and σi and σj take
the values of principal stresses.
In tension, concrete cracks are generally characterized by
the occurrence of microscopic discontinuities that are trans-
formed into discrete cracks with a total loss of resistance after
reaching a certain strain value. For modeling tensile rupture,
the fundamental concept of energy equivalence is adopted. It
is combined with the smeared crack technique, which assumes
that cracks are uniformly distributed in the concrete mass. This
enables modeling of the crack effect using a stress–strain rela-
tion, called a softening curve. As suggested by Feenstra and De
Borst (1996), concrete softening in tension is modeled using a
simple function defined as follows (Fig. 1b):
 
ε − εe
[4] σt = ft exp −
εa
for which
[5] εa = (Gf /h)ft and εe = ft /Ec
where Gf is the fracture energy consumed by the crack per
unit of crack surface and h is the equivalent length for which
the displacement due to crack opening is uniformly distributed.
As stated by Bažant and Oh (1983) and Oliver (1989), the use
of the equivalent length h in the finite element calculations
leads to results that are insensitive with regard to the global
343
principal axes, interpreted also as inelastic volume expansion.
This asymmetrical behaviour suggests the use of an unsymmet-
rical Poisson ratio, where for each principal plane the expansion
effect is limited to the lowest confined axis. For a triaxial state,
the effective Poisson ratio, a function of the damage parameter
λ and the gradient of the principal stresses, is expressed in the
following form according to Bouzaiene and Massicotte (1997):
and σi < σj
structural response upon mesh refinement and corresponds to a
representative dimension of the mesh size.
When the tensile strength criterion is exceeded, a microcrack
band perpendicular to the principal direction in tension devel-
ops. The material gradually loses its integrity, leading to the
degradation of material properties interpreted as tension dam-
age. As in compression, tension damage evolution is described
by means of a scalar parameter d, which represents the degra-
dation of material properties due mainly to crack propagation.
Thus, once the crack is initiated, the elastic modulus Ec is re-
duced using the damaged material modulus Ed as follows:
[6] Ed = (1 − d)Ec
where d = 0 corresponds to undamaged material and d = 1 to
completely damaged material. The parameter d is estimated as
proposed in Crisfield and Wills (1989). Therefore, with this for-
mulation, the damage parameters in compression λ and in ten-
sion d are totally coupled during the calculation of the degraded
elastic modulus and the residual tensile stress (Massicotte et al.
2007).
2.2. Steel and fibre-reinforced-polymer reinforcements
Steel reinforcement is assumed to behave in an elastic-plastic
manner or as a strain hardening material when applicable
(Fig. 2a). The yield strength is represented by fys . As shown
by Fig. 2b, FRP reinforcements are assumed to be linear elastic
© 2007 NRC Canada
344 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007

Fig. 3. Constitutive relations accounting for the tension stiffening
effect.
with brittle fracture in tension. The ultimate tensile strength of
the material is represented by fyFRP , while the corresponding
strain at failure is εuFRP . When FRPs are used as external rein-
forcement, each lamina is considered as an orthotropic layer in
a plane stress condition, but the lamina is transversely isotropic,
where the properties of the FRP are nearly the same in the direc-
tion perpendicular to the fibres. In ABAQUS, FRPs are modeled
as linear elastic materials.
2.3. Tension-stiffening modeling
The presence of steel or internal FRP reinforcement neces-
sitates the consideration of bar–concrete interaction. The bar–
concrete adherence allows the concrete located between cracks
to resist tensile stresses, thereby reducing the average reinforce-
ment stress level compared to its magnitude at the crack. This
bar–concrete interaction phenomenon results in a gain in rigid-
ity, also called tension stiffening. A simple way to account for
this local phenomenon is to integrate the bar–concrete inter-
action in a global dimension by modifying the stress–strain
relationship of the material, either the reinforcing bar or the
concrete. The tension-stiffening model described and validated
in detail in Massicotte et al. (2007) follows the approach of the
original law of Bouzaiene and Massicotte (1997), which asso-
ciates tension stiffening with the concrete law. This model is
inspired from recommendations by CEB-FIP (1990) and Win-
kler et al. (2004) and integrates the tension-stiffening factors
used by many investigators to account for bar–concrete inter-
action. It is also combined with the smeared crack approach
(Rachid 1968) in the context of nonlinear finite element anal-
ysis. The bond between reinforcing bars and the surrounding
concrete is assumed to be perfect because the local effects asso-
ciated with the rebar–concrete interface, such as bond slip and
dowel action, are considered implicitly by the tension-stiffening
model. For a given strain, the equivalent concrete stress σc,TSE
attributed to tension stiffening can be described as the difference
between the average bar stress σbar of the reinforced concrete
member and the stress of the bar σbar,II at the crack, determined
as follows (Winkler et al. 2004):

[7] σc,TSE = ρeff σbar − σbar,II
for which
[8] ρeff = Abar /Ac,eff
where ρeff is the effective reinforcement ratio, Abar is the bar
area, and Ac,eff is the concrete area involved in the stiffen-
ing, computed according to CEB-FIP (1990) recommendations.
Thus, as shown in Fig. 3 the stress–strain relationship is defined
by Winkler et al. (2004) and Massicotte et al. (2007)



 = ft 1 − [1 − β (ε)]
ε

 for ε < ε1
 ε1
[9] σt (ε) = β(ε)ft   for ε1 < ε < ε2

 εbar,y − ε


= β(ε)ft for ε2 < ε < εbar,y
εbar,y − ε2

where ε1 and ε2 are defined as follows (ε1 < ε2 < εbar,y ): model adopts an equivalent reinforcement ratio, which gener-
  ates the same stiffening contribution as that produced by the
1 1 actual reinforcement, as suggested in Massicotte et al. (1990).
ε1 = [1.3 − β (ε)] ft +
Ebar ρeff Ec The tension-stiffening relationship expressed by eq. [9] and
[10]   proposed by Massicotte et al. (2007) considers the tension-
1 1
ε2 = εbar,y − β (ε) ft + stiffening factor β(ε) as a function of the member strain. This
Ebar ρeff Ec formulation allows the introduction of various empirical models
In eqs. [9] and [10] Ebar is the reinforcing bar modulus of proposed in the literature by proceeding to a direct modulation
elasticity, εbar,y corresponds to the strain at yielding for steel with the various sections of the stress–strain relationship (eq.
reinforcements or the ultimate strain for composite bars, and β [9]). For the case of steel reinforcement, a sensitivity analysis
is the tension-stiffening factor that accounts for bar–concrete was performed to select the most appropriate tension-stiffening
interaction. The tension-stiffening relationship (eq. [9]) is es- factor. It was determined that the Fields and Bischoff (2004)
tablished for the case of cracks orthogonal to the bar direction. model, expressed as follows, provides the best results (Massi-
In real structures cracks have an unspecified orientation with cotte et al. 2007):
the reinforcing bar direction. Therefore, for steel and compos-
[11] βs (ε) = exp [−800 (ε − εe )]
ite bars not orthogonal to the direction normal to the crack, the

© 2007 NRC Canada

Nour et al.
Fig. 4. Different empirical models for the tension stiffening factor
β(ε). GFRP, glass-fibre-reinforced polymer.
Tension stiffening for FRP rebars with an elastic modulus in
the range of steel could probably be modeled satisfactorily with
eq. [11], although, to the authors’ knowledge, no experimental
data of direct tension tests are available. In the case of GFRP re-
inforcing bars, limited information is available in the scientific
literature regarding the tension-stiffening factor β(ε). Bischoff
and Paixao (2004) observed that GFRP-reinforced concrete
members exhibit greater tension stiffening than equivalent steel-
reinforced concrete elements for any given axial strain value.
Moreover, concrete members reinforced with GFRPs develop
wider and deeper cracks than members reinforced with steel
or CRFP rebars. They proposed the following expression for
the tension-stiffening factor applicable to GFRP or any type of
reinforcement:
[12] βG (ε) = exp [−1100 (ε − εe ) (Ebar /200)]
where Ebar is the modulus of elasticity of the composite bar in
gigapascals.
Bischoff and Paixao (2004), Fields and Bischoff (2004), and
Bischoff (2001, 2005) have demonstrated that bar finish does
not influence tension stiffening when member response is con-
sidered. They showed that the bar elastic modulus is the main
parameter that affects the member response in term of force-
elongation properties, as is considered in the formulation.
Furthermore, they indicated that the effect of the surface char-
acteristics (sand coated, ribbed, etc.) have an effect on crack
spacing and crack width only. They concluded that their for-
mulation (eq. [12]) is independent of the surface characteristics
of GFRP bars. However, they also indicated that further tests
are needed to confirm their findings. For this reason, with the
adopted formulation, the bond is implicitly considered by the
tension-stiffening factor β(ε) and does not appear in the stress–
strain relationship.
Figure 4 synthesizes the tension-stiffening factors β(ε) for
both steel- and GFRP-reinforced members. It is well depicted
that GFRP-reinforced concrete exhibits greater tension stiffen-
ing than the steel reinforced concrete. In the subsequent
analyses, eq. [11] is used for simulating the steel–concrete in-
teraction, and eq. [12] is used for GFRP reinforcement.
It is worthwhile to mention that the influence of concrete
age on β is an interesting concern. To the authors’ knowledge
345
no experimental evidence is available to quantify this effect.
Other phenomena such as thermal cracking or alkali–aggregate
reaction could also influence this parameter. It is assumed in
this paper that analyses are carried out for sound concrete.
3. Nonlinear finite element analysis
The constitutive model is implemented as a user-defined sub-
routine, at Gauss integration point level. For the results pre-
sented in this paper, the model has been introduced in the
two components of the general purpose finite element software
ABAQUS (Hibbitt et al. 2004), i.e., ABAQUS/Standard (STD)
and ABAQUS/Explicit (EXP). The formulation, element types,
and solution strategies for solving nonlinear problems are quite
different in these two software components. The concrete model
is written in FORTRAN and is included in the UMAT subrou-
tine for the analyses with STD and the VUMAT subroutine for
the analyses with EXP. In this paper, all analyses were carried
out using STD only, the comparison with EXP solutions being
beyond the scope of the paper. More details on that matter are
provided in Massicotte et al. (2007).
Analysis with STD represents the classical version of the
general finite element software and uses a tangential stiffness
approach that is unconditionally stable. The two principal meth-
ods available for the resolution of nonlinear problems are the
traditional Newton–Raphson method (Static General), and the
Riks arc length method (Static Riks).
STD calls the subroutine UMAT at each increment and iter-
ation of the Newton–Raphson solving process, for each Gauss
integration point of all elements of the mesh. The finite ele-
ment software proves the concrete model subroutine with the
updated strain tensor. With these data, the subroutine updates
the stress tensor and the solution-dependent state variables that
contain the damage history for each integration point of the fi-
nite element model. The subroutine also returns the Jacobean
matrix ∂σ /∂ε at the Gauss integration level of the current it-
eration, which is used to assemble the tangent stiffness matrix.
At each Gauss integration point, the concrete models uses two
damage vectors, WA01 and WA02. The first contains to the up-
dated information at the end of the last converged step, whereas
the second includes the damage variables at the current itera-
tion. For damage in each of the three principal directions, the
model uses a damage index called NCR, defined according to
the following:
• NCR= 0, undamaged material
• NCR= 1, damaged material in tension with partial crack
opening
• NCR= 2, damaged material in tension with reduced tension
stiffening (or softening), but the crack still active
• NCR= 3, damaged material in tension and the crack do not
transmit any tensile stress
• NCR= –1, compression material failure
• NCR= –2, compression material failure, but is in compres-
sion softening
• NCR= –3, compression material failure with a total loss of
resistance
© 2007 NRC Canada
346 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007

Fig. 5. Description of M’Bazaa (1995) and Chicoine (1997) beams (adapted and revised from M’Bazaa (1995) and Chicoine (1997)).
CFRP, carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer.

4. Applications Table 1. Material properties for M’Bazaa (1995) and Chicoine

(1997) beams. CFRP, carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer.
4.1. General
Three-dimensional finite element analyses are carried out to Properties
examine several aspects of the complex behaviour of reinforced
Concrete
concrete (RC) structural elements internally or externally rein-
fc (MPa) Ec (MPa) εc
forced with FRPs. The constitutive model is validated by means
45 30 200 –0.0035
of a variety of well-known tests, taken from the literature, for
demonstrating the reliability and versatility of the proposed con- Steel
crete model. Basically, the model requires only the compressive Es (MPa) fys (MPa)
strength of concrete and the yield strength of steel or the elastic 200 000 440
modulus and ultimate strength of FRPs. For concrete, actual Composite (CFRP)
values can be provided, but the model computes default prop- E11 (MPa) E22 (MPa) G12 (MPa) ν12 fyCFRP (MPa) εuCFRP
erties in the absence of data. For all the applications presented 82 000 34 750 3 720 0.25 1378 0.0168
in this paper, only default material data were used. It is worth-
while to note that the constitutive concrete model was already
validated by Bouzaiene and Massicotte (1997) and by Massi- Fig. 6. Load–deflection curves, validation.
cotte et al. (2007) for plain concrete and reinforced concrete
members, respectively.
Concrete is modeled using 8-node 3-D solid elements. The
internal reinforcements by steel and FRP bars are modeled using
2-node embedded bar formulation in the isoparametric concrete
elements. With this feature of ABAQUS, the reinforcing bars
are treated as integral parts of the concrete element to determine
the total internal resisting forces that are directly added to those
of concrete. External FRP reinforcements are modeled using
multilayered 4-node shell elements. It is worthwhile to mention
that in ABAQUS STD analyses are performed using 8-Gauss
integration points for solid elements and 4-Gauss integration
points for shell elements, with 2-Gauss integration points over
the thickness. For capturing the post-peak behaviour of concrete
via the STD solution strategy, all analyses were performed using
the Riks arc length method.

4.2. Rectangular beam externally strengthened with

carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer
This section presents the modeled behaviour of rectangular
beams strengthened in flexure with bonded unidirectional car-
bon fibre laminates. The experimental work was carried out
at Sherbrooke University by M’Bazaa (1995) and Chicoine
(1997), followed by a numerical investigation presented by
Nitereka and Neale (1999).The geometry and loading condi-
tions reported by Chicoine (1997) are shown in Fig. 5, and
the different material properties are summarized in Table 1.

© 2007 NRC Canada

Nour et al. 347

Fig. 7. Cards showing details of the finite elements model: (a) material failure indices for Chicoine beam; (b) stress card for the
composite; (c) stress card for the longitudinal steel bars and the stirrups.

The beam was strengthened with three CFRP layers for a total Fig. 8. Load–deflection curves, prediction.
thickness of 0.9 mm.
In M’Bazaa (1995) the beam exhibited an early FRP delam-
ination failure mode, a problem eliminated by Chicoine (1997)
by applying U-shaped composite anchors at the ends of the
beam. The anchorage was not modeled, but its presence allows
the assumption in the analysis of a perfect bond between the
reinforced concrete beam and the composite. Using symmetry,
only half of the beam is analyzed.
Figure 6 shows the load–deflection curves of the control rein-
forced concrete beam without composite (M’Bazaa 1995) and
the strengthened beam with CFRPs (Chicoine 1997). In both
tests failure was caused by concrete crushing. For the refer-
ence beam, failure occurred after significant steel reinforcement
yielding, while the second beam exhibited an important increase
of its load-carrying capacity with less ductility compared to the
reference beam without CFRP debonding.
The modeled responses of the two beams reproduce accu-
rately the global experimental measurements and observed fail-
ure mechanisms. First, the significant load-carrying capacity
and additional stiffness provided by the CFRP laminated were ing (in dark gray and light gray in the print version of this article;
accurately simulated by the numerical analysis. At early loading in red and yellow in the Web version) is predominant in the cen-
stages, the same response was obtained for the two beams, an tral portion of the beam, whereas a local compression failure
indication of the small contribution of the composite. However, by crushing appears in the vicinity of the applied loads. This
as cracking progressed and yielding of the steel reinforcement is in accordance with the experimental observation reported by
occurred upon increasing the applied load, the contribution of Chicoine (1997).Figure 7b shows the longitudinal stress card
the composite became more important and its effect was accu- for the composite. Also, it is possible to capture with fidelity the
rately depicted by the analytical model. effect of steel stirrups on the performance of external strength-
Figure 7a shows the material failure indices at failure. Crack- ening. In ABAQUS, as for the longitudinal bars, the stirrups

© 2007 NRC Canada

348 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007

Fig. 9. Description of Grace et al. (1998) beams (adapted and revised from Grace et al. (1998)). GFRP, glass-fibre-reinforced polymer.

are rigorously modeled using truss elements embedded in the Fig. 10. Load–deflection response.
concrete mass (Fig. 7c).
Figure 8 depicts the predicted load–deflection curves for the
additional cases of 1 and 2 layers of CFRP, presented along with
the model response of the two beams of Fig. 6. The analyses
illustrate the effect of the number of layers on the load-carrying
capacity, which corresponds to a decrease of the midspan de-
flection attributed mainly to the additional stiffness brought by
the composite. In the case of two CFRP layers, the numerical
model predicted the same failure mode as for three layers, but
with only one layer the failure is caused by the rupture of the
composite.

4.3. Rectangular beam internally reinforced with

glass-fibre-reinforced polymer
This section compares the model prediction and the exper-
imental observations for a rectangular beam internally rein-
forced with GFRP bars selected from the testing program car-
ried out by Grace et al. (1998). The geometry and loading con-
ditions are illustrated in Fig. 9. The analysis of two beams is
presented: a control beam reinforced with conventional steel
bars and a composite beam that used GFRP bars for both flex-
ural reinforcement and stirrups (specimens sb-st and gb-gt in
the original paper, respectively).
The control specimen used high-strength steel reinforcement
with 650 MPa yielding strength and modulus of elasticity of
205 GPa. The mean GFRP bar elastic modulus was 41.8 GPa,
and the mean tensile strength was 1100 MPa.
Symmetry was used to analyze only half the beam. For ten-
sion stiffening, eq. [11] is used for the steel reinforcements for
modeling the bar–concrete interaction, whereas eq. [12] was
adopted for the analysis of the beam reinforced with GFRP.
Figure 10 illustrates the load–deflection curves correspond-
ing to the reference and composite beams at midspan. In both
cases, numerical results agree satisfactory with the experimen-
tal measurements. Grace et al. (1998) observed large deflec-
tions for the composite beam due to the low stiffness of the
GFRP bars in comparison with the control beam. The authors
attributed this difference in deflection to the large deformation
of the GFRP stirrups. Furthermore, they reported that after steel
reinforcement yielding, failure developed in the control beam
with extensive propagation of flexural cracks in the central por-
tion of the span. In spite of the presence of steel stirrups, the
diagonal cracks propagate up to supports, leading to a flexu-
ral failure mode. In the composite beam, the failure developed
with the extensive propagation of flexural cracks in the central
portion of the span, accompanied by a large shear deformation
attributed to the low elastic modulus of the GFRP stirrups.
For both beams, the model reproduced with fidelity the ob-
served failure mechanisms. Since GFRP reinforcement has no
yielding point, the behaviour of a beam with composite bars was
quite different than conventionally reinforced concrete mem-
bers. First, in the vicinity of the loading point, the compres-
sion stress of concrete at the end of the analysis exceeded at
several Gauss points the compressive strength of concrete, in-
dicating that the failure mechanism is of a shear-compression
type, which is in accordance with experimental observations.
Furthermore, the GFRP bars and stirrups did not reach their
tensile strength (fyGFRP = 1100 MPa). The maximum tensile
stress in the longitudinal bars at failure predicted by the model is

© 2007 NRC Canada

Nour et al. 349

Fig. 11. Description of slab specimens: (a) Benmokrane et al. (2004) slabs; (b) El-Sayed et al. (2005) slabs (adapted and revised from
Benmokrane et al. (2004) and El-Sayed et al. (2005)). GFRP, glass-fibre-reinforced polymer.

about 920 MPa, while the corresponding maximum value in the
stirrups is 260 MPa. The high tensile strains in the GFRP bars
associated with these stress levels lead to nearly zero tension-
stiffening stress in the concrete, indicating that concrete is not
contributing to the resistance mechanism that leads to a shear
failure.
4.4. One-way concrete slabs reinforced with glass-fibre-
reinforced-polymer bars
This section presents the results of tests of two series of one-
way concrete slabs internally reinforced with GFRP bars; these
tests were performed at Sherbrooke University. The first set of
slabs was selected from the experimental program carried out
by Benmokrane et al. (2004) and the second from the El-Sayed
et al. (2005) experimental program. The geometry and loading
conditions of the selected slabs are illustrated in Fig. 11.Result
presentation adopts the same notation for the slabs as reported
in the original papers. For the first group, the model predic-
tions are compared with the experimental results for two slabs:
specimen S-GGB, reinforced with two double mats of GFRP
bars, and control specimen S-ST, reinforced with conventional
steel bars. For the second series, the selected slabs SG1, SG2,
and SG3 refer to specimens having the same GFRP reinforcing
bars in all directions except the bottom GFRP reinforcement in

© 2007 NRC Canada

350 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007

Table 2. Reinforcing bar properties of Benmokrane et al. Fig. 12. (a) Moment–deflection curves. (b) Load–deflection
(2004) slabs. GFRP, glass-fibre-reinforced polymer. curves.

Reinforcement Modulus of elasticity Tensile strength

bar type (GPa) (MPa)
GFRP 45 775
Steel 200 465 (yielding)
Table 3. Reinforcing bars properties of El-Sayed et al.
(2005) slabs. GFRP, glass-fibre-reinforced polymer.

Reinforcement Modulus of elasticity Tensile strength

bar (GPa) (MPa)
GFRP No. 16 40 597
GFRP No. 22 40 540

the main direction, as shown by Fig. 11b. In both test series,

all slabs were 3100 mm long and 1000 mm wide, and speci-
men thickness of the first and the second groups were 150 and
200 mm, respectively. The main properties of the reinforcing
bars are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Owing to symmetry,
only one quarter of the slabs is analyzed.
Results obtained from the numerical analysis are presented
in terms of moment–deflection (Fig. 12a) for Benmokrane et
al. (2004) slabs, and in terms of of load–deflection (Fig. 12b)
for El-Sayed et al. (2005) slabs.
For all cases the numerical solutions are globally in good
agreement with the experimental values. For the first group
(Benmokrane et al. 2004) shown in Fig. 12a, the experimental
moment–deflection curve for the control slab (S-ST) is trilin-
ear with a constant strain ascending branch attributed to the
reinforcement strain hardening. The authors observed that after
steel reinforcement yielding, failure developed with extensive
propagation of flexural cracks in the central portion of the span
and towards the supports. For the composite slab (S-GGB), the
experimental moment–deflection curve is bilinear. The authors
indicated that the GFRP slab presented an appreciably higher
load-carrying capacity compared with the control specimen.
Furthermore, they attributed the 20% larger deflection of the For this test series the numerical model correctly predicted
GFRP slab observed at ultimate to the low stiffness of the com- the failure modes of the three slabs. For slab SG1, fc was not ex-
posite material. ceeded at any Gauss points in compression, while in the central
For the composite slab, the model predicted a failure gov- portion of the slab several Gauss points exceeded their tensile
erned by concrete crushing, as several Gauss points in the vicin- strength and were unable to transmit any tensile stress (NCR =
ity of the applied load exhibited compression failure (NCR = 3), indicating that the failure is of diagonal tension. In this case,
–3), while the GFRP bars were still elastic. This prediction is the predicted maximum tensile strain in the GFRP bars is ap-
in accordance with the concrete crushing reported by the au- proximately 1.15%. For slabs SG2 and SG3, fc was exceeded
thors. One notes that the transition between the uncracked and at several Gauss points, as NCR = –3 in the vicinity of the
the fully cracked states and the stiffness in the post-cracking loading point at ultimate, which indicates a failure by concrete
condition are well reproduced by the tension-stiffening models crushing while GFRP was still active. The tensile strains in the
adopted for steel and GRFP reinforcements. longitudinal bars at failure in the model are 0.95% and 0.79%
In Fig. 12b related to the second test series, the measured ex- for SG2 and SG3 slabs, respectively.
perimental load–deflection curves for SG1, SG2, and SG3 slabs
are bilinear. As reported by the authors (El-Sayed et al. 2005), 4.5. Analysis of damaged beams externally reinforced
the flexural stiffness of the slabs increases with the GFRP rein- with carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer
forcement percentage. For the slab SG1, failure develops with This section presents the analysis of damaged beams exter-
extensive propagation of flexural cracks in the central portion nally strengthened in flexure with bonded unidirectional CFRP
of the slab up to the supports. On the other hand, the slabs SG2 laminates. The tests were carried out by Koval and Massicotte
and SG3 exhibited the same behaviour as slab S-GGB (Ben- (2007) at École Polytechnique de Montréal in a project aimed
mokrane et al. 2004), and the observed failure was caused by at studying the improvement of the concrete–CFRP interface as
concrete crushing in the vicinity of load application. well as investigating the performance of repair techniques for

© 2007 NRC Canada

Nour et al. 351

Fig. 13. Description of damaged beams externally reinforced by CFRP (adapted and revised from Koval and Massicotte 2007): (a)
schematic drawing; (b) test set-up for MC1O specimen; (c) damaged zone for MC1O specimen; (d) damaged zone for MB1O specimen;
(e) damage repaired zone.

damaged beams. This study follows a previous experimental in-
vestigation (Folcher et al. 2003) in which premature debonding
due to the flexional rigidity discontinuity between the damaged
zone and the sound concrete was observed. The main scope of
this numerical example is to examine the ability of the model
to capture local phenomena such as the influence of local re-
pair of damaged zones on the global behaviour of the beams.
The geometry and loading conditions are shown in Fig. 13, and
material properties are summarized in Table 4.
In this application, three RC beams are analyzed. As shown in
Fig. 13, these beams are externally strengthened by two sheets
of CFRP laminate (2900 mm × 50 mm × 1.2 mm). The un-
damaged beam MA1O is considered as the reference. Beams
MB1O and MC1O have initial imperfections reproducing the
effect of damage that could have been caused by an impact
or corrosion of prestressing strands. To simulate the damaged
zone, the formwork was fabricated to keep the central bottom
part of the beams without concrete.The longitudinal T13 strands
were cut in the centre to simulate a 150 mm discontinuity. Con-
crete surface in the repaired zone was roughened according to
construction practice. Figure 13 illustrates the dimensions of
the damaged zone. Two repair methods were considered. In
beam MB1O additional reinforcement was added in the dam-
age zone to eliminate the flexional rigidity discontinuity. Each

© 2007 NRC Canada

352 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007

Table 4. Material properties for Koval and Massicotte Fig. 14. Load–deflection curves.
(2007) beams.

Properties
Old concrete
fc (MPa) Ec (MPa) εc ν ft (MPa)
52 34 887 –0.003 0.23 2.1
Reparation concrete
fc (MPa) Ec (MPa) εc ν ft (MPa)
54 31 000 –0.0035 0.22 2.3
10M steel bars
Es (MPa) fys (MPa)
200 000 400
T13 strand
Es (MPa) fys (MPa)
205 600 1860
Composite (CFRP)
E (MPa) ν fyCFRP (MPa) εuCFRP
207 000 0.25 2400 0.016
cut T13 strand was overlapped on a length of 150 mm by one
10M reinforcing steel bar. Moreover, a 50 mm × 50 mm steel
wire mesh with 9 mm2 wires was placed around the overlapping
bars. For comparison with the Folcher et al. (2003) study, the
repair concrete in the damaged zone of MC1O specimen was
not reinforced.
The observed failure mode for the two repaired beams was
initiated by the debonding of the repair concrete along the in-
clined faces of the repaired zones (Fig. 13a), which was then
followed by the composite debonding. For the reference speci-
men, failure was governed by the CFRP debonding. Therefore,
it is important to correctly model the concrete–composite as
well as old-to-new concrete contacts.
In the model, all surface contacts are modeled withABAQUS/
Standard, which considers contact between two bodies in terms
of two surfaces that may interact. The order in which the two sur-
faces are specified defines the slave and master surfaces. Two al-
gorithms are available: the small-sliding contact algorithm and
the finite-sliding contact algorithm. For small-sliding contact
problems the contact area is calculated from the undeformed
shape of the model and is thus kept constant throughout the
analysis. In this formulation, contact pressures are calculated
according to an invariant contact area. The modeled behaviour
is different from that in finite-sliding contact problems, where
the contact area and contact pressures are calculated according
to the deformed shape of the model.
For this application the analyses performed clearly indicated
that the finite sliding formulation is the most appropriate for
reproducing the observed behaviour. In the Interaction module
of ABAQUS, the strategy adopted for the concrete–composite
contact modeling uses the beam as the master surface and the
composite as the the slave surface. Similarly, for the concrete–
concrete contact, the old concrete is selected as the master
surface and the repair concrete as the slave surface. Contact
properties are specified for tangential and normal behaviour.
Another important aspect of modeling the damaged beams
is related to the definition of the tension-stiffening properties
of the repair concrete. For beams MB1O and MC1O, different
concrete properties were defined using eq. [8], which accounts
for the presence of strands in both specimens and additional
reinforcement for specimen MB1O.
The results presented in Fig. 14 illustrate the comparison be-
tween the two repair techniques. For the reference beam MA1O,
the measured load-carrying capacity was 90 kN, while for the
repaired beams MB1O and MC1O, the measured strength was
71 and 50.3 kN, respectively. The tests clearly showed that the
repairing technique adopted for specimen MB1O is more ef-
ficient compared with that of specimen MC1O, which exhib-
ited premature failure similar to that observed by Folcher et al.
(2003).
Using symmetry, only half of the beams were modeled. For
the three beams, the numerical solutions are in good agreement
with the experimental results for predicting the maximum load
and failure mechanism. The analytical obtained results showed
that the model captured with fidelity the influence of local repair
of the damaged zones on the global behaviour of the beams.
4.6. Concrete columns confined with fibre composite
sheets
The scope of this section is to examine the model perfor-
mance for predicting the increase in strength and the associated
ductility of concrete columns confined with fibre composite
sheets. Two test series on circular and square concrete columns
strengthened with FRP are analyzed.
The first test series deals with circular column specimens
tested by Demers and Neale (1994, 1999) and the associated nu-
merically investigation by Deniaud and Neale (2006). The spec-
imens consisted of 300 mm long and 150 mm diameter plain
concrete cylinders strengthened with CFRP sheets with an av-
erage thickness of 0.34 mm and a tensile strength of 380 N/mm,
with a corresponding ultimate strain of 1.6%.
The results of the analyses are compared in Fig. 15 to test
measurements corresponding to two types of concrete. In all
cases the numerical solution agrees well with the experimental
data. Based on the comparison of numerical predictions using
various concrete models reported by Deniaud and Neale (2006),
the results obtained herein are consistent with the experiment
for all types of concrete and compare advantageously with the

© 2007 NRC Canada

Nour et al.
Fig. 15. Load–strain curves response for plain concrete circular
columns: (a) 32 MPa concrete; (b) 44 MPa concrete. CFRP,
carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer.
elastoplastic model predictions recommended by Deniaud and
Neale regarding the specimen with three carbon sheets.
In the second test series, RC square columns specimens S1
and S3 tested by Pessiki et al. (2001) were selected. Both speci-
mens are 1830 mm high and 457 mm wide, reinforced with eight
22 mm longitudinal steel bars and 9.5 mm steel stirrups spaced
at 356 mm. Specimen S1 had no composite and is considered
as the control column, whereas specimen S3 was jacketed with
three plies of GFRP composite. Each GFRP ply had a tensile
strength of 383 N/mm, an elastic modulus of 21.6 kN/mm, and
an ultimate strain of 1.9%. Concrete had a compressive strength
of fc = 26.4 MPa with εc = 0.0021.
Figure 16 illustrates that the model predictions are consis-
tent with the experimental data. The model reproduced cor-
rectly the increase in strength caused by the presence the three
GFRP plies. Failure in column specimen S3 was initiated by
the rupture of the composite in tension; this was also correctly
predicted by the model.
353
Fig. 16. Load–strain curves for square reinforced concrete column
specimens S1 and S3.
5. Conclusions
The scope of this paper was to investigate by finite elements
the nonlinear response of concrete structures reinforced with
internal and external FRP. A general and portable constitutive
concrete model is used. It is implemented as a user-defined
subroutine at Gauss integration point level into the general-
purpose finite element software ABAQUS.
This paper demonstrated the ability of the proposed concrete
model to correctly simulate different kind of composite rein-
forcements (internal and (or) external), and its reliability was
confirmed by means of several tests covering various types of
structural elements taken from the literature. The numerical
predictions obtained for load–displacement responses and fail-
ure mechanisms agreed well with the experimental values and
observations. This study is evidence that this concrete model
can be used with confidence to simulate and estimate load-
carrying capacity of reinforced concrete structures, reinforced
or not with FRPs. The model can be used in conjunction with
experimental testing in research environments or as a predictive
tool for actual structures.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Network of Centres of Excellence ISIS-
Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC) for their financial support.
References
Bažant, Z.P., and Oh, B.H. 1983. Crack band theory for fracture of
concrete. Materials and Structures, RILEM, 16: 155–177.
Benmokrane, B., Rahman, H., Mukhopadhyaya, P., Masmoudi, R.,
Chekired, M., Nicole, J.F., and El-Safty, A. 2000. Use of fibre rein-
forced polymer reinforcement integrated with fibre optic sensors for
concrete bridge deck slab construction. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 27: 928–940.
Benmokrane, B., El-Salakawy, E., Cherrak, Z., and Wiseman, A. 2004.
Fibre reinforced polymer composite bars for the structural concrete
slabs of a Public Works and Government Services Canada parking
garage. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 31: 732–748.
© 2007 NRC Canada
354
Bischoff, P.H. 2001. Effects of shrinkage on tension stiffening and
cracking in reinforced concrete. Canadian Journal of Civil Engi-
neering, 28: 363–374.
Bischoff, P.H. 2005. Reevaluation of deflection prediction for concrete
beams reinforced with steel and fiber reinforced polymer bars. Jour-
nal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(5): 752–767.
Bischoff, P.H., and Paixao, R. 2004. Tension stiffening and cracking
of concrete reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)
bars. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 31: 579–588.
Bouzaiene, A., and Massicotte, B. 1997. Hypoelastic tridimensional
model for non proportional loading of plain concrete. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 123(11): 1111–1120.
CEB-FIP. 1993. CEB-FIP model code 1990 (MC-90), design code.
Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB), Thomas Telford Ser-
vices Ltd., London, UK.
Chicoine, T. 1997. Conception et analyse des ancrages sur les poutres
renforcées en flexion à l’aide des matériaux composites. M.A.Sc.
thesis, Département de génie civil, Université de Sherbrooke, Sher-
brooke, Que.
Crisfield, M.A., and Wills, J. 1989. Analysis of R/C panels using dif-
ferent concrete models. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE,
115: 578–597.
Darwin, D., and Pecknold, D.A. 1977. Nonlinear biaxial stress–strain
law for concrete. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
ASCE, 103: 229–241.
Demers, M., and Neale, K.W. 1994. Strengthening of concrete columns
with unidirectional composite sheets. In Developments in Short and
Medium Span Bridge Engineering: Proceedings of the 4th Interna-
tional Conference on Short and Medium Span Bridges, Halifax,
N.S., 8–11 August 1994. Edited by A.A. Mufti, B. Bakht, and L.G.
Jaeger. Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montréal, Que. pp.
895–905.
Demers, M., and Neale, K.W. 1999. Confinement of reinforced con-
crete columns with fibre-reinforced composite sheets – an experi-
mental study. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 26: 226–241.
Deniaud, C., and Neale, K.W. 2006. An assessment of constitutive
models for concrete columns confined with fibre composite sheets.
Composite Structures, 73(3): 318–330.
El-Salakawy, E., Benmokrane, B., and Desgagné, G. 2003. Fibre-
reinforced polymer composite bars for the concrete deck slab of
Wotton Bridge. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30: 861–
870.
El-Sayed, A., El-Salakawy, E., and Benmokrane, B. 2005. Shear
strength of one-way concrete slabs reinforced with fibre-reinforced
polymer composite bars. Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, 9(2): 147–157.
Elwi, A.E., and Murray, D.W. 1979. A 3D hypoelastic concrete consti-
tutive relationship. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
ASCE, 106: 1383–1403.
Feenstra, P.H., and De Borst, R. 1996. A composite plasticity model
for concrete. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 33(5):
707–730.
Fields, K., and Bischoff, P.H. 2004. Tension stiffening and cracking of
high-strength reinforced concrete tension members. ACI Structural
Journal, 101(4): 447–456.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007
Folcher, D., Massicotte, B., and Labossière, P. 2003. Étude du renforce-
ment passif d’une poutre en béton précontraint. Rapport EPM/GCS-
2003-07, Département des génies civil, géologique et mines, École
Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Que.
Grace, N.F., Soliman, A.K., Abdel-Sayed, G., and Saleh, K.R. 1998.
Behaviour and ductility of simple and continuous FRP reinforced
beams. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 2(4): 186–
194.
Hibbitt, H.D., Karlsson, B.I., and Sorensen, E.P. 2004.ABAQUS user’s
manual, version 6.5. Hibbitt, Karlsson, & Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket,
R.I.
Hsieh, S.S., Ting, E.C., and Chen, W.F. 1982. A plasticity-fracture
model for concrete. International Journal of Solids and Structures,
18: 181–197.
Koval, V., and Massicotte, B. 2007. Utilisation des matériaux compos-
ites pour le renforcement de poutres de ponts précontraintes endom-
magées. Département des génies civil, géologique et mines, École
Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Que. Rapport: In press.
Massicotte, B., Elwi, A.E., and MacGregor, J.G. 1990. Tension-
stiffening model for planar reinforced concrete members. Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116: 3039–3058.
Massicotte, B., Nour, A., Ben Ftima, M., and Yildiz, E. 2007. EPM3D
– A user-supplied constitutive model for the nonlinear finite element
analysis of reinforced concrete structures. École Polytechnique de
Montréal, Montréal, Que. Report SR07-10.
M’Bazaa, I. 1995. Reinforcement en flexion des poutres en béton armé
à l’aide des lamelles en matériaux composites : optimisation de la
longueur des lamelles. M.A.Sc. thesis, Département de génie civil,
Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Que.
Nitereka, C., and Neale, K.W. 1999. Analysis of reinforced concrete
beams strengthened in flexure with composite laminates. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 26: 646–654.
Oliver, J. 1989. A consistent characteristic length for smeared cracking
models. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineer-
ing, 28: 461–474.
Pessiki, S., Harries, K.A., Krestner, J.T., Sause, R., and Rices, J.M.
2001.Axial behaviour of reinforced concrete columns confined with
FRP jackets. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 5(4):
237–245.
Rachid, Y.R. 1968. Ultimate strength analysis of reinforced concrete
pressure vessels. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 7: 334–355.
Saenz, L.P. 1964. Discussion of “equation for the stress-strain curve
of concrete” by P. Desayi and S. Krishnan. Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, 61: 1229–1235.
Willam, K.J., and Warnke, E.P. 1975. Constitutive model for triaxial
behaviour of concrete. Proceedings of the IABSE Seminar on Con-
crete Structures Subjected to Triaxial Stresses, ISMES, Bergamo,
Italy. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineer-
ing (IABSE), Zürich, Switzerland. Rapports des commissions de
travail, 19: 1–30.
Winkler, B., Hofstetter, G., and Lehar, H. 2004. Application of a con-
stitutive model for concrete to the analysis of a precast segmental
tunnel lining. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 28: 797–819.
© 2007 NRC Canada